Sometimes it’s nice to be wrong

Back in May, I noted that gas prices had climbed by 60 cents a gallon in the previous several weeks and predicted that they would keep climbing; I thought there was a good chance they’d be threatening the $4 per gallon mark again by Labor Day. Instead, they’ve dropped slightly over that time (down below $2.40 a gallon here this morning); the weakness of the economy has stifled the rise that I thought I saw coming, at least for now. (For the long term, I still see people projecting a significant rise in oil prices, and the administration policies that would tend to drive that are still in place.)

I’m glad I was wrong about that. I’m glad because higher gas prices would have taken money out of our pocket as a family; I’m glad because part of the picture in all this is that the energy-tax bill hasn’t passed the Senate; and I’m glad because I think the country’s better off than it would have been had I been right.

Sarah Palin knew what she was doing

when she stepped down and turned the Alaska governor’s office over to Sean Parnell: he’s been able to govern Alaska without the farrago of nonsense and spite that was draining her time and energy, since he isn’t Target No. 1 for the Left and its battalion of snipers, and he’s been carrying on her policies and approaches the same way she would have, as the ADN points out:

Gov. Sean Parnell is playing the state’s cards just right with the North Slope gas holders. Before they’ll invest billions in a North Slope gas pipeline, they say they need more “fiscal certainty” over future taxes than the state is currently offering. It’s too early to talk about more concessions, says Gov. Parnell. The big three gas holders are split between two different gas line projects, including one led by the state’s licensee, TransCanada. When the gas holders unite behind a common project, Gov. Parnell says, then we can talk about whether more tax certainty is really needed.

That’s absolutely the right call. . . .

With so much at stake, a misstep in this business deal could cost the state billions. As Gov. Parnell has said, in business, one rule is that you don’t negotiate against yourself. You don’t give up valuable things early in the process before you are absolutely certain it’s necessary. . . .

Gov. Parnell is not worried about being “friendly” with the oil and gas industry on the gas line. He’s doing what a responsible Alaska governor should be doing. He is taking a strong stand that protects the business interests of his “shareholders”—Alaska’s citizens—in this multibillion-dollar business deal.

So, she got free of the anklebiters and put herself in a position to influence the direction of this country on a national level through Facebook and other platforms, all without jeopardizing the success of the initiatives she’d begun in Alaska, because she knew she and her successor were on the same page and he had the skills and the understanding to finish what she’d started. Not that it’s really needed at this point, but I’d say that’s yet more vindication of Gov. Palin’s political judgment and the wisdom of her decision to resign.

(Crossposted at Conservatives4Palin)

The angle of faith

There are a lot of folks in this world who try to live the Christian life out of their own strength, according to their own wisdom, as it seems reasonable to them; and there are a lot of churches that cater to such folks, and operate on such principles. That, I think, is part of the reason for the modern desire for legalism that Jared Wilson has written so much about. The problem is, that just doesn’t work; you can’t live a life that is in any meaningful way Christian from the same perspective and the same set of assumptions from which the world operates. You just can’t do it. Following Christ in this life has to begin with the renewing of our minds, with a radical shift in perspective and assumptions, because it’s only from that new perspective that we can even see what the Christian life really is, let alone that it makes any sense at all.

From the world’s perspective, life is all about us; from the perspective of faith, it’s all about God. From a human perspective, the life of faith makes no sense, because we can’t control how God will take care of us; from the perspective of faith, we can see that he will always give us what is best for us, and always in time. And a human perspective on how to live the Christian life breaks down, because it understands neither the depth of our sin nor the goodness of God, into either legalism or lawlessness. The perspective of faith helps us to see just how bad our sin is, and just how thoroughly it permeates our lives—and just how great a gift our salvation is, and how wonderful the grace of God is, and how much better God is than anything this world has to offer; it inspires us to gratitude for that gift and the desire to please God, and to know God, and that is what drives the kind of life that pleases him. Indeed, only that can produce the kind of life that pleases him, because what he wants most of all is for us to seek him.

(Adapted from “The View from Saturday”)

Notes and neurons

I was thinking about this this morning and realized I’d never gotten around to posting it; this is wonderful. It is indeed, as Bobby McFerrin says, the power of the pentatonic scale—and of music in general, I think; it’s also a remarkable illustration of the beauty of the order of God’s creation, and of the ways in which we’re made for, and made to respond to, that order, even in our fallen state.

The View from Saturday

(Proverbs 2:1-11; James 1:1-12)

One of the good things about being a parent is that there are a lot of great children’s books; in fact, the really good children’s authors are some of the best writers going these days. Though many adult books ought to go right from the publisher to the recycle bin—including many best-sellers—there are a lot of books written for kids which most adults would do well to read. One of the authors who comes to mind for me when I say that, and certainly one of the most respected authors of children’s novels out there, is E. L. Konigsburg.

A trained chemist who decided she lacked the temperament to work in that field—during her master’s work at the University of Pittsburgh, she twice blew up the laboratory sink—Konigsburg started writing fairly late, in her mid-30s, after the last of her three children was in kindergarten. She started with a bang, though, winning the 1968 Newbery Medal for her first book, From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler—and seeing her second novel finish as runner-up that same year, the only time that’s ever happened. 29 years later, she became one of just five people to win two Newberys—and set the record for the longest gap in between wins—with her novel The View from Saturday, which might just be the best book of her long and illustrious career.

That is, of course, the book from which I took the title of this message, and I did so for good reason. The View from Saturday is a book which says that life only makes sense when you look at it from the right perspective. It’s the story of four gifted sixth-grade misfits—Noah Gershom, Nadia Diamondstein, Ethan Potter, and Julian Singh—and their teacher, Mrs. Olinski, newly paralyzed from a terrible car accident and adjusting to life in a wheelchair. Mrs. Olinski chooses Noah, Nadia, Ethan and Julian to be their school’s sixth-grade Academic Bowl team—but it’s Julian, a recent immigrant from India with a rather different outlook on life, who makes them a team by inviting them to tea at his house every Saturday. The book intersperses the account of their final match, in the championship—which they of course win, becoming the first sixth-grade team ever to beat the eighth-graders—with chapters in which the team members, gathered for tea, tell each other their own stories.

It’s a brilliant book, and the title is the key to understanding it. It’s fundamentally about the way that the view from Saturday—first, the Saturday tea parties, and second, the great Saturday on which they win the championship—changes the way the members of this team see everything else about their lives, and ultimately changes them. In the view from Saturday, their lives look very different, and say very different things about them, because they themselves are different—and better. From that angle, everything else makes sense; from that angle, looking backward, they are able to see themselves clearly enough to see the way forward.

E. L. Konigsburg has captured something very important here: life only makes sense when looked at from the right perspective. This truth is critical to understanding the Christian life, and especially to understanding the letter of James. To be sure, there are many who would see little value in understanding James. For such a straightforward, plainspoken book, it’s an odd one, with an odd history; partly because it’s so plainspoken, people have tended to treat it too simply, as a book they don’t have to think to understand, and that’s caused all sorts of problems. Most famously, Martin Luther took it to contradict the letters of Paul and proclaimed it a “right strawy epistle,” even going so far as to tear it out of his own copy of the Bible, and in so doing set in motion centuries of Protestant neglect. This is unfortunate, because it’s a profoundly important book for our understanding of the Christian life, and one which rewards study.

Perhaps the most important thing to note is that the first chapter serves as a sort of overture to the rest of the book, setting out the themes which James will explore at greater length in chapters 2 through 5. In so doing, he’s able to set these smaller themes in the context of the overarching themes of the book; in my judgment, there are two, closely related. One, which finds its best statement in James 4:4, is that there are two ways set before us—the way of friendship with the world, and the way of friendship with God—which are mutually exclusive. This contrast between the two ways drives much of this book. The other is that the way of friendship with God only makes sense, to borrow from E. L. Konigsburg, in the view from Saturday—or perhaps we might say, the view from Sunday. From the world’s perspective, this way of life makes no more sense, and has no more value, than did the lives of Noah, Nadia, Ethan and Julian; but just as Saturday gave those four gifted young people a new place to stand to see their lives in a new way, so faith in God gives us a new place to stand, so that we can see our lives in a new way.

From the world’s perspective, life is all about us; from the perspective of faith, it’s all about God. From a human perspective, the life of faith makes no sense, because we can’t control how God will take care of us; from the perspective of faith, we can see that he will always give us what is best for us, and always in time. And a human perspective on how to live the Christian life breaks down, because it understands neither the depth of our sin nor the goodness of God, into either legalism or lawlessness. The perspective of faith helps us to see just how bad our sin is, and just how thoroughly it permeates our lives—and just how great a gift our salvation is, and how wonderful the grace of God is, and how much better God is than anything this world has to offer; it inspires us to gratitude for that gift and the desire to please God, and to know God, and that is what drives the kind of life that pleases him. Indeed, only that can produce the kind of life that pleases him, because what he wants most of all is for us to seek him.

It’s in this light that James says, “Whenever you face trials of any kind, consider it pure joy.” From a human perspective, that’s ludicrous. Consider it pure joy when your back gives out, or your knee, or your hip, and you need surgery? Consider it pure joy when you fight temptation? Consider it pure joy when someone you love is sick? Consider it pure joy when you’re threatened and your home is attacked? That takes a lot of nerve to say; but that’s what James says. He’s not saying you should be happy when trials come—it’s not as if we’re supposed to say, “Oh goody, I’ve just been evicted from my home, isn’t this wonderful”—but in the midst of trials and the struggle and suffering they bring, we should find joy. Why? Because unlike happiness, which is rooted in our circumstances, joy is rooted in the promises of God through Jesus Christ, and in our certainty that he who made those promises is faithful to keep them.

One of those promises is that God is in control in everything that happens to us, using it for our good; and so James says here, “Consider it pure joy, because you know that the testing of your faith produces endurance.” We talked about the importance of endurance last week from 1 Timothy 6; it has been often and truly said that the Christian life is a marathon, not a sprint, which means that if we’re running to win, we have to be able to keep up the pace, even when it’s hardest. Here, James adds the observation that it’s precisely in doing this, in facing trials and not giving up or backing down, that we build endurance. Just as exercise tries our muscles in order to force them to respond and grow, building physical strength and endurance, so trials force us to respond and grow as whole people, building strength of character and the ability to endure difficult times without losing our faith. Of course, if you overstress your muscles, you’ll hurt yourself, and a trial too great for us to handle would do the same; but we can trust that God won’t send us any trials we can’t handle—even if, as Mother Theresa once said, we might sometimes wish he didn’t trust us so much. It’s simply that, as we saw last week, the only way to build endurance is to reach what we think is our limit—and keep going.

As we face trials, the testing of our faith produces endurance in our faith; and as we grow in endurance, we mature in the work God has called us to do, bringing that work ultimately to completion. And note the purpose James declares for this—not simply that we each might do good things, but so that we ourselves might be perfect and complete. Ultimately, it’s not only the things we do that are the work in view here, but it’s us—we are the finished product. The idea is, as NT scholar Luke Timothy Johnson puts it, that the deed perfects the person: as we endure trials and act in faith and hold fast to God and do his will, God works in us through these actions to transform and perfect us, to bring his work in us to full maturity, so that we may be perfect and complete, with no areas in which we fall short.

Now, as we’ve already noted, from a human point of view, this all sounds very fishy; to really understand it, we need a different perspective, a view from Saturday. Put another way, we need more than human wisdom, we need the wisdom of God; we need the ability to see ourselves and our world truly, and to turn that true perception into proper action. That’s what biblical wisdom means: to learn how to live in accordance with the will and character of God, and then to live that way. Thus James says here, “If any of you don’t understand this, if this doesn’t make sense to you, then ask God for wisdom to be able to understand it; and if you ask God, who gives to everyone generously and without complaint, for wisdom, he’ll give it to you.” It is, after all, God’s desire that we know him, that we know his will for our lives, and that we do his will; if we ask him to give us the wisdom we need to be able to do that, the new perspective we need to see our lives as he sees us, we may do so in the certainty that he will give us what we ask.

This is why James comes down so hard on doubt. He’s not talking here about those who struggle to believe, who are committed to faith in God but find it hard going; rather, he’s talking about someone we might almost call a professional doubter, someone who truly has a divided mind and heart—they have one foot in the community of faith, and one foot in the world, and they just aren’t willing to take that second step all the way in. It’s not that they doubt that God can give them his wisdom—but they’re doubtful that they want it; and that sort of doubt disables prayer, and is absolutely lethal to the life of faith. Such people are, as James says, unstable, driven and tossed about by every gust of wind, like waves on the sea.

By contrast, if we take that second step, if we commit ourselves to live by faith, even though that might seem very uncertain from the world’s point of view, we find that we stand firm and fast on a solid rock. To the world, that seems hard to believe, for all the world sees is our faith, and our faith isn’t enough by itself to hold us up—some days, our faith is strong, but other days it’s weak, as it’s unclear to us what God is doing, or even if he’s doing anything with us at all. But the key here is that our faith doesn’t need to support us, for we haven’t put our faith in our faith—we have put our faith in Christ, and no matter what trials may come, no matter what testing we may face, Christ is the solid ground beneath our feet, the firm foundation of our lives, and the anchor who holds us fast in even the worst of storms.

Considering the intelligence of Barack Obama

What I want to know, if I have reason to try to figure out how smart people are, would be things like this: Are they able to comprehend, internalize, and then begin to properly use complicated concepts? If so, how quickly—are they fast learners? How about their problem-solving ability? Can they innovate, finding new ways around problems, or do they just keep going back to a few approaches that have worked for them before? Are they creative? Do they have a nose for good ideas, whether their own or someone else’s? Can they recognize when someone’s critique of their own ideas is valid, and if so, are they able to make use of that critique to improve their ideas?

As it happens, my idea of what an intelligent person looks like meshes well with that of Elaine Lafferty, former editor of Ms. magazine:

Now by “smart,” I don’t refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don’t really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I’d heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. . . .

For all those old enough to remember Senator Sam Ervin, the brilliant strict constitutional constructionist and chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee whose patois included “I’m just a country lawyer” . . . Yup, Palin is that smart.

The question is, does this description match the reality of our president? One of the big arguments for Barack Obama from his supporters has been that he’s extremely intelligent; at this point, that’s pretty much the received wisdom. I’m increasingly skeptical about that, though. Sure, there’s no question he’s a smart man; but the idea that he’s extremely smart essentially rests on five things:

  • He went to Columbia
  • He went to Harvard Law
  • He’s written books
  • He’s good one-on-one with people
  • He’s liberal

And that’s basically it. The last comes into play because of the natural human tendency to overrate the intelligence of people who argue for positions we ourselves support—we tend to overvalue arguments that lead to conclusions we agree with, and undervalue arguments that challenge our conclusions. Thus, from the perspective of our liberal media, Barack Obama must be smarter, because he believes and argues for things which are true, than (let’s say) George W. Bush, who believes and argues for things which are not true. The fallacy, of course, is that whether we like the conclusions of an argument or not doesn’t actually say anything about the quality of that argument, and thus people aren’t actually smarter because they agree with us; but we tend to perceive them so.

As for the others? Well, yes, he went to Columbia; but if he showed any evidence of extraordinary intelligence or aptitude while there, we haven’t seen it, because the president and his supporters have been quite careful not to let us see it. This tends to suggest, of course, that his academic record there doesn’t in fact show any such evidence.

Harvard Law? Well, he clearly showed evidence of significant political skills there, getting the student body to elect him president of the law review; but beyond that? Carole Platt Liebau, who the next year would be the first female managing editor of the Harvard Law Review, paints an unflattering picture of his tenure there:

[W]hen he was at the HLR you did get a very distinct sense that he was the kind of guy who much more interested in being the president of the Review, than he was in doing anything as president of the Review.

A lot of the time he quote/unquote “worked from home”, which was sort of a shorthand—and people would say it sort of wryly—shorthand for not really doing much. He just wasn’t around. Most of the day to day work was carried out by the managing editor of the Review, my predecessor, a great guy called Tom Pirelli who’s actually going to be one of the assistant attorney generals now.

He’s the one who did most of the day to day work. Barack Obama was nowhere to be seen. Occasionally he would drop in he would talk to people, and then he’d leave again as though his very arrival had been a benediction in and of itself, but not very much got done.

His inaction extended beyond his indifference to running the Harvard Law Review; during his time at the law school, he wrote almost nothing for it—just a brief case comment—and nothing during his tenure as its president. That he would be allowed to run the HLR with such a thin résumé suggests that it wasn’t his abilities that kept him in the position. By way of comparison, here’s Beldar’s account of his time as an editor of the Texas Law Review:

Second-year members were required, upon penalty of being kicked off the Review, to produce, on deadline, a publishable quality “student note.” At Texas and most other top 20 law journals, such student notes tend to be not much different, either in scope or length or even quality, from the articles submitted by aspiring young law professors hoping to publish to promote their tenure prospects. We’d moved away from the earlier practice of having students write shorter, more limited “case-notes” that typically focused on a single new judicial decision, and instead encouraged more ambitious writing that would genuinely add something creative and new to the legal literature.

It was quite typical at Texas (and, I think, at most other major law reviews) that each new editor-in-chief, in fact, would be the student who, as a second-year member, had produced and published the very best student note. In the class ahead of me, my own class, and the class behind me at Texas, there was a wide-spread consensus on whose notes were the best. It is inconceivable to me that any of the three of them would have been selected to be editor-in-chief if they hadn’t written a publishable note at all. And indeed, the quality of their respective notes became the source of the each new editor-in-chief’s credibility as first among equals, final decision-maker, and the only editor permitted to use a blue pencil for his copy-editing (which no other editor would dare erase or alter without close consultation). . . .

At Texas and, I believe, most other major law reviews, the rule for members was (and I think still is): “Publish or perish, up or out.” If you didn’t produce a publishable-quality note on deadline, your name was stricken from the membership list on the masthead, you had no opportunity to become an editor, and—worst of all—you became ethically obliged to call back all those employers who’d extended you job offers in part based on a résumé credential that you were no longer entitled to claim.

Taken in conjunction with the fact that Obama didn’t do much as a young lawyer, there’s simply not a lot here to support any great claims for his intelligence.

But what about the book? Even if he didn’t write anything of significance at Harvard, he has written a couple books, and particularly Dreams from my Father. Except that there are good reasons to doubt that he did in fact write that book, for one; and for another, even if we grant him that credential, writing an engaging memoir isn’t really evidence of high intelligence. Kirby Higbe did the same thing, though with acknowledged help, and he only had a seventh-grade education.

The thing that really convinces people that the president is super-smart, though, is that he’s good at making that impression. That is, of course, no small thing; but it’s not necessarily the proof people think it is. The thing that really strikes me about the oohing and aahing over President Obama’s intelligence is how content-free it is. What I mean by that is, I see a lot of people coming away from encounters with him talking about how smart he is, but I don’t see any of them talking about any new ideas he expressed, or any startling insights. I don’t see any evidence of the products of intelligence, just of his ability to convince people he’s highly intelligent. In my experience, that’s usually a sign that the person in question is really just smart enough to fake it.

This fits: I don’t see any new ideas or insights expressed in the work of his administration, either. I don’t see any great leadership coming from his administration—rather, I see an administration that has left many of its leadership responsibilities to Congress. I see the same old ideas recycled—and when they’re met with opposition, I see the same old tired tacticsrecycled to deal with that opposition. This administration doesn’t seem able to out-argue its critics; when its initiatives flounder, it doesn’t seem to have any better ideas than to accuse its opponents of racism and call them Nazis and brown-shirts, on the one hand, and to have yet another stacked town meeting full of puffball “questions” on the other, preferably on prime-time TV.

All of which is to say, while I don’t have any doubt that President Obama is a smart man and a gifted campaigner, I don’t see any significant evidence of his intelligence beyond the fact of his election. On the basis of his record, what I see is a smart man, but far from a brilliant one, whose intelligence has been largely focused on impressing people, and who’s very good at doing that, both one-on-one and on the large scale of a political campaign. I don’t see much evidence of wisdom in any aspect of his life, and I don’t see any real evidence of an active broad-gauge intelligence.

(Adapted from a post on Conservatives4Palin)

 

The remarkable reach of the hand of God

Brent Bozell tells a remarkable story:

I was stunned to read on Life Site News that a new movie is being planned about Our Lady of Guadalupe, so-named for an appearance of the Virgin Mary near Mexico City in 1531 that’s credited with converting nine million indigenous Mexicans to Christianity. The film, still untitled, will be produced by Mpower Pictures, the company that was launched with the pro-life movie “Bella” in 2006 and founded by “The Passion of the Christ” producer Steve McEveety.

That a movie would be made about Our Lady of Guadalupe is amazing, but that wasn’t half the surprise. The movie is being written by Joe Eszterhas. Yes, the same Joe Eszterhas responsible for screenwriting filthy movies like “Basic Instinct” and most infamously, “Showgirls,” a movie so pornographic even the late Jack Valenti condemned it.

What I didn’t know until now is the story of the conversion of Joe Eszterhas in 2001, powerfully captured in his 2008 memoir entitled “Crossbearer: A Memoir of Faith.”

It’s yet another reminder that God doesn’t just do the impossible, he does the implausible. Read the whole thing.

The power of grace

I’m reading Larry Crabb’s book Real Church right now—I was given a copy by one of my fellow pastors here in town, and I expect we’ll be talking about it; I also expect I’ll be writing some about it, once I’ve finished it. I’ll have to, if I want to process it fully. For right now, I just want to post this quote from the book, which really struck me:

Grace has no felt power in our lives until it surprises the hell out of us.

Yeah, that’s the way of it, alright.

Free to repent

Ray Ortlund put up a wonderful post recently considering the question, “How come a stereotype of the church today is one of a ‘holier than thou’ mentality?” He offers some thoughts on the matter (which are well worth your time to read—it’s not a long post), then closes with this:

I know this. We Christians will see more repentance in our city when our city sees more repentance in us. And we can be honest about our failings, because it isn’t our performance that makes us okay. It’s Christ’s performance for us. That’s the gospel. It’s so freeing.

Amen. That’s the thing about the gospel: it sets us free from the need to be good enough, and thus from the need to convince others (and ourselves) that we already are good enough. You’ll never know how heavy a burden that is until you lay it down. I think that often, one of the biggest things that holds us back from repentance is the unwillingness to acknowledge to others that we are in fact sinners, because that would mean admitting that we aren’t good enough; it’s a wonderfully freeing thing to be able to lay that aside and just repent.