The Grey Shadow

If you forgive me the obviousness, you may have already heard that somewhere else that “common sense is the least common of all senses”. As far as popular wisdom goes, this saying is usually right; but there are two special corollaries:

1. Proposition is specially true in all commercial/business environments; and
2. Proposition is uniquely true in regards to computing.

I don’t have anything to add now to corollary 1. Why is that common sense is so rare in business? Why is that all kinds of weird nonsense gets respect as “business plans” in the corporate world? I don’t know. Maybe because, as some have pointed out, the skills required by the corporate world border on sociopathy. But I do not want to discuss this, at least not now.

The other corollary, however, deserves some attention. Computing is supposedly an area where the best and brightest would reign, and, therefore, the choices made by IT people would be the best ones given the circumstances, right? Yeah, right. The prevalence of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer alone belies that.

Therefore, I am planning some posts (at least two) where I would like to examine how current choices in computing defy common sense and, therefore, are paving the way for failure, or for more difficulties. And no, I won’t talk necessarily about Windows or IE; that would be just too obvious. I plan to talk about two issues that are the current fad or are being part of it:

• Cloud computing
• System resources

Stay tuned!

First, a disgression. I know it’s been a long time since I posted something substantial here. This is because of my busy life, and in part… because of the success of the forum. You see, I come here with the best intention of writing something, and then I have to face with something like 2000+ comments waiting for moderation. When I finish clicking through all of them (now in batches of 25 instead of 100, courtesy of the newer WordPress), I am not only tired and barely able to think of something; the fact is that I also am left with no time for writing; the rat race of clicking ate all of it. Sigh… Now, with 554 comments pending, let me put a little rant.

The sidenote. Yesterday I was watching a talk show on a Christian TV network who shall go unnamed. The interviewer asked a young Christian lawyer about the “dangers” of the Internet, with a strong implication on pornography and eroticism. The lawyer began to ramble on and on about how “dangerous” it is, especially for children. He also noted that most “Web safety” (i.e., censoring spyware) installed on home computers can be circumvented; and how even if it is not, people can bypass the restrictions by browsing with their mobile devices. He went on to suggest parents to register their child’s phones with mobile carriers as a children-owned phone so its Web access could be filtered. Well, you get the idea: Control, control, and more control. Big brother is watching you so you’d better behave.

For the record, let me make it clear that I support the efforts of parents who wish to know the whereabouts –real and virtual– of their children. That’s only natural, and it’s the way of parenting. I am not going to tell parents what to do. My bone of contention is different.

What I saw in the program, and in the outlook of most Christian “answers” (????) to pornography and related sins of lust and the flesh, is how misguided they are. They think that the answer is control, and more control.

If the Church thinks that the problem of the sins related to lust, such as pornography, are going to go away because of more control, perhaps she must think again. More control, and the sensation of being constantly watched is deleterious to true Christian spirituality, which needs of a closed, very private and personal space for its adequate development (see, for example, Matthew 6:6 [show]Matthew 6:6 [6]But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (ESV)
).

Moreover, the “more control” approach mistakenly conceives the “pornography problem” as a problem of willpower, when it’s not. Most sins of the flesh, and especially pornography, are sins of the heart highly related to idolatry. Sinful habits are just an effect of this. Therefore, with the “control” approach, you are just attacking the effects, leaving the real causes untouched. You cannot fight hunger just by glueing the lips of the hungry.

Until we stop fighting pornography with pseudo-ascetic, hyper-controlling approaches and we begin focusing on it as what it really is, i.e., idolatry, we are doomed to fail. Let’s hope we realize our mistake sooner than later.

I found this excellent article at All Unkept, Luke Plant’s blog : What’s so bad about the Nazis anyway?. It is a great application of slippery-slope logic in hindsight, and makes you question whether slippery-slope arguments are really that worthless. Recommended.

There is a well-known Spanish saying: «Hazte de fama, y échate a dormir»: Get yourself a reputation, and go to sleep… meaning, of course, that when it is sufficiently established, your reputation does the job for you. That might have happened last weekend after my two posts on porn (Some Interesting Links and More Interesting Links). Since I don’t have right now a Net connection at home (and I must wait at least three weeks for one), I just uploaded my posts, and went home to sleep and rest. This morning I checked my blog to see some great comments from Dave, Catez, and Ed. I wanted to answer them on the relevant posts, but I feel that a more general answer is appropriate.

I planned to develop this line of thinking at the very end of my series on porn, when I deal with the biblical basis for the sinfulness of porn. However, the kind defense made by Dave and Catez of the ‘addiction’ approaches requires at least a “spoiler-teaser” so I could explain myself better. Without further ado, here is what I would like to say:

One of the best known approaches to the problem of porn within the church is to regard porn consumption as an addiction. There are complete 12-step packages for men, aimed at achieving “sobriety” (i.e., the condition of being sober) from pornography. However, I regard this inadequate and shallow.

1. I don’t think porn consumption is a sickness or an addiction more than any other sin is a sickness or an addiction. It’s not fair to treat this sin harshly while others (perhaps worse) get a benign treatment.

2. I don’t think that a standard 12-step approach would be effective. I mean, it could be effective in removing a bad behavior, but judging from texts such as James 1:13-15 [show]James 1:13-15 [13]Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. [14]But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. [15]Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. (ESV)
, they are as effective as an aspirin for curing pneumonia: They might work, and on the surface the worrisome signs might disappear, but the deepest issues are unscathed.

3. This all points out to something I intend to fully explore later, so I will just assert it without any explanation (yet): pornography consumption is not especially an offense against sexual purity; it’s an offense against God Himself via the First Commandment. Pornography is idolatry in the worst sense; it is a return to the old cultic practices of Canaan. We fall into pornography consumption because it is so easy, because we are destined to be united with the divinity; but alas! Romans 1:18-32 [show]Romans 1:18-32 God's Wrath on Unrighteousness [18]For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19]For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20]For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21]For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22]Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23]and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. [24]Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25]because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. [26]For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [27]and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. [28]And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [29]They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, [30]slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, [31]foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. [32]Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (ESV)
is all too true.

I hope to have explained myself better; and, as usual, comments and feedback is welcome.

Disturbing report: Comments on a report showing how many pornographers are reaching out to kids. Disturbing, indeed.

ChristiaNet Poll Finds That Evangelicals Are Addicted to Porn: Shocking! (not really). The poll itself is not all that much of a news story; however, the comments are very interesting.

Minister who was addicted to porn says case not rare: From the Lawrence Journal-World of Lawrence, Kansas (USA) comes this story where we see the usual spin: porn is an addiction, porn makes you a worse pervert, and so on… but there is a priceless quote at the end: “Most churches are too terrified to deal with this.” There is a good discussion afterwards, but some comments are too mean-spirited, in my opinion. Use your caution.

American Christian Romance Writers: Excuse me, ladies, but this sounds like an oxymoron. If the Church go down on porn consumers because “porn projects a wrong image of women”, then you must know that romance novels also project a wrong image of men; but romance writers can be “Christian” while porn… never (and rightly so). Double standards, anyone? The story page has great comments; and some amusing ones too, including the ones from romance writers expressing outrage at having their work being compared to pornography…

Hugh Hefner’s Hollow Victory: This is a story commenting a Christianity Today opinion piece that criticizes Hugh Hefner as the chief person responsible for the ‘mainstreaming’ of pornography into American culture. I find that piece mostly right, except where the author discusses the effects of pornography, where he (or she? I don’t really know with a name like Read) is predictably simplistic and rather naïve. There are some good links at the bottom of the CT page.

I would like to share some interesting links I found via ChristDot. You will find links to the corresponding Christdot page instead of the article itself (in case I am talking about a news story or similar) because in this way you can also see the discussion at the ChristDot site. I think this greatly adds to our study of the Church’s pastoral attitude towards pornography.

Some of the stories link to old news that are no longer online, but I put those here anyway because the discussion is highly relevant, in my opinion.

Group helping Christian men fight sexual addiction: A note about Pure Life Ministries. On principle, I thorougly reject any approach to sexual sin as an addiction, and this includes any approach to porn as “an addiction”. Sin is sin and is addictive and attractive in and of itself as a necessary corollary for all depraved beings. But the discussion is a good read.

Porn, The Web, and Church: An introduction to the well-known XXXChurch.com ministry. This is a great ministry and in my opinion is the “less flawed one” in its pastoral approach to pornography. The guys running this show deserve our sincere kudos and thanks. However, it still suffers from problems common to a flawed pastoral attitude towards pornography. Great discussion and testimonials in the ChristDot discussion page.

Billboards Target Christian Porn Addicts: Again the wretched “addiction” fallacy. The original news story was an informational piece for Pure Restoration, a worksop run by a ministry.

Christian… nudes?!?: A story discussing some of the points on artistic nudity that I also covered in my two last articles on porn. I would like to note this mistaken, all too common notion in one comment:

As far as I understand, nudes in old statues (Greek, Roman, later European art) were not made with the calculated intent to arouse sexual desire in the audience [...] I don’t think most people looking at statues such as Michelangelo’s David or old European statues and paintings of nude women (usually chubby by modern standards) get sexually aroused. (If you have, I don’t know what to say.)

This is what most people think. But I am afraid they are wrong. Many great nude art masterpieces were made with the intent to arouse; not perhaps like a hardcore porn flick of today, but more in a “teasing” sense. But after all is said and done, I think it is almost impossible not to feel the overpowering and arousing erotic atmosphere on works such as Ingres’ The Turkish Bath.

Pornstar Vampires: Confessions of a sinner: This is a moving testimony that could seem to many a little over the top; but I believe the guy is sincere. As a sidenote, this quote would be interesting to those who say that women in porn are poor objectified victims of evil men who use them to satisfy their basest desires:

The girls that do [pornography], and I’ve met quite a few, most of them have NOT been “suckered into it by friends or lovers”. Most of them willingly chose this lifestyle. Thats not to say that there arent girls out there who DO get suckered or forced in to it, there sure are!! But every single one I ever met, lived it, loved it, and wanted more. and the sick part about all of it, the more twisted you get, the sicker you get, the darker and more twisted the things your willing to do, the more you get paid. [...] These people WILLINGLY choose to be in this lifestyle, and have this mindset.

I’m running out of time, so I will put more links later. I will appreciate any comments and relevant discussion.

See also:

1. On Porn: A Catastrophic Pastoral Failure.

2. On Porn: Differentiation and Definition.

On our first post we stated that there was a definite problem with the way the Church and Christians treated pornography. Our second post was aimed at differentiating porn from other cultural artifacts of Western Civilization, and we have shown that there is a double standard where some cultural artifacts are treated in one way, and porn is treated in other way, despite having the same traits.

I would like now to turn our attention to some arguments employed against porn. I shall try to debunk some, but there is at least one that is, in my opinion, valid. On the other hand, some of the “debunkable” arguments are worrisome in the sense that they may easily become a tool for destruction and misuse of power: they are like empty shells, full of nothing, but able to carry anything that the argument-wearer wishes to load in it.

Continue reading ‘On Porn: Arguments Against It Examined’ »

I would like to thank my readers for their kind comments on my previous post on porn. This indicates that many people feel that this is something that really needs to be addressed. Today I plan to differentiate porn against some cultural artifacts that might point out to double standards.

Let us start with a working definition of porn:

A cultural artifact whose chief aim is to bring sexual arousal to its consumer.

As you might see, the key parts are (a) we are dealing with a cultural artifact (the genus), and (b) the fact that those artifacts are intended to bring arousal (the species).

Sadly, one of the main factors behind the pastoral failure when dealing with porn is the application of a double standard. This double standard is a direct result of ambiguity in delimitation of both genus and species, and is manifested in the following way:

1. A particular kind of content is deemed as porn; therefore, “people of our own” accessing it should be exposed, disgraced, shamed, and disciplined; and
2. That same particular kind of content is expressed as something else that is not porn; consequently, “people of our own” accessing it should be left alone undisturbed and unquestioned.

The double standard exists. This might not be so obvious to you; but this is evident to anyone with a minimum acquaintance with both porn and regular cultural products. However, as I also plan to show, reasons for the currency of this double-standard are complex, and hypocrisy is just one of them. The emergency of this double-standard touches such deep questions as the role of art and beauty for a Christian worldview, the real value of porn, and the extent of depravity as manifest in many cultural artifacts.

For the sake of this discussion, instead of doing a full analysis of both genus and species, let us consider a working differentiation of porn against four types of cultural artifacts:

1. Porn vs. Arabian Nights.
2. Porn vs. The Turkish Bath.
3. Porn vs. Harlequin novels.
4. Porn vs. Maxim.

Let us consider each of those cases. For the most part, I will try to set up hypothetical situations where your pastor is discovered in a compromising situation. As a typical example of pornographic material, I simply put “Playboy.” You are free to replace that name for another if that represents pornography better for you.

Porn vs. Arabian Nights

The double standard manifests here as follows: Sexually explicit depictions are deemed as porn in certain kinds of material, but on others they are deemed as “great literature.” In this way, if your pastor’s hard drive harbors sex stories saved from the Internet, he is a sinner and pervert barely above child molesters in the scale; but if you are reading Arabian Nights (for example, in the Burton version) you are just reading good literature. I could provide other examples (such as recent books by Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa, or older material by French writers and poets Pierre Louÿs and Charles Baudelaire) but this would suffice.

This is a question posed by ambiguity of the whole definition of porn. Both the Internet sex story and Arabian Nights are cultural artifacts. Both have erotic content. However, are they both intended to provoke sexual arousal? On the first case, yes; on the other, a definite maybe. But one is regarded as smut, and the other, as great literature.

In order to solve this ambiguity, we must seriously consider as a Christians what is the place of the erotic in art and literature, and how Christians should regard instances of generic erotica. In other words: Is it permissible for Christians to produce or consume material intended to bring sexual arousal? Is the seeking of sexual arousal sinful per se? Or, are we relieved of our responsibility if the material is “a great art masterpiece”?

The chief text employed against permitting sexual arousal is Matthew 5:27-28 [show]Matthew 5:27-28 Lust [27]"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' [28]But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (ESV)
. However, this injunction (a) is against actually looking at someone; and (b) this refers not to sexual arousal, but to actual coveting motivated by sinful lust (cf. Greek epithumesai, from epithumeo; sorry for my awful Greek transliteration. The operating idea here is coveting). Thus, it seems that for this to be applicable, you must actually think of someone and you must actually covet her. Thinking of Scherazade in Baghdad or some unnamed lady in some unknown state as the main character of the Internet sex story, it seems to me, does not fit the bill.

Consequently, this double standard really points out to this unresolved area: the place of erotism for Christians and Christianity. We need to seriously consider this question if we are to avoid the catastrophic pastoral failure of porn.

Porn vs. “The Turkish Bath”

This is one of the most painful double standards for anyone victimized by the Church’s attitude towards porn. It manifests in the following way: Let’s say that your pastor is found with some topless photos on his hard drive. Again, he gets the whole rundown: shaming, exposure, discipline, and his placing as a “pervert.” Then, you go into the Louvre on a tour, and watch The Turkish Bath by Ingres among the general oohs and aahs of awe at seeing such a masterpiece. But no, you are not watching porn. You are not a “pervert!”

My choosing of Ingres’ Turkish Bath is by no means coincidental. I won’t provide a link; but if you see it you will notice that it contains more naked female pictures than a Playboy Collector’s Edition, and it could be argued that the poses of Ingres’ painting are even more enticing. But the Playboy is “porn,” and the Ingres is “art” How come?

This differentiation points out to the power of images, the place of visual arts in a Christian worldview, and more specifically, the place of the naked human form. We must answer such fundamental questions as “what is art?,” “what is the purpose of art?,” and others more to the point such as, “is it lawful to paint nudes?” “are those nudes ‘art’?” “is it lawful for a Christian to paint nudes?” “is it lawful for a Christian to pose as a nude model?”

Those questions might appear as petty and byzantine, unless you happen to be affected by them. What would you do if your church decides to open a Christian college? How would you educate your art majors? On one side, you could play it safe and ban all nudes; but then, you risk losing a rich, legitimate art tradition that spans several millennia. On the other, you could close your eyes and allow nudes, and perhaps risk a serious moral compromise on people whose parents expect you to teach Christian moral values to them.

Is in this context where the “topless findings” I mentioned earlier should be placed. Those might be sinful; but then, if those are sinful, then why Ingres’ paintings, Canova’s sculptures, or certain very revealing Indian reliefs are not? Here lies this double standard, and this double-standard is certainly hard to overcome. Meanwhile, people is still being labeled as “perverts” by churches for looking at images far less risqué than many art masterpieces.

Porn vs. Romance Novels

Another double standard comes out when you compare a standard porn icon such as, say, a Playboy magazine, with the typical “romance novel.” When we compared porn with works such as Arabian Nights, we could offer the excuse that the latter was “established quality literature” while porn was not. Similarly, when we compared porn with an Ingres painting, we could say that the painting was an “art masterpiece” while porn was not.

However, when we compare porn to romance novels of the Harlequin type, these excuses fade away. Here we have run-of-the-mill pulp literature that cannot be counted as “quality writing.” And yet, it has some characteristics commonly thought of porn. It is an artifact that brings sexual arousal. But what is the difference? That its content and its nature is geared to women. For a small explanation, see this Slashdot comment together with its associated discussion.

And here lies the double standard: A Playboy (or a sex novel, such as those by Harold Robbins) is labeled as porn, because is used to bring arousal in males. It should be sold behind covers, and if your pastor is caught off with one of those, all hell would break loose. On the other hand, a Harlequin romance novel is sold openly at every newstand, and if the average church lady is seen reading or buying one of those, no one complains. And yet, those novels cater to women in the same way that Playboys cater to men.

This brings out the question: Is the Church’s crusade against porn not more than a selective indictment of male sexuality? This double standard seems to reinforce the notion that women are incapable of committing sexual sin when consuming cultural artifacts while at the same time men are dangerous, perverted beasts that should be caged and tamed lest they become molesters and predators.

And believe me, this is bollocks. We are all sinners. Ed Hurst’s Holy Cynicism has it: (Hu)mankind is fallen. Sinners will sin. The notion that pornography is mostly a male phenomenon is patently false. What might be true is that pornography aimed at males is more high-profile, and thus females can think they are safe and holy while they are actually debasing their views of human sexuality in fantasies riddled with lust and eroticism.

To overcome this double-standard, we do not need to become more repressive towards women, or romance novels. What we need is a fresh, non-Victorian understanding of the place of pornography inside the normal human mind, and address this fact with a truly Christian, pastoral intent.

Porn vs. Maxim

I reserve this for last because it is mostly a straw man. That is, for most purposes the items compared are the same thing; and yet we need to make some precisions on the issue.

I won’t talk about your pastor here; but picture yourself with a teenage or college-age son. What would upset you more: discovering a Playboy, or discovering a “men’s magazine” such as Maxim, GQ, FHM, etc., in his dorm? For most Christian people, the usual answer would be “Playboy,” and here lies the double standard.

Why should a Playboy upset a parent more than a Maxim? Because the latter has some tiny cloth over the model’s private parts and the former doesn’t? One could say that Playboy presents women as mere objects; but if that is true, how is that Maxim women are not mere objects, too? In both cases, we have pictorials of beautiful women showing their scantily-clad bodies for all who buy the issue at hand. And yet, for the popular mind one is “porn,” while the other is not (although, I admit it, for a very narrow margin).

The double standard undoubtedly exists, and this is the most hypocritical of all. This is more a result of a society’s double morals than a particular pastoral mistake made by Christian congregations. Nevertheless, it still needs to be resolved.

Concluding thoughts

Please note that I am not endorsing pornography, and I am not trying to discharge persons guilty of consuming it. What I am trying here is to point out that there is a double standard in the Church’s understanding of pornography, and that this fact needs to be addressed to avoid the catastrophic pastoral failure of the Church’s dealing with porn.

God willing, I intend to pursue my analysis of porn as a pastoral failure in upcoming posts. Firstly, I plan to look at the usual arguments employed against porn, noting that most of them are intrinsically flawed and really point out to other, less public and less convenient, reasons. Secondly, I plan to take a look at responses towards porn at several levels: community, spousal, and pastoral. Nevertheless to say, in all stages your comments will be appreciated and welcomed.

Today the third and last part of my Kant series appeared on the Paraguayan newspaper ABC Color. You can see it in Spanish in the newspaper’s website here. You can see a better formatted version at my website, too. I hope that my writing could be well-received in the Paraguayan cultural environment.

If a transtemporal, transfinite good is our real destiny, then any other good on which our desire fixes must be in some degree fallacious, must bear at best only a symbolical relation to what will truly satisfy.

— C.S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory”

I do not tolerate movies with nudity. What saddens me is the number of my Christian friends who think nothing of nudity in movies. It just seems so hypocritical to me to believe that God created everyone equal, and yet they attend movies whose nudity content turn women into mere objects.

– Fia Kilbourn, in a Christianity Today Movies article.

A personal word

I have a confession to make. I had been in contact with pornographic material during a large part of my life.

It started when I was a little boy, seeing those huge centerfolds posted at the wall of that cobbler shop where I went when my shoes needed fixing. It went on for the most part of my grade school, seeing those titillating Playboy covers hanging on street newsstands.

This deepened when I entered puberty. From that time on, I went through intermittent periods of building and stacking several skin mags. This brought a lot of grief in my life, because almost invariably those mags would be discovered by Mom, who had a strong disregard for the privacy requirements of any of her children. I am the only son of my family; my other siblings are two sisters, younger than me.

In those occasions Mom would enter to my room to inspect it. She did it when I was away, and she was ruthless in her inspection. She even went through my personal notebooks, my teenage love poems, everything; and of course she ended discovering my smut collection. That was the climax; at my return I was met with some funny looking stares from my mom and my sisters. Later on, I would discover that Mom got hold of my porn and burned it all in a great pyre. She then would lecture me, telling me that I was a “degenerate”, a pervert, and a sure candidate to burn in the flames of Hell. I had to exercise mortification of the flesh if I wanted the Virgin and all the Saints to rescue me from Purgatory at the end.

My dad? never raised a finger to correct or change anything. He just told me once, “hey, try to be more discreet because your Mom is very upset over such things”; yeah, as if discretion could survive without privacy. As I grew older, I found better and safer methods for stacking my mags, so thankfully this ceased to be a problem. I loved my mags; some were highly satisfying in a sort of way.

When I was a teenager, I also went to some seedy theaters downtown. This led to some funny encounters when I found some acquaintance in the proximities, doing some work or some errand in the office buildings, and he or she stopped to greet me…

When I became an evangelical Christian twelve years ago, this predilection for pornography almost disappeared. Almost. But not totally. For some years I maintained a stash of titillating magazines, until one day I decided to do something about it. At the next early morning, a neatly-folded, carefully-wrapped package showed up at one neighbor’s garbage can, to be picked by the 8.00am garbage truck. And I am in a constant struggle to keep my purity ever since. As you might conclude, I know what pornography consumption is.

A pastoral failure

Now, Christians consuming pornography is not something uncommon. In a society full of eroticized messages and a sexual ethic damaged beyond every possibility of repair, this is something that should be expected. A cursory reading of Romans 7:15-23 [show]Romans 7:15-23 [15]For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. [16]Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. [17]So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. [18]For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. [19]For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. [20]Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. [21]So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. [22]For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, [23]but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. (ESV)
should hint at that; and this is strenghtened by the doctrine set forth by questions 5, 8 and 13 of the Heidelberg Catechism. We should really adopt the School of Holy Cynicism’s motto so brilliantly conceived by my brother Ed Hurst: Mankind is fallen. Sinners will sin.

However, an examination of the usual responses at the discovery of pornography in the life of a Christian would belie that. There is a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth, of self-righteous finger pointing, a loud hollering decrying the enormity of the sin committed. This is usually followed by a chain of destruction involving everything from divorces to firings, and the sinner becomes a leper, a pariah, a “pervert.”

Most of the responses are somewhat understandable, and please note that I do not identify them as products of hipocrisy, even though they might be. What I have to say is that any response to sin that tends to reinforce feelings of self-righteousness in persons close to the sinner, and creates a leper, a pariah, is evil in and out of itself, and is tantamount to a pastoral failure of catastrophic proportions.

As in most cases, this pastoral failure leaves casualties: men, women, children, families, and whole communities of faith. And I would like that to change, and for that reason I intend to explore in upcoming posts some connotations of the phenomenon of pornography in the life of Christians. My analysis will be, of course, totally one-sided, biased by my own experience and convictions, and perhaps I might not be completely sensitive to perspectives from other groups of people. However, I sincerely regard my concerns as pertinent, and I don’t see that the Church is addressing them properly.

My intention is to conduct this exploration engaged in full conversation with you. Such an issue requires respectful dialogue. May the LORD be glorified through all of this, and may He deliver all of us from evil.

When one opens the Ecclesiastes, one might perceive that one is looking at a book that is totally different from other books in the Bible. That’s right; Ecclesiastes is unique and unmatched in so many counts. Because of this, it is my contention that we must employ an approach that pays respect to the peculiarities of the books.

On the other hand, Ecclesiastes is a book written by God as his Author, and He inspired it for our benefit and understanding. Therefore, the most important point of approaching the Ecclesiastes is precisely that: to open the book, read it, meditate on it, and make it part of our lives.

Taking all this into account, and after years of reading this fascinating book, I would like to submit to your consideration the following guidelines for an interpretation of Ecclesiastes:

1. First of all, this is a book whose message should be known. Therefore, read it! Read it one, two, three, one thousand times… but read it. It is God’s word for us.

2. This is a book of philosophy. Ecclesiastes is, first and foremost, a philosopher’s book with a honest, open account of this person’s search for ultimate truth and meaning in the universe. You might find some statements that are apparently contradictory; these are steps in a philosopher’s reasoning.

A cursory reading of this book will make it apparent that the author was considering questions of teleology, natural theology and theodicy, ethics and deontology, metaphysics and, especially, antropology, and all of those are given a treatment that is surprisingly contemporary and accessible.

A corollary of this point is that if this is a book of philosophy written by a philosopher and if this is a sacred book inspired by God and part of the Holy Bible, then we find that philosophy is an intellectual endeavor approved by God.

3. This is a book intended for the benefit of teenage boys. The only place where you could get an education in the Ancient Near East was in the court scribal schools. Those were schools where the male children of court bureaucrats were trained in the court business. Nevertheless to say, most of the Wisdom literature originated in this way. Thus, this is a book written for young people, dealing with things of interest to young ones, and accessible to them.

4. This is not a misogynist book. Some people have thought that Ecclesiastes is a misogynist or chauvinist book, because it warns against “the woman whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are fetters” (Ecclesiastes 7:25-28 [show]Ecclesiastes 7:25-28 [25]I turned my heart to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the scheme of things, and to know the wickedness of folly and the foolishness that is madness. [26]And I find something more bitter than death: the woman whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God escapes her, but the sinner is taken by her. [27]Behold, this is what I found, says the Preacher, while adding one thing to another to find the scheme of things-- [28]which my soul has sought repeatedly, but I have not found. One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found. (ESV)
). That might be a somewhat serious charge, unless one thinks of the intended purpose of the book. That’s right: in a book meant for teenage boys, what would you expect?

This is nothing more than a warning against entering into a dangerous and destructive sexual relationship. I am certain that if the book was written for young women, we would be reading “beware of men, they are all mean and evil and they want just one thing from you” or something similar. How many times have the ladies complained about men, about how they are all the same, and so on? A woman reading Ecclesiastes 7:25-29 [show]Ecclesiastes 7:25-29 [25]I turned my heart to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the scheme of things, and to know the wickedness of folly and the foolishness that is madness. [26]And I find something more bitter than death: the woman whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God escapes her, but the sinner is taken by her. [27]Behold, this is what I found, says the Preacher, while adding one thing to another to find the scheme of things-- [28]which my soul has sought repeatedly, but I have not found. One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found. [29]See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes. (ESV)
could invert the sexes of the passage and profit from the reading.

5. This is a talk about “the facts of life.” In my opinion, the best way to approach this book is to regard it as an extended talk about “the facts of life” especially for young boys. Just look at some of the things dealt with in this book: politics, administration, work ethics, friendship, the future, sex, money… and God. Those are things an older and wiser parent or teacher who has “been there, done that” would discuss with any young boy placed under his care in order to instill wisdom in him.

If you have read this recent post, then you might be interested to learn that the second part of my paper on Kant has been published in the Paraguayan newspaper ABC Color. You can read the second part in Spanish from the newspaper’s website here.

Doug has written a nice response where he makes some clarifications and corrections to my previous post on the “worship wars.”

I found interesting the notion of the “worship of worship”, although I tend to consider pride as a more important factor. Thanks for your kind spirit, Doug. The reading is thoroughly recommended.

The title might look shocking, and it is. And yet, there are too many Christians and churches that are happy to tell their brethren to act like this as their answer when sincerely and honestly questioned, all for the sake of maintaing “the bond of peace”. The problem is, it’s very good to be a peacemaker unless you get the short end of the peacemaking stick.

Doug McHone of Coffee Swirls fame has written along these lines in Worship Wars. See, for example:

If it is someone who says that Jesus is not eternally God it is one thing. If it is someone who prefers to sing only a capella, it is another. The controversy may be important or it may just be a matter of preference. If it is preference, share your preference, but guard your heart from legalism.

This is another formulation of the same old thing: Worship is non-essential. Therefore, if you don’t see that the worship (and this goes to the choice of musical styles) is OK, the title applies: just shut up and take it like a man. Otherwise, you will be labeled as a divisive, whining, troublesome jerk.

Obviously I am overstating the case, but I hope you see the point. Doug’s article is excellent in many levels, and is a passionate plea for unity in non essentails, and the use of Christian charity when we have to deal with non essential things we don’t like. If only all worship leaders and planners were like Doug I’m certain that worship “skirmishes” would be far less traumatic.

The problem however, is that Doug, like so many other Christian leaders, take worship, or rather, the particular choice of styles of delivery during public worship of our Lord, as a non essential. That is, I am afraid, not entirely true.

I understand that it is hard to argue against one style and favor another, because most of the time it is just a matter of taste. However, this begs the question: which taste?

I tried to set forth the importance of an appropriate worship style on aesthetics grounds on The Aesthetics of Christian Worship. True worship should express Beauty in the most sublime form allowed by the particular culture we’re immersed in. If our worship is not commensurate with sublime Beauty in our culture, i.e., if it is just a manifestation of tasteless kitsch, it is not worthy of our Lord.

Additionally, worship is an expression of how do we view God. Who is the One we approach in worship? Is a holy, terrible, just yet merciful Person, or is just a jolly good fellow? The answer to this question will impact forcefully on our worship style.

But there is another issue that is somehow relative, yet important: Worship is a public expression of our loving of the Lord. It is public display of love for love’s sake. It is the most intimate of the public encounters with the triune Lord God. And this should bring a pastoral concern: Imposing worship style changes is imposing changes in our way of expressing public love to our Lord. This is done all the time, and the ones who dare to protest are treated with the whole “just shut up and…” mantra.

Now, think for a moment: If someone tells you that you are no longer allowed to kiss your significant other in public, and that instead of it you should just wink with one eye, would you take that? What if you dare to protest, and your concerns are dismissed, and you are treated like a “divisive”, “troublemaker”, and other less edifying labels?

Worship wars aren’t wars just for nothing. You are dealing with the intimate and the sacred. Until this fact is properly dealt with by worship “engineers” or leaders, the casualties will escalate.

Some of you might remember my paper “Influence of Protestant Dogmatics in the Thought of Inmanuel Kant” (abridged English version, full Spanish version). I am pleased to announce that the first part of the full Spanish text was published by the Paraguayan newspaper ABC Color, which is the most widely read and influential newspaper of the country. (To put it in perspective, the U.S. equivalent would be to be published by the NY Times.)

The paper published just the first part of my article, due to its length. The two remaining parts are expected to be published on upcoming Sundays. Even though it is not properly formatted, you can read my work at the paper’s website.

Nevertheless to say, I am very pleased by that. I hope this article could contribute to raise the visibility of Paraguayan evangelicals that are NOT like Benny Hinn or Paul Crouch or… well, you know. Soli Deo Gloria!

The Old Testament is a gagged book. Indeed, a careful reading of the Hebrew Bible will show whole books, chapters, and verses that have been silenced. A prime example of this are the imprecatory psalms, such as Psalm 137 [show]Psalm 137 How Shall We Sing the LORD's Song? [137:1]By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. [2]On the willows(1) there we hung up our lyres. [3]For there our captors required of us songs, and our tormentors, mirth, saying, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!" [4]How shall we sing the LORD's song in a foreign land? [5]If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill! [6]Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy! [7]Remember, O LORD, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem, how they said, "Lay it bare, lay it bare, down to its foundations!" [8]O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! [9]Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! Footnotes 1. [137:2] Or 'poplars'
(see especially Psalm 137:7-9 [show]Psalm 137:7-9 [7]Remember, O LORD, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem, how they said, "Lay it bare, lay it bare, down to its foundations!" [8]O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! [9]Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
); but there are some examples that are lesser known, such as Ecclesiastes. But why is it so? Because those texts have the power of making ourselves or our church leaders uncomfortable. Very, very uncomfortable.

After all, how could one preach about God’s love and then read the Word of God where the Psalmist vent his desire of squashing some babies against the rocks? How could one reconciles the image of God as Father and then read a prophet claiming that he was practically raped by God (!)? Or, how could be a king, renowned for its practical wisdom and sharp intellect, contemplating suicide (Ecclesiastes 2:17 [show]Ecclesiastes 2:17 [17]So I hated life, because what is done under the sun was grievous to me, for all is vanity and a striving after wind. (ESV)
)? It is undoubtedly a challenge; but it is the Word of God. We cannot simply ignore it and pretend that those texts do not exist, as we are doing now.

Because of this, I would like to offer a hermeneutical model that might be helpful to approach those texts. My goal is to do justice to the message of those portions, while at the same time preserve the analogy of faith that obviously regards rape and the murder of babies as unworthy of a loving, merciful and just God. This approach is going to be the undercurrent for my interpretation of Ecclesaistes. I would like to call this hermeneutical model as “the Fellow Traveler.” Below are some guidelines for the model:

1. The starting point of the model is an unyielding conviction of the integrity of the Word of God and its normativity for the Christian faith, (2 Timothy 3:16 [show]2 Timothy 3:16 [16]All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (ESV)
; Isaiah 8:20 [show]Isaiah 8:20 [20]To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn. (ESV)
, etc), and the fact that God has spoken (Hebrews 1:1,2 [show]Hebrews 1:1 The Supremacy of God's Son [1:1]Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, (ESV) Hebrews 1:2 [2]but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (ESV)
). This Word is eminently true and our path to holiness (John 17:17 [show]John 17:17 [17]Sanctify them(1) in the truth; your word is truth. (ESV) Footnotes 1. [17:17] Greek 'Set them apart' (for holy service to God)
).

2. However, the text we are approaching is not an “easy” one. It seems to contradict our expectations of the Word of God. It usually runs counter to many Christian discourses today. And we are to be faithful both to the problematic text (the pericope) in particular, and to the message given by the whole corpus of revealed literature, in general.

3. We know that God is a loving, merciful and generous Father. He is Almighty, yet He gave His only Son so we would have salvation. He knows the meaning of loss and despair. And He delights when His children engage Him in powerful dialogue.

4. Therefore, I would like to offer that these problematic texts, such as many Psalms, some portions of the Prophets, and a great deal of Ecclesiastes, are reflections of God’s character. These “problematic” texts shows us a God that:

• Is aware of our grief. He knows about our grief, our pain, our sorrow, our depression, our losses, our hidden fears, our intimate corruption. And truly so, God, as the Revelator, was pleased to inspire the authors of the Bible to let us know that He is aware of what we feel.
• He respects our affliction. Not only is He aware of our sorrows; He respects us by way of the silence (see e.g. Job 2:13 [show]Job 2:13 [13]And they sat with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his suffering was very great. (ESV)
  ). When our suffering is “very great”, the best answer is simply to remain silent. What else we could say to someone beaten by the rod of human loss?
• But, moreover, and especially, God show His care by the simple gesture of “being there.” Like the friends of Job, in these harrowing passages he is showing us nothing less and nothing more than His presence. The inspiration of those “problematic texts” without any correcting commentary by our Lord definitely shows that He is there with the ones who are suffering, and yet, He is silent. God is with those who suffer, with those who find absolutely no trace of meaning in the midst of a horrid life; He is walking with us in our pilgrimage, perhaps offering His shoulder to grab so we could keep walking despite all the wounds. Yes; the fact that there is an inspired record of these “texts of despair” is definite proof that God is there with the suffering.
• Finally, God show His care to the suffering by inspiring these texts and allowing them to become, thanks to His gracious will, part of our Holy Bible, the Word of God. This should be concrete evidence that there is nothing so insignificant that does not merit concern by God. Even when these texts might be apparently against more “standard” teaching, God wanted those stories of grief and sorrow to be heard. He does not take the sorrows of His people lightly.

Anyone who has had the slightest experience in pastoral care of the bereaved and the wounded knows that these texts are very helpful in situations of personal crisis (see this article by Jeph Holloway for example). Many persons feel reflected by them, and they learn that God knew somehow how they feel, and therefore, can begin a path towards the healing of the soul with a renewed, dependent and confident relationship with God.

In the midst of a world tha can be justly called “horrible”, God is once again, our only comfort in life and death.

The question of how shall we interpret the Ecclesiastes is in some ways related to the larger issue of Old Testament interpretation. Ecclesiastes has suffered greatly because of the reductionism; but the bulk of the Church’s mistakes on Ecclesiastes are due mostly to silencing. Ask yourself: When was the last time you heard a sermon on Ecclesiastes that wasn’t about Ecclesiastes 3, or Ecclesiastes 12:1ff? That’s right; for the Church, Ecclesiastes is, sadly, a closed book.

I have always been more or less amused when the most preachers and Christian writers try to wrestle with the book. How it is that they manage to explain away its contents? There are several answers.

1. Life stages. One fellow from the Plymouth Brethren camp actually told me this funny theory that I would call the “life stages theory.” According to this line of thought, the special characteristics of the book should be explained by noting that this book corresponds to the “later” stage of the life of King Solomon. That is, the Song of Solomon would correspond to the younger stage; the Book of Proverbs to the maximum height of Solomon’s prestige, power and wisdom; and Ecclesiastes would come as a book of reckoning, written after a deep reflection on the events told in 1 Kings 11 [show]1 Kings 11 Solomon Turns from the LORD [11:1]Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, [2]from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the people of Israel, "You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods." Solomon clung to these in love. [3]He had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart. [4]For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. [5]For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. [6]So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD and did not wholly follow the LORD, as David his father had done. [7]Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem. [8]And so he did for all his foreign wives, who made offerings and sacrificed to their gods. The LORD Raises Adversaries [9]And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice [10]and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the LORD commanded. [11]Therefore the LORD said to Solomon, "Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. [12]Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. [13]However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem that I have chosen." [14]And the LORD raised up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite. He was of the royal house in Edom. [15]For when David was in Edom, and Joab the commander of the army went up to bury the slain, he struck down every male in Edom [16](for Joab and all Israel remained there six months, until he had cut off every male in Edom). [17]But Hadad fled to Egypt, together with certain Edomites of his father's servants, Hadad still being a little child. [18]They set out from Midian and came to Paran and took men with them from Paran and came to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave him a house and assigned him an allowance of food and gave him land. [19]And Hadad found great favor in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him in marriage the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes the queen. [20]And the sister of Tahpenes bore him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh's house. And Genubath was in Pharaoh's house among the sons of Pharaoh. [21]But when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers and that Joab the commander of the army was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, "Let me depart, that I may go to my own country." [22]But Pharaoh said to him, "What have you lacked with me that you are now seeking to go to your own country?" And he said to him, "Only let me depart." [23]God also raised up as an adversary to him, Rezon the son of Eliada, who had fled from his master Hadadezer king of Zobah. [24]And he gathered men about him and became leader of a marauding band, after the killing by David. And they went to Damascus and lived there and made him king in Damascus. [25]He was an adversary of Israel all the days of Solomon, doing harm as Hadad did. And he loathed Israel and reigned over Syria. [26]Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephraimite of Zeredah, a servant of Solomon, whose mother's name was Zeruah, a widow, also lifted up his hand against the king. [27]And this was the reason why he lifted up his hand against the king. Solomon built the Millo, and closed up the breach of the city of David his father. [28]The man Jeroboam was very able, and when Solomon saw that the young man was industrious he gave him charge over all the forced labor of the house of Joseph. [29]And at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him on the road. Now Ahijah had dressed himself in a new garment, and the two of them were alone in the open country. [30]Then Ahijah laid hold of the new garment that was on him, and tore it into twelve pieces. [31]And he said to Jeroboam, "Take for yourself ten pieces, for thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Behold, I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon and will give you ten tribes [32](but he shall have one tribe, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel), [33]because they have(1) forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the Ammonites, and they have not walked in my ways, doing what is right in my sight and keeping my statutes and my rules, as David his father did. [34]Nevertheless, I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand, but I will make him ruler all the days of his life, for the sake of David my servant whom I chose, who kept my commandments and my statutes. [35]But I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand and will give it to you, ten tribes. [36]Yet to his son I will give one tribe, that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I have chosen to put my name. [37]And I will take you, and you shall reign over all that your soul desires, and you shall be king over Israel. [38]And if you will listen to all that I command you, and will walk in my ways, and do what is right in my eyes by keeping my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did, I will be with you and will build you a sure house, as I built for David, and I will give Israel to you. [39]And I will afflict the offspring of David because of this, but not forever.'" [40]Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam. But Jeroboam arose and fled into Egypt, to Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon. [41]Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the Book of the Acts of Solomon? [42]And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. [43]And Solomon slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David his father. And Rehoboam his son reigned in his place. (ESV) Footnotes 1. [11:33] Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate 'he has'; twice in this verse
. In this way, one could explain the pessimism and cynicism of many verses of the book. Of course, this is pure speculation, and I note it here only due to its novelty value. However, it seems that this is a widely held notion among preachers in my country.

2. Under the sun. This view is maintaned by the Scofield Reference Bible among others (see, for example, the note on Ecclesiastes 9:10 [show]Ecclesiastes 9:10 [10]Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might,(1) for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going. (ESV) Footnotes 1. [9:10] Or 'finds to do with your might, do it'
), and states that Ecclesiastes reflects the viewpoint of the life “under the sun”, i.e., a life without the trascendent dimensions of existence, or rather, a life without obedience to God. This is often put in contrast to traits deemed consistent with a godly life; you can see often some of the darker musings of Ecclesiastes being contrasted with other statements from the Gospels or the Psalms, or even with Ecclesiastes 12:9-14 [show]Ecclesiastes 12:9-14 Fear God and Keep His Commandments [9]Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. [10]The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth. [11]The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. [12]My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. [13]The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.(1) [14]For God will bring every deed into judgment, with(2) every secret thing, whether good or evil. (ESV) Footnotes 1. [12:13] Or 'the duty of all mankind' 2. [12:14] Or 'into the judgment on'
.

This has the advantage of being based on a study of the text, and of trying to be fair to its message. Furthermore, it has gained widespread acceptance in the evangelical community. However, it fails to treat the book as an unity, and is guilty of imposing a preconceived worldview into it, trying to cast the book into its pious mold. Because of these reasons, this view cannot be considered as adequate.

3. All is meaningless. This school of interpretation is based on two premises: a) an existentialist point of view, that maintains that everything is meaningless, that death is the defining event in the life of a human being (hello, Mr. Heidegger!), and we are responsible for our actions; and b) a disjointed approach to the book that maintains that Ecclesiastes, as we have it in its current canonical form, is the result of the work of several editorial hands that tried to alter in some way the real intent of the original work to make it more palatable to prevalent theological opinion. Thus, we have a book that is totally laden with pessimism, angst, and lack of meaning. Everything else is ignored because it is “editorial.” Some proponents of this line of thoughts are the Roman Catholic scholars Gianfranco Ravasi and José Vílchez.

This line of thought is refreshing in the sense that it does try to make a sincere approach to the darker parts of Ecclesiastes, instead of “explaining away” those passages. However, it tampers with the integrity of the Holy Scriptures, and under the pretense of discerning some ancient editorial work, it puts itself into the role of editor, putting away everything that might not be in line with this particular approach. Therefore, it is also inadequate.

****

Now, how are we going to understand Ecclesiastes? If we are to offer a good understanding of our book, this must be done honestly, without conscious presuppositions, and trying to take into account the nature of Ecclesiastes as a whole, with its light and its darkness.

This is the beginning of a series on my favorite book of the Bible: Ecclesiastes. I plan to write later about the reasons why Ecclesiastes is such a favorite of mine, and why I am writing about it. However, I would like to begin with some consideration on its interpretation that will put forth my assumptions that rule my undertaking. The following is a very brief summary; I intend to post a longer article later.

Any question on the interpretation of Ecclesiastes should start from the larger question of how should we interpret the Old Testament. Ecclesiastes is one of the Wisdom books, and as such has special requirements and characteristics, but it also shares some common traits with other Old Testament books.

This task is problematic because of the Church’s history of Old Testament interpretation. OT interpretation suffers from two vices, one scholarly and other popular.

1. The scholarly vice is that of reductionism. Some fellow decides that he would like to write a theology of the Old Testament, and then he feels that he must have a theme. He devises a theme that fits well or not so well with the whole corpus of the Old Testament, and then he goes on to shoehorn every piece of the Hebrew Bible into it at any price. The result is that we get a very distorted view of the Old Testament in general and Ecclesiastes in particular. Notorious culprits in this area are Eichrodt, who saw everything in terms of the covenant; Von Rad, who saw everything in terms of the different oral traditions; and we’d better not mention Noth and others.

2. The popular vice is that of silencing. The church leaders are not well trained to preach from the Old Testament, so they claim that the the Old Testament “is difficult”; and somehow, this view is transmitted to the pews. Thus, one can see people that is actually afraid (!) of reading whole portions of the Bible and, when they venture into it, they do so with the preconceived notion that they are dealing with some mysterious, esoteric book full of arcana that only the “illuminati” can understand. Related to this is the attitude seen in so many preachers when they approach an Old Testament text. They apologize for the text, as if it were a relic from more uncivilized times. They claim that they find it difficult to deal with all the blood, slaughter, sex and violence in it.

This “popular” vice is so outrageous that it should be picked up by the bollocks detector of anyone. First of all, Old Testament isn’t hard to understand at all. Despite all the literary style put forth by the different human authors, and the special peculiarities offered by Hebrew poetry, the language of the Old Testament is the language of the people, frank, straight, and to the point. There is usually no point of contact with weird,
elaborate cosmologies and (neo)-Platonic sophistry as you can see in the Pauline epistles, for example. The fact is that the Old Testament is, in many cases, very approachable, and it is an easier read than some Epistles.

This state of things calls for a whole re-examination of the role of the Old Testament in Christian worship, doctrine and life. The Apostle Paul said that the whole of the Old Testament (the “Scripture” of 2 Timothy 3:16 [show]2 Timothy 3:16 [16]All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (ESV)
) is not only inspired, but good. Why are we ignoring the apostolic advice? We need to divest ourselves of hypocrisy and political correctness, and for once start talking plainly about matters of life, death, violence, corruption, sex, politics, war, hatred, love, man, and God. If we do so, we will not only be better Christians; we will be able to address forcefully our culture and all its blemishes with God’s power.

And finally, we must remember: the occurrence and authority of special revelation demands the correct apprehension of every source of it. Sola Scriptura has Tota Scriptura as a presupposition. Ignoring the Old Testament falls short of it.

Sometimes the message you want to convey is much better said by someone else in such a way that adding something further looks like an offense. Such is the case with the great post by my namesake Ed Hurst, In the School of Holy Cynicism.

After this beginning:

Our school motto: Mankind is fallen. Sinners will sin. The implication is we should hardly be surprised when people do stupid, mean, evil deeds.

… the post goes on describing the hollowness of contemporary entertainment and singles out specifically that unnatural hybrid known as “Christian music.” And it is so much like it was in the times of old:

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun. (…)

There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.
(Ecclesiastes 1:9,11 [show]Ecclesiastes 1:9 [9]What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:11 [11]There is no remembrance of former things,(1) nor will there be any remembrance of later things(2) yet to be among those who come after. Footnotes 1. [1:11] Or 'former people' 2. [1:11] Or 'later people'
— ESV)

Well said, Ed.

In a recent post, Tim lamented the fact that some self-labeled “Fundamentalists” had their priorities wrong. He specifically cited an instance where one of those fundamentalists stated that the central doctrine of Christianity is the inerrancy of Scripture. The post ended with Tim declaring that he is feeling increasingly attracted towards Barth and Neo-Orthodoxy, mainly due to the strong emphasis on Christ of Barth and his followers. There is also another great post by my namesake Ed Hurst that provided the inspiration for Tim’s writing.

I liked what Tim (and Ed) had to say, and I think that a proper reply merits a post on my own.

FUD and Disenchantment on Fundamentalism

For the record, let me say that I consider myself a fundamentalist. A study of the main doctrines espoused by the tracts known as “The Fundamentals” showed me that I am in agreement with each and every one of them; and thus, I think I could use the label.

Moreover, I am more and more in agreement with the spirit of those tracts. “The Fundamentals” were written against the mounting menace of religious liberalism, understood mainly as accomodation to the spirit of the age in such a way that current trends in philosophy, literature and culture came to be the normative agent in Christian discourse, displacing the truth of Christian revelation. It is a tendency that became evident since the Enlightenment, and I can relate to it right now, where movements such as Post-Modernism, Political Correctness, and that amorphous monster known as “The Sixties” pretend to be the arbiters of Christian discourse. Those are the main reasons why I think I am a fundamentalist, and why I think “The Fundamentals” and their spirit are a good thing.

Sadly, the most vocal and visible endorsers of “The Fundamentals” were not exactly marked by Christian charity and discernment. Among those were some individuals and churches affected by a militant separatism that ignored the Christian mandate for unity in charity, and a fanatical anti-intellectualism that often caused the withdrawal of Christian orthodoxy into a ghetto.

Thus, it was just natural that the unholy alliance of religious liberals and secularists used the term “Fundamentalist” as a term of derision since its very inception, employing it for religious fanatics of all creeds and persuasions. This was an impressive achievement in the court of public opinion: to identify people who were unimpressed with the philosophies of the day, and preferred to believe in the truth of Christian revelation, with irrational fanatics and terrorists. Because of this, many adherents of Protestant orthodoxy were very reluctant to call themselves “fundamentalists.” A new label, “Evangelical”, was coined.

As we have seen, the term “Fundamentalist” is covered with so much FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) that most people prefer to avoid taking the label. In my case, I prefer not to use it, although I can state my agreement with “The Fundamentals;” and should anyone ask, I won’t have any trouble describing myself as a fundamentalist.

In his post, Tim laments the position of a self-described Fundamentalist who identifies the inerrancy of the Bible as the capital doctrine of Christianity. Because of this, he states that he is increasingly uncomfortable with Fundamentalism, and that he is more attracted to Barth and Neo-Orthodoxy. Is this good? Yes and no; let me explain.

The Neo-Orthodox Way

The Neo-Orthodoxy is a theological movement inspired mainly on Karl Barth, who might be described as the most important theologian of the twenieth century. His magnum opus, the unfinished Church Dogmatics, contains most of his thinking, along with his early commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

As was the case with Fundamentalism, Neo-Orthodoxy is a reaction against theological liberalism. It is also a vigorous cry against theological conformity to the spirit of the age. Barth was especially displeased with the hard-core liberalism taught by people influenced by Ritschl and von Harnack, and saw the hollowness behind it.

As a corrective, Neo-Orthodoxy strongly stresses the centrality of Christ as the source, the core and the crux of all theology and Christian practice. Neo-Orthodoxy perceives our initial condition as spiritually bankrupt, and ourselves as unable to overcome such condition. It is only by the revelation of God in Christ that we can overcome our spiritual crisis and alienation.

This theme is expounded and applied in the multi-volume Church Dogmatics of Barth with a depth of insight that is unmatched by any contemporary theologian. The strong emphasis on the centrality of Christ is certainly welcome, and a much needed corrective (for liberals) and reminder (for ourselves). It is a truth that we must not forget at any instance. The recently late Rev. Dr. Francisco Lacueva, a former Canon of the Tarazona Cathedral in Spain, a distinguished scholar and thinker who was a member of a Plymouth Brethren church and happy to be labeled as a fundamentalist, said of Barth: “It has depths [of theological insight] that no other theologian can come up with.”

But, is Neo-Orthodoxy The Way?

The correctives offered by Neo-Orthodoxy, and the depth of theological thinking showed by Barth (and also by many other proponents, such as Emil Brunner) attracted many adherents. However, there is another side of Neo-Orthodoxy that we must be aware of. In my opinion, it renders Neo-Orthodoxy unable to be considered as totally compatible with the regular, old-time orthodoxy. The main objections are three: natural theology, revelation, and universalism.

1. Natural Theology. The strong emphasis on the centrality of the revelation of God in Christ causes Barth to deny all possibility of a natural theology, understood as theological thinking without recourse to a special revelation from God.

Natural theology can be understood in two principal ways. Firstly, natural theology can be considered as a knowledge of God attained by rational reflection and arguments, mostly drawn from the experience of the world. The main example of this line of thinking is Thomas Aquinas. Secondly, natural theology could be understood as the theological project of Enlightenment Rationalism, i.e., a knowledge of God that is “compatible” with “natural reason” and free from “mythical encumbrances”. The main example of this line of thinking are the Deists and Ristchl.

Barth saw the theological bankruptcy and arrogance hidden behind the second type of natural theology, and vehemently denied any possibility of it. There is also a much-mentioned breakup with Emil Brunner, when the latter admitted some knowledge of God outside special revelation., which provoked Barth to write a book called Nein (i.e., “No”). As for the first type of natural theology, it was already denounced and condemned by the Reformers.

I fully concur with Barth when he explicitly denies any possibility of attaining true knowledge of God to that second-type of “natural theology”; but to go from that position to the claim that all natural and rational knowledge of God is impossible is, in my opinion, too much of a leap. Even the Reformers, for all their condemnation to the Scholastic natural theology, gave some place to rational reflection on God; only with the proviso, of course, that this reflection could not be normative for Christian life and doctrine, and totally superseded by special revelation.

My position is that we cannot rule out not only the possibility, but even the duty, of natural theology, judging from Romans 1:18-20 [show]Romans 1:18-20 God's Wrath on Unrighteousness [18]For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19]For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20]For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (ESV)
and Romans 2:14 [show]Romans 2:14 [14]For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (ESV)
. In this regard, I find the position of Wolfhart Pannenberg (in his Systematic Theology, vol I., chapter 2) much saner. For Pannenberg, natural theology has a place in Christian theology with two main roles: a) As philosophical reflection that sets the standards against the truth claims about God could be tested against all other rival truth claims of competing deities and/or religions; and b) as a testbed for ascertaining the rational plausibility of Christian discourse about God, because even though Christian special revelation is not rationally attained, it should have contents that could stand as reasonable.

Thus, I think that there is a place under the sun for a natural theology that is a servant of the revealed theology, and I find Barth wrong in this regard.

2. Revelation. For Barth and most of the Neo-Orthodox writers, God revealed Himself to humanity through Jesus Christ of Nazareth. He is the Word of God, and the Scriptures are a record of the working of the Word of God through Israel and the Church. Thus, we arrive at the classical Neo-Orthodox statement that the Bible contains the Word of God but it is not itself the Word of God. To do otherwise would make us guilty of Bible idolatry.

There is a lot of truth of that. Hebrews 1:1,2 [show]Hebrews 1:1 The Supremacy of God's Son [1:1]Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, (ESV) Hebrews 1:2 [2]but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (ESV)
states clearly that God has spoken, and He has spoken through the Son, and not through the Bible. Moreover, the whole issue of Biblical higher criticism that gained currency since the Enlightenment contributed to cast doubts on the quality of the Bible as a source of dogmatic statements and as its role as a supernaturally inspired, historically truthful source of revelation (see especially Pannenberg, “La crisis del principio de Escritura”, in Cuestiones fundamentales de Teología Sistemática, trans. J.M. Mauleón y J. Leita [Salamanca: Sígueme, 1976], pp. 15-26; I think there is an English translation somewhere).

Right now, however, putting aside the Scripture principle that identifies God’s special revelation with the contents of the Holy Scripture, with that identification guaranteed by the plenary and verbal inspiration of the Holy Spirit, does not look as plausible as it did some time ago. There has been some extensive work documenting the arrogant assumptions lying behind most of the destructive Biblical higher criticism; especially, one could complain of a blind surrender to the philosophies of the day and an unfair submission of the Biblical pretensions to what Hegel or Heidegger fancied themselves. What really gives this criticism away is the willingness of the historiographical community to give historical value to anything but the Bible, and to see this prejudice translated “uncritically” to the higher critics. On any historiographic standard, the Bible is a better record, more objective and better transmitted and preserved than anything else; but no, the Bible is myth, while the machinations of an Egyptian priest who adscribes divine origin to the Pharoahs is a better source of Ancient Near Eastern chronology… and so it goes.

I am afraid that Barth critical separation from theological liberalism because of the latter’s perceived claudication into the spirit of the age was not followed by a similar separation from the equally influenced Biblical higher criticism of its day. And the reason, I think, was that Barth did not want to be seen as just another exponent of Protestant Scholasticism, on one side; and on the other, devaluing the Protestant Scripture principle enabled him to reinforce the Christ-centered aspects of his theology of revelation.

The Scripture principle stands strong as ever. I deem the Holy Scripture, the Bible, to be the Word of God fully inspired and without any mixture of human error in all matters of human knowledge, while I still recognize the primacy of the Lord Jesus Christ as the archetipal revelation of God (Isaiah 8:20 [show]Isaiah 8:20 [20]To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn. (ESV)
; 2 Timothy 3:16 [show]2 Timothy 3:16 [16]All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (ESV)
; Hebrews 1:1,2 [show]Hebrews 1:1 The Supremacy of God's Son [1:1]Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, (ESV) Hebrews 1:2 [2]but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (ESV)
).

3. Universalism. For most people, this is a minor issue; but not for me. Barth strongly states the primacy of Christ and the absolute need of His work for attaining salvation. However, Barth also states that in Christ the whole humanity is the object of election. The corollary of this is, of course, that every man and woman on the planet is saved by the value of the work of Christ. This runs totally against the Biblical witness that states that salvation is only possible by joining Christ by an act of personal faith. Of course, this act of personal faith is the result of the sovereign decree of God manifested in His election; but by no means this is to be applied to all people. Revelation 20:15 [show]Revelation 20:15 [15]And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (ESV)
alone rules out this.

In Conclusion

Barth’s failure to conform his theological system to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures on the areas of natural theology, the doctrine of revelation, and the universalism, prevent me from giving my full endorsement to his work and thought.

Despite these criticism, I regard Barth and Neo-Orthodoxy as a blessing by God. The corrections made by Barth to theological liberalism are refreshing and welcome; and his powerful theological insights could be profited by any Christian interested in deepening his or her theological thinking. Church Dogmatics is a masterpiece; amd I fully endorse Dr. Lacueva’s opinion. Moreover, it could function as a corrective to ourselves, because we too could be carried away by the idols of rationalism, conformity to the spirit of the age, or the Bible itself. I think that Barth’s Church Dogmatics should be required reading for any serious student of dogmatics, together with the corresponding works of Pannenberg, Berkouwer, Thielicke, and others.

With Tim and Ed, I am also increasingly unhappy with theological developments in the midst of fundamentalism. The militant and blind emphasis on inerrancy and KJV-onlyism come especially to my mind. However, I can still consider myself as a fundamentalist, especially if that term is meant to denote adherence to the doctrines espoused by “The Fundamentals.”

Robert C. Solomon. Continental Philosophy since 1750: The Rise and Fall of the Self. No. 7 in the series A History of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. 214+vii pp.

This book was in the list of recommended readings for the course “God and the World in Modern Panentheism” that Professor John Cooper taught at Calvin Theological Seminary. I had the privilege of attending those lectures; and I can say without a doubt that one of the greatest benefits were the list of suggested readings. I bought the book; but besides the prescribed pages for the course, I never had the time or disposition to read it through. It struck me, however, as a history of philosophy that was graced with the unusual traits of good and interesting style, humor, and clarity of ideas. It became one of those books that you always meant to read, but simply don’t have the required quality time to do it.

However, this was about to change. When the time came to go to the small town of Piribebuy for our vacation, I couldn’t even think of bringing the computer with me. Doing otherwise would mean grounds for divorce to my wife! And so, I brought with me a pile of books that were in the reading qeue and yes, Solomon got his say heard (or better, read) by me.

Professor Robert C. Solomon (Wikipedia bio) is a scholar with a distinguished and prolific career. He is Quincy Lee Professor at the University of Texas, and his interests lie in the areas of Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment Continental Philosophy (especially the Romantics and Nietzsche), the ethics of love, and spirituality. As I can tell from the title of a fairly recent book, his spiritual beliefs could be labeled as naturalistic-secularistic-mystical.

The undertaking of Professor Solomon is certainly ambitious in scope: cover all of non-British European philosophy since 1750 to our days, explaining the thought of towering figures such as Kant, Hegel, Marx, Heidegger, Sartre, and Wittgenstein, and many others. It is also ambitious in its size: a book that barely goes over 200 pages. Was Professor Solomon up to the task?

Well, the answer is: “It depends.”

Solomon presents his account as the unfolding of an unifying theme: the rise and fall of the Self. But this is not, as Solomon makes clear in the Prologue and the Introduction, not an ordinary self: this is the Self, the transcendental self, something that ultimately encompasses everything, and gives any man the right to project the structures of his own mind to everything. This pretence is called “the transcendental pretence” by Solomon.

Writing always with that theme in mind, Solomon chronicles the thinking of leading philosophers in a concise, clear, and interesting way. He has a great talent for explaining very arcane or convoluted philosophical systems in plain language, and he does so with tact and good humor. Solomon tries to be fair to all philosophers he studies here, and he generally succeeds. And not only that: despite the fact that he is a secularist writing about the Enlightenment and its offshoots, I perceive a friendly and respectful attitude towards Christianity. All of these traits make this book a great one.

However, Solomon also leaves quite a bit to be desired, and I am afraid he might not be entirely right in some of his viewpoints.

1. At first, choosing “The Rise and Fall of the Self” as a theme for Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment philosophy might be appropriate. I can see the reasons for that, especially after Kant, Fichte and Schopenhauer. But, is that right or not? Is it true that the transcendental pretence is a product of the combined forces of humanism, universalism and rationality that were gaining currency since Descartes? Maybe. Maybe Professor Solomon is right. However, something in my head told me that this didn’t looked quite right.

A few days after finishing Solomon’s book, I found this in Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology and immediately knew I found the missing link in Solomon’s chain of thought:

… when understood in this way [as something in accordance to human nature], natural theology could commend a form of knowledge of God that is compatible with us and our human nature. [...] After the disastrous religious wars the conflicting claims to revelation which the different parties made seemed to be mere assertions of tradition, and since the religious truth claims discredited one another it seemed best to look to what is natural to us as the basis of a new social order and culture. In this regard the Enlightenment was certain that what corresponds to human nature truly corresponds to God, God being also the Creator of humanity and human reason.
(Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. I, transl. G.W. Bromiley, chap 2., §2, pp. 81f. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991].)

There it is! The trascendental pretence came as a project of analogical rational theology that suddenly changed the analogical for the ontological. The transcendental pretence was something ridiculously arrogant (and Solomon rightly recognizes it as such), but it wasn’t just the product of deranged minds with oversized egos, or merely the child of the Kerberos of humanism, rationality and unversalism. It was, more than anything else, an exercise of natural theology, an attempt to know God by sola ratio, by reason alone; and moreover, it was a reaction against the quarreling and dull dogmatism of the late Baroque Protestant Scholasticism and the horror of the Thirty Years War. It is remarkable that the two main offshoots of that war were marked by an inward turn: the Enlightenment, with the universal projection of the inner self as trascendental, and Pietism, with the turning of an universal belief into something private and internal. Solomon fails to recognize the importance of the question of God for the whole Enlightement and what came later.

2. I understand the severe size constraints that Professor Solomon had to have in mind when writing this book. However, it seems that despite his attempts, some of the coverage is extremely superficial and totally inadequate to get even the minimum appropriate grasp on some philosophers’ ideas. The explanations of Husserl and the whole phenomenological movement (because phenomenology is something phenomenally complex per se), Wittgenstein and logical positivism, and the “post-moderns” such as Foucault or Derrida, are sorely disappointing. The worst case is, in my opinion, that of Kant: Solomon devoted a whole chapter to him, and yet, you might have finished it without even knowing what is meant by an “synthetic apriori proposition”, which is essential to understand Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.

3. In keeping with the size constraints, one finds strange omissions. This is supposed to be a treatise on Continental philosophy, but all that manages to be is a study on Franco-German thinkers. Despite its designation as Continental, there is zero mention of other Continental philosophies, such as Spanish or Italian philosophy. Of course, they might not be so important in the overall development of the history of philosophy; but you just cannot pass over names of the caliber of Ortega y Gasset, Unamuno, Zubiri or Marí­as in Spain, or Benedetto Croce in Italy, in a study of Continental philosophy. I find this omission myopic, and typical of the navel-gazing of too much of American scholarship, for whom the only languages of Continental Europe are French and German.

4. Finally, and sadly, one can see Professor Solomon rightly criticizing the transcendental pretence as “a political weapon of enormous power” (p.6-7), denouncing how it was employed to justify racism, exploitation, and oppresion, an effort to prove there one legitimate set of beliefs in ethics, politics and religion. It is amusing to see such criticism from someone who doesn’t have any qualms to employ some awkward sentence structures in the name of “inclusive language”. Solomon might not share the transcendental pretence, but he still thinks he can also impose his own set of beliefs on the unsuspecting victim that is the English language. His criticism of Enlightenment arrogance, while correct and justified, in my opinion reeks of political correctness.

Those points notwhitstanding, I find two redeeming qualities in this book that put it above the rest and warrant my commendation:

1. Solomon writes with unusual insight and –in general– he has the rare talent of capturing the thought of a philosopher and deliver it in a very accessible nutshell. His summary of Hegelian tought is brilliant. His study of the philosophy of Nietzsche is the best and the clearest I’ve ever seen, going beyond Nietzche the “provocateur” to unfold Nietzsche’s philosophy with uncommon ability and understanding.

But Solomon’s insight is at his best in little things scattered here and there. You can learn that the logic of dialectic was set forth firstly by Schelling, and then by Hegel; that Sartre began as a hard-core phenomenologist and that this informed all of his thought; or how Heidegger was rooted in Husserl’s thinking. Here is proof that Solomon’s ability for discerning the nuances of the different schools of thought is insightful and perceptive.

2. The best thing about this “history of philosophy” book is, however, that it succeeds. A good history of philosophy should give its readers the desire to go to the primary sources. And, independently of Solomon’s good or bad traits, this book does one thing really well: It makes you wish really hard to go out and read the philosophers studied there. Believe me, anything that makes you wish to read Kant, Hegel, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger and Gadamer, has to be really good. And Solomon doesn’t give you a wish; he gives you an urge.

My verdict? If you can live with the objections I’ve raised here, I do recommend this book.

Two days ago, my boss pointed me out to a very significative statement made by Denton Lotz, General Secretary of the Baptist World Alliance. The statement was made during the European Baptist Federation general council meeting in Prague, on September 22–25. You can see the whole news item, but the tidbit that raised the eyebrows of Rev. S., my boss, and myself, is this:

Lotz distanced himself from the superficial texts of oft modern, frequently charismatic worship songs known as “Seven-Eleven-Worship“ – the seven-word text of a song is repeated 11 times. A reaction to this movement is now apparent in the USA. Protestant intellectuals are increasingly protesting against such church services and are transferring to the Roman Catholic church.

In terms of relevance, this is like an atomic bomb. While many of them have been great traditionalists in the worship, most Baptists have been quick to drink the whole Kool-Aid of the so-called “contemporary worship”, happily throwing out pipe organs and old hymnals while bringing in electroninc amplification, high decibels, electric guitars, drumsets, and Power Point projection. During the whole process, the mindset of those brethren was thoroughly pragmatic: “Contemporary worship” attracts more people, and especially young ones; therefore it must be good and we should do it, other considerations be darned. You can see that mindset operating daily in many other aspects of Evangelical church life, and most especially in world missions.

Pragmatism has been the curse of the modern evangelical church. We put “results” –a very narrow-defined category expressed mainly in numerical terms– as our main priority, knowing all the time that this is wrong. Results should not be our priority. Evangelism and missions, however crucially important they might be, should not be our priority. Our overriding priority and concern should be the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31)

Nowhere this should be more evident than in our community worship, where the congregation has an encounter with the terrible, fearful, most holy and sovereign God (Psalms 42:4). It seems that for most of our leaders the enormous significance of this fact has been lost:

Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel;
because I will do this to you,
prepare to meet your God, O Israel!

For behold, he who forms the mountains and creates the wind,
and declares to man what is his thought,
who makes the morning darkness,
and treads on the heights of the earth—
the LORD, the God of hosts, is his name!
(Amos 4:12,13)

“With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high?” (Micah 6:6a) When it comes to congregational worship, our answer to Micah’s question has been too often the crap that we call contemporary worship.

There are many principles that we can cite when we discuss true Biblical congregational worship; but there is one of them that has been missing from many treatments on the subject: the aesthetic principle.

Aesthetics is the philosophical discipline that studies Beauty, or the Good as apprehended immediately by the senses, especially in nature and art. This is different from the moral Good, which is the Good apprehended by the whole being as related to the volition or our volitional reaction. And now, this is a sad state of things to admit, but we Christians have not been terribly good at doing things beautifully. Think of our worship! Despite having at our disposal masterpieces by people such as Handel, Bach, Victoria, Morales, Tallis or Lauridsen we prefer the mudhole of happy-clappy jingles iterated ad-infinitum, ad-nauseam!

Congregational worship should be an extremely delicate area of church life, because we meet God there, and God is like a jealous lover, demanding the best from His loved ones (Exodus 34:14). He demands nothing less than the very best from us, as one can see in Exodus 25 [show]Exodus 25 Contributions for the Sanctuary [25:1]The LORD said to Moses, [2]"Speak to the people of Israel, that they take for me a contribution. From every man whose heart moves him you shall receive the contribution for me. [3]And this is the contribution that you shall receive from them: gold, silver, and bronze, [4]blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen, goats' hair, [5]tanned rams' skins, goatskins,(1) acacia wood, [6]oil for the lamps, spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense, [7]onyx stones, and stones for setting, for the ephod and for the breastpiece. [8]And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst. [9]Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it. The Ark of the Covenant [10]"They shall make an ark of acacia wood. Two cubits(2) and a half shall be its length, a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height. [11]You shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and outside shall you overlay it, and you shall make on it a molding of gold around it. [12]You shall cast four rings of gold for it and put them on its four feet, two rings on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it. [13]You shall make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. [14]And you shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry the ark by them. [15]The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it. [16]And you shall put into the ark the testimony that I shall give you. [17]"You shall make a mercy seat(3) of pure gold. Two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. [18]And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. [19]Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end. Of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. [20]The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. [21]And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. [22]There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel. The Table for Bread [23]"You shall make a table of acacia wood. Two cubits shall be its length, a cubit its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height. [24]You shall overlay it with pure gold and make a molding of gold around it. [25]And you shall make a rim around it a handbreadth(4) wide, and a molding of gold around the rim. [26]And you shall make for it four rings of gold, and fasten the rings to the four corners at its four legs. [27]Close to the frame the rings shall lie, as holders for the poles to carry the table. [28]You shall make the poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold, and the table shall be carried with these. [29]And you shall make its plates and dishes for incense, and its flagons and bowls with which to pour drink offerings; you shall make them of pure gold. [30]And you shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me regularly. The Golden Lampstand [31]"You shall make a lampstand of pure gold. The lampstand shall be made of hammered work: its base, its stem, its cups, its calyxes, and its flowers shall be of one piece with it. [32]And there shall be six branches going out of its sides, three branches of the lampstand out of one side of it and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side of it; [33]three cups made like almond blossoms, each with calyx and flower, on one branch, and three cups made like almond blossoms, each with calyx and flower, on the other branch--so for the six branches going out of the lampstand. [34]And on the lampstand itself there shall be four cups made like almond blossoms, with their calyxes and flowers, [35]and a calyx of one piece with it under each pair of the six branches going out from the lampstand. [36]Their calyxes and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it a single piece of hammered work of pure gold. [37]You shall make seven lamps for it. And the lamps shall be set up so as to give light on the space in front of it. [38]Its tongs and their trays shall be of pure gold. [39]It shall be made, with all these utensils, out of a talent(5) of pure gold. [40]And see that you make them after the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain. (ESV) Footnotes 1. [25:5] Uncertain; possibly 'dolphin skins', or 'dugong skins'; compare 26:14 2. [25:10] A 'cubit' was about 18 inches or 45 centimeters 3. [25:17] Or 'cover' 4. [25:25] A 'handbreadth' was about 3 inches or 7.5 centimeters 5. [25:39] A 'talent' was about 75 pounds or 34 kilograms
onwards and Leviticus. Who would dare to employ second-press olive oil for the Tabernacle, or an one-eyed calf for a holocaust?

The same demand is echoed at several times in the New Testament, but I would like to especially point out to Romans 12:1,2, where we are specifically commanded to bring ourselves as a sacrifice to God in spiritual worship with renewed minds. Do you think that we are relieved to offer the best to God just because this is the New Testament time?

Thus, if we are to meet God, we should meet him with nothing less than the best. What we give Him, should eminently posess Beauty. Now, when we sing in His presence, are we singing the best songs, or are we repeating the happy-clappy-crappy jingles revulsive even to an used car dealership specialized in kitsch advertising?

And yet, we do it, and blindly persist in keeping doing it. Educated persons, used to deal with real complex situations and solve them with the finest of their abilities, congregate and sing tunes that are trite stuff even for a 6-year old. Do you think this is fair before God? Do you think it is fair before God to pretend to “worship” Him while you’re blowing your ears out in decibels, in the very face of He who commands us to be stewards of our bodies?

Good congregational worship shouldn’t be elitist, nor difficult to grasp. Everyone can contribute his or her best to God, and edify the congregation of the saved, while offering a powerful witness to the heathen: the best of our culture and our minds are humbly offered before God. Good congregational worship shouldn’t be “traditionalistic”, or traditional, either. It can use contemporary rythms, tunes, and liturgies; but it should posess Beauty.

The consequences of this sad state of things are obvious. Denton Lotz warns us about “Protestant intellectuals” defecting our churches, but you don’t have to be one to realize the bankruptcy of contemporary worship. Extreme ugliness is apparent to most people, and not only to intellectuals. But, the real question is, how God will answer to our wilful failures?

Tim tagged me for a book meme some ages ago. Dialup and time crunch prevented me again from doing this before; but here it is at last:

1. How many books have I owned? Well, I don’t have an exact figure, but I think I’ve owned or own around a thousand books. As Tim, my collection is slowly growing because I also don’t think that getting rid of books is apropriate.
2. What was the last book you bought? That’s an extremely difficult question, because after coming back to Paraguay I had to forsake completely the buying of new books due to financial reasons. I honestly don’t remember when I bought the last one. Since my comeback I’ve gotten a lot of new books, but only as gifts or as part of supplies given by an employer. Perhaps one of my last book purchases was a set of Tom Clancy novels in a discount book store back in Grand Rapids, a little over three years ago.
3. Last book that you’ve read: The last book I’ve finished is Trevayne, a novel by Robert Ludlum. It’s good entertainment, but nothing else. Meanwhile, I’m reading Discusión, Inquisiciones, y Otras Inquisiciones by Jorge Luis Borges, the Iliad of Homer in the version of Alexander Pope, some essays by C.S. Lewis, and the Systematic Theology, vol. I, by Wolfhart Pannenberg.
4. Five books that have meant a lot to you: Here they are, in no particular order. Disclaimer: The Bible and portions thereof are omitted; if it weren’t so, this blog post would be “Biblically monotonic”.
   • El Aleph and any prose by Jorge Luis Borges: Borges is such a master of letters! Before him, I thought I would never try writing seriously; I thought writing was for people who could write exceedingly well. But Borges had a way to express himself in brilliant, flawless Spanish (believe me, you just have to read him in the original) and yet he did so with the utmost clarity and concision. His prose look effortless, yet perfect. He convinced me to write. The facts that he was, perhaps, one of the most learned men known by our Western civilization, a man from Latin America and a country neighboring mine, and someone extraordinarily conversant with the Bible were all bonuses. Borges is my measure of a writer.
   • St. Thomas Aquinas, Collationes super Credo in Deum. Some part of my personal history that few people know is that prior to my conversion I was a Roman Catholic, and for some time a numerary member of the Opus Dei to boot. While I was in the Opus Dei I discovered a little book [St. Thomas Aquinas, Escritos de Catequesis, Josep--Ignasi Saranyana, ed. (Madrid:, 1978, 2nd. ed.)], and the first work in it was Aquinas’ exposition on the Apostolic Symbol. This small, beautiful work from Aquinas opened my mind in several ways. It showed me that philosophy and theology could be beautiful. It showed me that good thinking shouldn’t be complicated. It showed me what I finally wanted to be: a Christian philosopher and theologian who could perhaps one day advance the state of knowledge of these disciplines for the glory of God, and yet being simple and understandable enough that any interested person could grasp what I was saying.

     Nowadays I have in my personal library the same work in another edition, edited by the same J.I. Saranyana (St. Thomas Aquinas. Obras catequéticas. Pamplona: Eunate, 1995). I am very fond of it

   • Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus, The Heidelberg Catechism (several editions). When I first opened the little booklet of the Catechism and saw that beautiful Question 1, I was struck thinking, “hey, is that theology? I could use this for my devotional!” And then it dawned to me that such a distinction was artificial and moot. The Heidelberg Catechism showed me the way of being a Christian theologian and philosopher: first and foremost for the glory of God, and the standard for all Christian theology and philosophy was how much it pointed to a deeper life in God, full of personal and communal piety. I use the Catechism with joy and profit to this day.
   • Some Natural Sciences encyclopaedia. A favorite part of my childhood was spent leafing through the four massive, leather-bound volumes of a Natural Sciences encyclopaedia. When I couldn’t read yet, I wondered about the wonderful full-color, beautifully drawn illustrations of plants, animals and things that I saw daily at home, and wondered about them. And additionally, there were an number of animals and things so strange and wonderful that filled me with awe and curiosity. When I began to read, I devoured the four volumes time after time. That encyclopaedia is now lost, even to the extent that I cannot recall the exact title nor the authors; but that encyclopaedia was one of the books that made me a reader. For that I also have to thank my parents, who weren’t afraid to place a massive, and obviously expensive, book into my childish hands.
   • Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God. Although Moltmann is not someone who has my full agreement on most things, this book really changed the way I did theology. Moltmann showed me some of the unfathomable depths of the mysteries of Christ’s death on the cross, and showed me also who God’s truth cannot be constrained by human thinking. It taught me humilty and realism in my theological reflection; and for that I am grateful. The book was written about 30 years ago, and it is still fresh, and still inviting to reflection now.
5. Tag five people that haven’t played yet. I am sorry, Tim; but I think now it is too late and most people had already answered to this. But I would be happy to tag anyone who volunteers, though

I would like to share with you something that happened to my wife at her work. She is blessed to work at an evangelical (Baptist) institution with a large staff (circa 400 employees), as the CEO’s personal assistant. While she is the CEO’s assistant, her immediate superior is the General Secretary of the outfit. The General Secretary is a lady a little bit older than me; I worked with her in varous capacities since 1997 or so, and she always impressed me by her professional attitude, her friendliness and her commitment to excellence in service. Thus you can guess that this lady gets a lot of respect from me.

My wife and me share a liking for that 80′s music (well, that was our golden age…). I suggested her to get a boombox at her office, so she could hear one of the many “retro” radio stations of Asunción, and she did. She played the music softly, keeping the volume low enough as to ensure that the music would be audible just to her and to no one else.

Now, you must understand a little about Paraguayan Evangelicals. Since we are a minority, many of us still have the marks of a ghetto community. Now this is a hindrance: our country is ready to embrace the Gospel in unprecedented ways, and yet our brethren are a little reluctant to be bold in evangelism. Conversion is not only a spiritual event; it is also a socio–cultural one, where you come to identify yourself with a ghetto by displaying the same token attitudes that would brand you as “one of us”.

It looks like one of these tokens is the choice of radio stations. In 1992, the Mennonite Brethren founded the OBEDIRA FM Station as an all–around evangelical radio, broadcasting some Christian music (almost all of it contemporary), and some sermons. OBEDIRA grew to became currently positioned among the Top 5 radios of all Paraguay, with an impressive broadcast range measured into the hundreds of kilometers.

However, growth in market positioning was inversely proportional to quality: while OBEDIRA already started in the “bad” sector of the quality meter, it only grew worse. Now, the programming is a crass and gross mess of really bad music (for example, some Tex-Mex Christian music that only says something against Satan, and other equally profound and theologically insightful stuff), and worse talk–show, where the deepest subject tackled is Bruce Wilkinson’s The Prayer of Jabez and how it will give you the best blessings.

I thought that my fellow brethren would chose to stay away from such low depths, but I was wrong. Wherever I step into some evangelical realm (a fellow believer’s home, some evangelical institution, the office of some evangelical worker in a company, etc.), the radio loudspeakers are booming OBEDIRA’s crap as obnoxiously as they can get away with. It is almost like they’re flaunting their faith unto any passersby by inflicting them the aural torture of such bovine dung. I never understood it, and every day I understand it less. As for myself, well, the second I found that it was all bollocks I switched the dial away to something better (nothing difficult, by the way).

One day, my wife came home from office, and as soon as I greeted her I saw a look of deep disappointment in her face. She then told me that earlier in the day, the General Secretary send her a note that said, succintly:

Dear Wife_of_Eduardo,

OBEDIRA, please.

Regards, N.

Furthermore, in her weekly evaluation, the G.S. told her: “Here in the General Secretariat we are on the eyes of everybody and we must be very concerned about our image. We must set the example for others to follow. Since we are a Christian organization, we must bear Christian witness even in our choice of radio stations. Therefore I instruct you to listen only to Radio OBEDIRA during office hours.”

I was taken aback, very disappointed. I suggested my wife to return the boombox home, and get done with it. Both of us agreed that silence is better than such crap. But deeper questions remains.

What disappoint me the most about OBEDIRA and my fellow brethren is how ugly the programming is. We understand that the Lord created the world (Hebrews 11:3; Genesis 1:1) through Jesus Christ, who is radiant and glorious (Hebrews 1:2,3). And everything that God created was very good (Genesis 1:31).

Thus, it should be pretty evident that beauty –goodness and truth expressed in the realm of the senses– is deeply rooted in the creative activity of God; and it is out of the question that the quest for beauty, when put in its right priority, is a way to honor and glorify God. As redeemed men and women, we should work out to restore the beauty of God’s world. We must do it because God is beautiful; what He has done to us in choosing and predestining us before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4,5) is beautiful beyond expression; and we are commanded to hope something that it is described as “riches of glorious inheritance”, an “immeasurable greatness” (Ephesians 1:18,19). We also know that the gifts of God are “good and perfect” (James 1:17). It is a serious call: If we are to behave like children of a beautiful, glorious God, we are bound to seek ways of filling this world with His beauty and glory.

Thus, beauty in the world became by creation; and we are called to restore it by redemption. However, Fall complicated things. For one thing, our sense of beauty became deeply flawed. What should be an absolute emanated from the archetypal source of all beauty –God Himself– became the hotbed of relativism. The beauty in the eyes of one beholder is boredom or ugliness in the eyes of other. And not only that; but nowadays so many sins come under an appearance of beauty. The grass is greener on the neighbor’s side of the fence. The strange woman might appear more enticing that one’s own, at times; or what is most pornography but something beautiful put to misuse?

How can we overcome such crippling relativism and deception? Hans–Georg Gadamer, speaking about Kant’s “Critique of Judgment” and the exposition about aesthetics that you find there (in his seminal work Truth and Method), points out that for Kant and for many of the ancient philosophers, this could be overcome by training and education. If you are an uneducated person, you will have tastes pointing out to the crass and the kitsch. However, a good classical education had as one of its goal to equip the budding scholar with tools that would enable him to appreciate the “real” beauty. That is, in order to appreciate a lot of the riches of, say, Homer’s Illiad, one must tackle the study of Classical Greek; if you really want to appreciate the works of Jorge Luis Borges, you must master the Spanish language, and have a working knowledge of English, English protestantism, and the Protestant Bible; and so on.

However, the main thrust for beauty should be the Enlightenment; no, no that one of Leibniz and the like. I am talking about the enlightenment of the “eyes of our hearts” (Ephesians 1:18), that is, the “spirit of your mind”, which can happen only by putting on “the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:23,24). In other words, the implications of the theology of redemption strongly suggest that it is the redeemed, regenerated Christian believer the one who should be at the forefront of the quest for beauty. Sadly, as my wife experienced, this is far away from realized among ourselves.

I wonder, why my brethren continue to obnoxiously push such crap as if it were the sum of all that is good? This question also perplexes me in the issue of worship, where the same crass attitude is all too evident. Do they perhaps venture to think that such sacrifices are pleasing to God? Are these sacrifices worthy of a holy priesthood, living stones of the spiritual house of God? I think not.

And thus we have our little situation in my wife’s office. The worst thing of all is that this became a scandal to her. You might now that my wife is Roman Catholic. She is born-again, and the Lord Jesus Christ is her only Savior, but she was raised too Catholic that she would not consider leaving the church at any time. While she and I have true spiritual communion, I agree that the situation now is less than desirable. I am praying so that we could find a good solution to the issue.

The boombox came home, and everything returned to normal. But deep inside my heart, I feel like I hear stones crying out to heaven, because we have become too silent or lazy in so many crucial questions. Do you think that my wife would be inclined now to request membership at my local church? The only certain thing that my lady friend the General Secretary accomplished is to reinforce my wife’s deep notion, that all Protestants are zealots and fanatics and unable to see a camel in front of them because they’re intent in nitpicking each others’ lives. We might be a devout people, but our devotion smacks of fanaticism and ugliness; and truly so.

Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison. Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.

Update: Catez from Kiwiland wrote a fantastic post on a sligthly related question: Why Did God Give Us Intellect?. The whole post is filled with solid gold in insights, and it relates very well to my musings on the Evangelicals’ aesthetic failure. Here’s an especially great passage, only that what she says about women, I would say about Paraguayan evangelicals:

Finally, and this is important, many Christian women have not been encouraged to develop and use their minds in service to God. If any group of people within the wider church have suffered from the anti-intellectualism that has eroded evangelicalism, it is Christian women. When Jesus advised us not to hide our talents but to invest them he was not being gender-specific. If God has given us minds then we are to develop them, exercise them, and use them.

Go there and read it. You won’t be disappointed. Promise!

Last Wednesday I was getting ready for an important meeting where I was supposed to make a presentation, when I turned on the TV just because I wanted to pinpoint the exact time and temperature of the day. The TV station was hosting a talk show where the guests were some members of ALCO (Asociación de Lucha Contra la Obesidad, in English, “Association for Fighting Against Obesity”, i.e, the local version of Weight Watchers). I was in a hurry, but the little tidbits I gathered from the screen gave me the idea that these fellows were trying to justify their effort of losing weight on the grounds that fat people are victims of discrimination, that fat people are unattractive, that fat people have trouble getting clothes, and on, and on and on. My bollocks detector went wild on the spot.

I remember when Tim decided to post his photo online. It’s OK; he’s nice looking and maybe a good candidate for my youngest sister . But you won’t see my photo around, at least for a good while. Why? because I’m fat.

Let it be known for the record: I’m officially overweight. My height is 1m77cm and my weight is roughly 145 kg (American readers, please do the appropriate conversions). As far as I can remember, I was always that way. When I was a little child, I was fat. Even when I went into the ROTC (both in basic training/boot camp and in the Navy ROTC), and despite the fact that I graduated as an ensign with flying colors and despite the fact that every drill instructor I had took the task of getting me lean and mean, I still was very much to the “fatty” side of things.

Why? I don’t know. To everyone who knows me intimately enough, and especially to my wife, it is evident that I do not over-eat. However, hormones doesn’t seem to be the cause; my levels of tyroid hormones are always within the normal range. But the fact is, I am fat.

Being fat has some special ‘challenges’. Finding appropriate clothing is one of them. In my country, some unknown ruling hand decreed that every Paraguayan must be small and weighting no more than 70 kg. Thus, clothing for folks like me are as plentiful as a pro-life Democrat. Going in the streets also has some challenges; for example, sitting in a bus where the separation between each row is of 70cm at most can be difficult.

I just cannot begin to tell how difficult life has been because others felt the need to berate and despise me for being fat. Some have equated my obesity with ‘utter lack of even the most elementary self-discipline’ and treated me accordingly; others simply made cruel practical jokes. My teenage years come especially to mind. Boys would not accept me as a pal; ladies would run away in shock and wouldn’t consider even the slightest romantic interest in my person. I regard my adolescence an extremely dark period of my life, and I am really glad it’s over. But that’s enough; I moved on, and the LORD helped me. It’s in the past, and the past is over. That’s why I don’t talk much about it.

There’s one common thread for all these challenges: They all stem from a lack of consideration and respect for a fellow human being who still is, despite his appearance, an image-bearer of the living and most holy God. This is not a matter that should be taken lightly. That’s why the ALCO folks outraged me so much. They encountered the disrespect and discrimination, and instead of fighting it, they rationalized it, sanctioned it, and used it as an argument for their cause.

No, ALCO. I’m sorry; I’m not going to be a member anytime soon. The LORD willing, I am going to lose weight. I am willing go out of my way in that effort. I am willing to eat much less calories than the amount appropriate for a normal being. I am willing to sweat, to get cramps and to get tired after exercising daily; but I’m not going to do it for the respect I might get —that respect will be met with my utter comtempt.

I’m going to lose weight for the sake of my Lord, who requires me to be a good steward of my body, His temple; for the pleasure of my wife, to whom I am an indebted servant; and for the sake of my own health. These are, I think, very good reasons. To get the respect of a jerk or to be able to wear the latest designer clothing is not.

That’s why you won’t see my photo around anytime soon.

When K-19: The Widowmaker first came to our town, I passed on the opportunity to see it; “I don’t need another catastrophe on film”, I thougt. Later on, in my goings to the video rental store, I saw this movie again, and once more I ignored it. Perhaps my reaction was due to my disappointment at learning that this was no “Hunt for Red October” movie, but something about an accident and the men that barely managed to save their lives. However, one day my wife stopped at the video store on her way home, and brought it. “I thought you might like it,” she said. Oh well. As usual, it paid off to heed my wife’s advice. If I can tell anything in advance about the movie, it is that I liked it a lot; and that you might as well, too.

The movie is set in 1961, the year when the Cold War reached one of its peaks at the Cuban Missile Crisis. As the initial screens dutifully remind us, these were the years where the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction was in full sway. Those were the years of nuclear bunkers, multi-megaton termonuclear devices, and spooks real or imagined. Pretty romantic for many, but definitely not funny for those who had to live through these years.

In the midst of that scenario, the Soviet Navy is ready to give operational status to their newest nuclear submarine, the K-19. She is a “boomer”; that is, she’s a submarine intended mostly for firing of missiles containing thermonuclear warheads. In other words, K-19 is not an attack submarine whose main mission would be establishing naval superiority through an array of offensive weapons directed at enemy threats on the air, the surface, and under the surface. However, she does have torpedoes, as all boomers do, mainly for defensive purposes. The ship is powered by two nuclear reactors, located at fore and aft, respectively, and is powered by a sizeable crew. The main movie set is very well thought out, and reflects the state of Soviet naval technology of the late fifties and early sixties. It also conveys very well the cramped, claustrophobic atmosphere inside the submarine.

With all that said, the movie starts off. After a verbal skirmish with one of his superiors, Captain Mikhael Polenin (Liam Neeson), the ship’s commander, is relieved from command. But since time was running thight, he was assigned as Executive Officer (XO), or second in command. For the command post, the Russian Navy selected Captain Alexei Vostrikov (Harrison Ford), the son of a disgraced naval commander who died in the Gulag, but with newfound influence thanks to his marriage to a niece of a Politburo member. Soon it is pretty evident that the commanding styles of both men are different and opposite, and this is reflected in the crew as well.

After fulfilling their first objective (a missile test launch near the North Pole), the submarine heads for the American East Coast for patrol duty. Then the unthinkable happens: a major coolant leakage in the aft reactor causes the temperature of the chain reaction to rise way above their safety level of 400 C or lower. The reactor crew tries unsuccessfuly to halt the chain reaction. Soon enough, the reactor temperature reaches levels dangerously high, and if it explodes, it could start a massive explosion of the submarine’s nuclear arsenal. Given the current political climate of tension, distrust, Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction, this not only would be a major environmental catastrophe; this would bring Armageddon.

Thus we have the main conflict in the story. This is the stage for a major showdown of character in face of adversity, a true test of convictions. The movie delivers, and the tale that ensues is harrowing, gut-wrenching, and strangely exhilarating to the very end. I mean, the acting is OK, even though it is nothing to write home about; but I couldn’t help thinking of the catastrophe of K-141 Kursk, sunk in the Barents sea in August 13, 2000, with all hands. The K-19 episode was so close to this and much more.

Overall, I liked the movie, and I have no problem to give it my recommendation. Very good in several respects.

Some points worth considering

At the end, there are several points worth noting in the development of the movie:

The clash of leadership styles. It was pretty clear that Captains Vostrikov and Polenin had leadership styles pretty different. Polenin was friendly, and almost paternalistic; he believed in leading a group of friends, coworkers, and subordinates. He saw himself more as a facilitator than as a true commander, relying on the trust and respect of his crew. Vostrikov, on the other hand, pushed the crew to its limits almost from the start, and the crew almost broke down under the pressure. He wanted to maintain a cohesive crew, bound by the common crush of adversity, real or made-up. He also failed to show true naval leadership, because a captain should not put his crew under continuous, torturing pressure. He should set high standards, and stick to them; but crew morale should be high as well. Vostrikov relied too much in the political commissioner for maintaining the morale; but morale, as well as the setting and maintenance of high standards of seamanship, is a function of the Captain’s leadership.

It is worth mentioning that both men based their leadership in paternal figures. There’s one scene when Polenin tells Vostrikov, “I believe the captain should be like a father to his crew”, to which Vostrikov retorted, “If you knew my father you would be paralyzed by fear.”

This is interesting because God is our Father, too; so how paternal figures are presented to us are critical in our relationship to God. We are often too quick to judge people who reject our Lord; and in many occasions, they never knew a real father figure, or what they had was just a stern dictator who never showed true affection.

The value of human life. Early in the movie, a high-ranking naval officer tells Capt. Vostrikov that Polenin “placed his ship and his crew above the interests of the Party”. Later on, at a very heated moment, Vostrikov states that his loyalty Lies only with the Soviet state. What becomes clear from this contrast is the true outcome of materialistic worldviews: human beings are no more than little thinking machines and they have a value exactly equal to any other piece of machinery. The only valuable, important being, is The State; and when some piece of junk becomes more valuable, human lives are ditched without a second thought. Vostrikov echoes this worldview, while Polenin’s actions tell that he still regarded human life as sacred in some way.

So we have a dilemma: should we carry our mission and lose lives, or save lives and fail to accomplish our mission? Master and Commander: The Far Side of The World, which I hold as the best naval movie in many years, illustrated this dilemma in many ways; but there is a scene where Capt. Jack Aubrey tells Maturin that he, as a captain, has to look for the well-being of his crew, but sometimes he had to choose mission over crew lives, and the crew knew it and even expected it. However, in Soviet naval doctrine this “sometimes” was changed to “every time”. And here we see the profound, de-humanizing force of socialistic materialism. As usual, C.S. Lewis said it all:

The rescue of drowning men is a duty worth dying for, but not worth
living for. It seems to me that all political duties (among which I
include military duties) are of this kind. A man may have to die for
our country, but no man must, in any exclusive sense, live for his
country. He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal
claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that
which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God: himself. (Learning in War-Time)

True loyalty. We already saw that Captains Polenin and Vostrikov were in strong disagreement as to how to handle the ship; and this disagreement and clash of leadership styles was apparent to the crew. However, Polenin knew his place as a sailor and his loyalty was to the ship’s captain, even in testing times.

During one scene there’s a mutiny led by two high-ranking officers. They wanted to hand the ship to Polenin; but Polenin refused, gave back the command to Vostrikov, and placed the two men under arrest. Later on, in the investigation that followed the incident, Polenin is speaking of Vostrikov in the highest terms, saying even that it would be an honor to sail under Vostrikov’s command.

This is also important considering that a follower of the Lord could face trying and tough times; and while one might question God, it is essential to keep following Him.

What is a real hero? The reactor officer, Vadim (Peter Sarsgaard), freaked out when he had to go inside the reactor room to perform emergency repairs in dangerous conditions. Though he got strange glances from other members of the crew, no one questioned him. Later on, when the repair broke out, he went on on his own and fixed it, getting twice the radiation exposure, and the captain told him that he was a hero. The point is, Vadim behaved like a coward first, but then he gave decisive and courageous help. It is OK to be afraid: the stuff heros are made of is not precisely lack of cowardice or fear, but a realization that these feelings are real, and are dealt with by a conscious choice of the will.

Widespread corruption costs lives. In one of the first scenes of the movies, a test fails because of a defective switch. A doctor dies trying to get to the supply truck, because he was given the wrong drugs. One of the gauges in the reactor room is defective: the operator must give it a tip with the finger to get the correct reading. The failure of the aft reactor is due to a leaky pipe. When emergency repairs had to be made in a high radiation environment, it turns out that there are no anti-radiation suits in the boat. See a common thread? Failure to follow standards, willingness to cut corners in production, too many mistakes made by a careless bureaucracy, all this points out to widespread corruption. Someone lined his pockets with the rubles that were necessary to make the submarine run smoothly. For this greed and carelessness, several crew members died.

Faith vs. superstition It is comical to see how superstitious the sailors were. When the champagne bottle did not break during the ship’s dedication, they thought: “We’re cursed!”. It is comical because these sailors were supposedly the cream of the crop of Soviet Russia, the foremos example of atheism by establishment. In another scene, one of the operators of the reactor was holding a cross when the reactor officer (Vadim) saw him, and reminded him that no religious icons or images were allowed inside the ship. Later on, when this same operator was lying in the infirmary, dying from radiation poisoning, Vadim himself put the cross on this man’s trembling fingers. How great the irony; when you refuse to submit to God in faith, you’re left to the worst –and crippling– superstition.

One of the majorly destructive myths of US culture is that self-esteem needs to be built up to a healthy level. There are a few things patently wrong with this. Mostly, it leaves God out of the picture by assuming that we have the ability to do things in and of ourselves. Some Christian psychologists seem to re-define the term to fit a biblical view. This also bothers me because it results in misconceptions and smooths the path to acceptance of similary termed secular ideas, not to mention that I think they usually hit the middle rather than defaulting to a purely biblical viewpoint on the issue.

My alternative, although I feel the need to study this further and welcome you joining me, is that we need to fully understand our purpose in God as he has revealed it to us. In secular self-esteem, we hold the statements of others or our accomplishments (and lack thereof) as the basis for our understanding of our own worth. This, ultimately is placing others before God by relegating God’s opinion as just another statement among many, if at all.

So where do we find our worth? Simply, in the sacrifice God made for us. Jesus Christ willingly died for us and God allowed his only and perfect son to be killed. We are told that all heaven rejoices when one soul is saved.

Apparently, God thinks much of us and so should we. We are the only creation He has expressed such a connection with. Our worth comes from God’s pleasure in us, His plan for us, and His provision to meet that plan. From this I draw that when I look at myself and find anything that is worthy of esteem, I should direct that esteem towards the creator, God and not myself.

We are part of creation and so are an example of His handy work. Additionally, we are given special attention in creation. We have our own day and that doesn’t include the creation of our women. We are the only part of creation God gave such attention. I like to consider humanity as God’s masterpiece. This care trickles down into each of us individually.

Another aspect, to think poorly of ourself is to suggest that God was not a mastercraftsman in you and calls into question His sovreignty and perfection. To think to highly of ourselves is to consider ourselves greater than God. Additionally. we should remember our sin as we calculate, but also that this is negated beause Christ already cleared this sin. Again, an example that we are nothing without the sustaining power of God.

I have not done much to support this with chapter and verse as I consider the references to scripture to by general and commonly accepted. I would gladly find support in the event that something here peaks someone’s interest.

Virginia asked me a very good question: Why do I blog in English? That’s actually a very good question, and the answer, while straightforward, is something that in my opinion merits something more than a simple comment reply.

I am (surprise) Hispanic in my culture; as for race you could probably say that, although if you really dig into my racial heritage you’ll find a lot of backgrounds, from Russian to American Indian and everything in between (big deal. Yeah, right). My mother tongue is Spanish, and I understand some Guaraní, which is the indigenous language of this part of the world. So, why do I blog in English? Why don’t just settle down and blog in Spanish? After all, the Spanish-speaking blogosphere is noticeably smaller; therefore, a Spanish-speaking blog has less ‘competition’ for the audience, right?

The first reason is personal. I blog in English because it gives me a great opportunity to practice and keep alive my knowledge of the language. Since it is not my mother tongue, practice is required; and, for a second language, reading is one thing, and writing is another. Thinking, writing and exercising my creative vision into another language is a great way to keep a language current.

The second reason is practical. Whether one likes it or not, English is the lingua franca of the Net (and of the world right now) and, sadly, the Spanish-speaking people is extremely under-represented in cyberspace. Thus, writing in English helps ensure that this writer’s ideas will be accessible to a great number and variety of people.

The third reason is hermeneutical. This is perhaps the most important reason of all.

I blog in English because I would like to be a bridge. I’m sick and tired of reading that the Hispanic and Anglo-Saxon cultures are different, diveregent and in opposition. My position is that the greater Hispanic cultural complex (and note that I do not refer myself to Latino culture in the U.S., which is a subset of the latter) is in fact another expression of Western civilization, so we share a lot more than the things that obviously keep us apart. I take strong exception to everyone who would classify us Hispanics as non-Westerners.

Of course you can find strange, non-Western dominant features in some Hispanic subcultures; but then, taking them as true representatives of our Hispanic world would be tantamount as taking Cockneys as being the measure of English culture, or Appalachians poor whites as the standard manifestation of American culture. It’s not entirely correct, right? Well, that’s how I feel sometimes when I see what people regard as true measures of Hispanic cultures. You can see Ricky Martin and Isabel Allende as manifestations of Hispanic culture; but remember that Borges, Xavier Zubiri and Berta Rojas are that and a lot more, too.

Update Oct-06: Some clarifications and corrections added. A new example was added as well.

This post from Challies.com got me thinking. The post is well-argued and presents a good position even when the writer admits his lack of knowledge.

One of the indicators of really lousy rhetorics and weak argumentation is when one of the sides of the debate deliberately chooses to obfuscate some of the issues. It almost seems as if that side is well aware of crippling flaws in their exposition, and yet they refuse to acknowledge the fact out of some hidden interest. They prefer their victory at any price rather than truth.

The most egregious examples comes from the life and healthcare sciences, and especially bioethics (why is that I am not surprised here?). We will see some of the examples and how the obfuscation is at work.

1.Let’s begin with the subject of Challies’ post: contraception. After living as a committed bachelor (involuntarily, but committed, anyway) for a long time, I got married less than two years ago. When speaking with my then-fiancée, one of the issues that surfaced was this. How we would approach parenting and births? Should we use contraception? My wife is Roman Catholic, so she was and still is firmly opposed to all artificial contraception on principle; I am somewhat more open, but after some study I’ve concluded that any contraception other than the natural methods are unacceptable either on moral or practical grounds.

One of the examples of the moral unacceptability of several contraceptives is the pill. Challies, in his post, pointed out the abortive nature of the pill, and he is right. The intake of progesterone and estrogen works in many ways in the woman’s body, but it is an established fact that one of the effects of this is the prevention of the implantation of the fertilized egg. This was one of my biggest reasons to reject any kind of hormonal contraceptive treatment.

The other one is the intrauterine device (IUD), which, as one of Challies’ commenters pointed out, works as a contraceptive by being an abortifacient. In other words: The IUD is effective because it blocks the implantation of the fertilized egg. It does not block fertilization.

If the fact that life begins at conception is accepted as a given, then these contraceptives cannot be accepted as sound on moral grounds. But the manufacturers try very hard to hide these facts of the pill and the IUD, often burying it either on tons of hype or technical jargon. A honest approach would expect such issues, so important to a great portion of their consumers’ belief, to be acknowledged.

2. Another egregious example that is not only obfuscated by deceptive rhetorics, but also by the sheer noise of the debate, is the stem-cell issue. Can the use of stem cells for the purposes of research be deemed as acceptable? Many people –an now, with Election Day approaching fast in the U.S.– would try to convince us that the use of stem cells is good and the cure of all evils in this world; but the ugly, bad, Middle-Age-minded Christian fundies and right-wing wackos are obscurantist people, set against the progress of humanity and the alleviation of suffering, and trying to impose their absurd beliefs on the poor Americans. So, the good, compassionate, enlightened champions of science and progress must Inherit the Wind and Eppur Si Muove all over again, Kleenex box included. Right? Not!

The Christian Church is not opposed to scientific research. Even more, we as Christians are not opposed to the use of stem cells in research. The problem comes with embryonic stem cells, that is, cells harvested from human embryos. We find this unacceptable because it tampers with the realm of an human embryo which has all the dignity and the rights of a person. The researchers are perfectly free to use adult stem cells obtained in ethical ways. But embryonic stem cells, while very similar in the scientific realm, are a totally different issue in the moral sphere. (Of course, the question of whether stem-cell research will definitely lead us to the cure for diseases such as Alzheimer’s is totally debatable in and out of itself). But not. All we get is “Christians are anti-stem-cell. Christians are anti-science.” Yuck.

3. Another obfuscated area is that of food additives, and especially, sweeteners. Two cases come to my mind: Aspartame, and sucralose.

a) Aspartame is the food sweetener known commercially as NutraSweet. It is a methyl ester of aspartic acid and phenylalanine (and that’s why you should read a warning for phenylketonurics in foods containing it). It’s generally very convenient, providing good sweetening value at no calories.

The problem? The fact that it’s a methyl ester, that’s the problem. When exposed to the acid medium of the stomach, at least a small amount of aspartame is going to be hydrolized, thus releasing methanol to the organism, which is extremely toxic. Did you experience some dizziness, headache, or nausea after taking NutraSweet-sweetened foods? Well, now you know the culprit. What keeps us safe is that the amounts of NutraSweet required to sweeten foods provide a very small amount of methanol, but some people are more sensible than others. I don’t have any problem taking NutraSweet, but my younger sister is. She cut down on all beverages with NutraSweet.

The obfuscation comes here: NutraSweet will tell you that the methyl ester bond is very safe and will not break. They will insist a lot in this issue, often reinforcing it with words like “extremely safe”, “reassuring”, “proven”, etc. How ridicule! Think for a moment of this: Fats (triglicerydes) are esters. Far more stable esters, I might add. And yet, they are hydrolized not only in the intestines, but also in the stomach. And NutraSweet manufacturers would like to make us believe that a methyl ester is safer! Meanwhile they also are offering for sale this nice bridge at Brooklyn and these other at Golden Gate…

b) The other example of obfuscated sweeteners is sucralose, better known as Splenda. Splenda is aggressively marketed as the ultimate sweetener, a safe alternative to sugar with no calories, good taste, and resistance to heating. Sucralose is a sucrose derivative that contains a galactose instead of glucose in the hexose part, and substitutes three hydroxyl groups for chlorine atoms.

When I saw the chemical structure of sucralose my jaw dropped. Who on earth would want to eat a chlorinated sugar?!?! Last time I saw covalent chlorine bonds in contact with life, these were poison. Check the structure of DDT or Gamexane if you like. But no, the good fellows at some chemical company decided that it would be good for us as a sweetener!

Now, here’s when the obfuscation becomes apparent. The website glosses over the chlorination of sucralose, burying it in marketing hype: “The process selectively replaces three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sugar molecule with three chlorine atoms. Chlorine is present naturally in many of the foods and beverages that we eat and drink every day ranging from lettuce, mushrooms and table salt. In the case of sucralose, its addition converts sucrose to sucralose, which is essentially inert.”

Bollocks. This smells worse than horse manure. Of course that chlorine does occur naturally in every inch of life. But this isn’t covalent chlorine. This is ionic chlorine, present in the form of chloryde ion, forming ionic bonds with positive ions such as sodium, potassium or ammonium. This is obfuscation to the highest! Let’s look at this: Nitrogen also occurs naturally and in gas form is very inert and safe. But nitrogen also occurs in cyanide, and that’s not safe, is it?

The fact is, you are bound to find chlorine atoms everywhere in life, because chlorine is a chemical element and a building block of life’s chemical structure. But you won’t find it as a covalent bond, save perhaps very special cases. I say again, if you want to see chlorine like that of sucralose, go check Gamexane or DDT and come back.

4. While I was sleeping, it dawned on me another egregious example of obfuscation: cholesterol. It is pretty well known that high levels of cholesterol from LDL (known as the “bad” cholesterol) leads to a much higher risk of heart disease and strokes due to the formation of cholesterol deposits in the walls of blood vessels. Granted. What you should do to avoid it? Well, according to the obfuscated propaganda, you should avoid animal foods, animal fats, and foods containing cholesterol.

This surely sounds right. But the following are facts that some people would like you to ignore:

• Cholesterol is essential for life. Cholesterol is a steroid alcohol which is thought to give firmness to cell membranes. It is so essential that there are no known “lack of cholesterol” deficiencies; a fertilized egg without the ability to synthesize cholesterol would not survive a minute.
• Cholesterol is synthesized from Acetyl-CoA, the very center of metabolism. Practically anything will be metabolized into Acetyl-CoA.

These are just two of the facts of cholesterol that some people would not like you to know. Cholesterol is not poison; it is essential for life! And it is made from Acetyl-CoA, so, sorry buddy, you’re out of luck: if for some reason you have a tendency to get high levels of cholesterol, dietary measures would not be directly effective: Cholesterol is made from Acetyl-CoA, and anything that gets eaten is converted into it. I’m sure most of the “health tips” or information don’t have this information.

But, then, what can you do to reduce cholesterol levels? There are some measures. First of all, let me say what is not. Reducing your dietary cholesterol intake (i.e., cutting on animal fats, dairy or eggs) will most likely not work. Only 10% of your total cholesterol is taken from diet. The rest is built by your body. For the same reason, reducing just the intake of animal fats will not work. You could reduce your animal fat, but you would still get Acetyl-CoA from vegetable and other sources, and this very well could be used for the synthesis of cholesterol.

One might think, then, that reducing Acetyl-CoA is the key to reduce cholesterol. That’s partially right. You can reduce Acetyl-CoA by reducing your total intake of calories. It’s not the animal fats. It’s not saturated fats, either, nor the dietary cholesterol. If you want to reduce your cholesterol by cutting your supply of Acetyl-CoA, then you should cut down your calories from any source.

You can also take enzyme inhibitors that inhibit the buildup of cholesterol, such as lovastatin and others. They are effective to a point.

Another approach is the interruption of the “enterohepatic cycle”. This stems from the fact that the body is unable to completely break down cholesterol; the only way to dispose cholesterol in the body is by converting it into bile salts, which then go into the small intestine to help in the digestion of fats. Some of these bile salts get into the blood again, and they’re converted back into cholesterol, and others go out with the feces. The process by which cholesterol is converted into bile salts that are excreted into the intestinal lumen, and then these bile salts are absorbed back into the blood and later converted back into cholesterol is called the “enterohepatic cycle”.

It is possible to break down the cycle by using resins, such as Colestipol and Cholestyramine. These resines bind bile salts into their molecular surface, and, since they cannot be digested or absorbed by the body, they get out with the feces, taking with them the bulk of bile salts. This is a natural way of cutting down cholesterol levels. Of course, the resines have their side effects such as constipation. But these could be worked out.

It is telling that one does not hear of these alternatives more often.

Now, I wonder. Why is that someone finds the need to obfuscate facts essential to the discussion of issues? Why don’t simply acknowledge, and try to address the issues these facts raise in a more honest way? It surely baffles me.

As one would come to expect of him, Ed has a talent to write clearly, in an almost brutal way, about touchy subjects. In his latest writing, Blind Herd Instinct he writes an interesting take on Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita. This complements a longer take on the issue of paedophilia. Both writings are thoughtful and strongly recommended, but please do read with caution: Ed’s blunt style when dealing with sensitive issues is an advantage, but it can drive the unsuspecting reader away scared. Don’t do that; stay put, think, and read it through.

It always seemed strange to me how the law would treat going after, say a 12 year-old girl and a 17 year-old girl as being the same. While the law would deem both things as “paedophilia” I would resist calling the latter as such. Maybe the gentleman who is suing for the affections of a 16 year-old girl is a fool, but not a paedophile nor pervert.

In most Latin cultures this has a very different take. I know that hard limits are full of exception on both sides of the lines; but here, in my country, if you go after a 12 year old young lady, you could get killed; but if that same lady would have the age of fifteen or more, that would be acceptable. You might be rejected and told to go away by the girl or her parents, but you would definitely not be seen as a paedophile. And if the girl is willing, the parents may grant permission for the courtship to proceed in open view of everyone. Eventually, of course, this should lead into marriage.

You might know that in our cultures, the 15th birthday of a girl is quite an occasion. That is because the fifthteenth birthday officially signals for a young lady the transit from childhood to womanhood. From now on, she’s “fair game” for courtship purposes. While I despise such customs, and also the drawing of such hard limits with no regards to the inner conditions of the lady’s development, I still can see that this approach is more understanding of human nature than blindly blanket-labeling the attraction for teenagers under the age of consent as “paedophilia”.

A closing thought: The Church needs sorely to help here, as is the case in all the areas of sexuality, especially male sexuality. Believe me, one of the reasons males are being increasingly put-off by churches, and are rejecting churches, is because churches try to be “sensitive” in everything, but have almost no consideration for an honest, down-to-earth, in-your-face, no-holds-barred and no-dash-phrase-lacking-;) approach to male’s sexuality issues. The Church’s struggle against pornography is a joke, an utterly absurd pharisaical and Victorian joke. The Church’s orientations agains sexual ethics in the workplace (things such as how to deal with issues of harassment, or flirty employees, etc) are almost non-existent. End of rant.

What do you think?