“Send ’em up, I’ll wait!”

This is too good not to post.  Don Surber of the Charleston Daily Mail passed along this conversation from an e-mail correspondent—it was apparently overheard on one of the air-traffic frequencies by a guy flying into Dubai:

Iranian Air Defense Radar: “Unknown aircraft, you are in Iranian airspace. Identify yourself.”

Pilot: “This is a United States aircraft. I am in Iraqi airspace.”

Air Defense Radar: “You are in Iranian airspace. If you do not depart our airspace we will launch interceptor aircraft!”

Pilot: “This is a United States Marine Corps F/A-18 fighter. Send ’em up, I’ll wait!”

Air Defense Radar: (no response . . . total silence)

Programming note

I’ve been behind on posting sermons over on my sermon blog—I’d wanted to edit a couple of them from the audio to reflect changes in the preaching (something I don’t ordinarily do), but I haven’t managed to lay my hands on the recordings yet, so I figured I’d do better to just go ahead and post them as is.  I’m hoping to be able to post the audio as well soon, so perhaps I’ll just let that be enough.  In any case, I’m now caught up on the current sermon series; I’m not done with 2008, since I still have only one sermon up from the first series of last year, Being Church, but I hope to get the rest of those up soon.(Cross-posted at Of a Sunday)

This would be a high point in political geekery

Jennifer Rubin reports,

Here at CPAC a well placed source with knowledge of the Republican Senate Committee plans tells me that Larry Kudlow is “considering” a Senate run against embattled Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd. Dodd’s approval ratings have been plummeting in light of the Friend of Angelo scandal and the ongoing effort to stonewall local and national media. Kudlow would bring instant name recognition and plenty of funding, but more importantly a wealth of economic knowledge. A debate between the two over the management of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would be a thing to behold. Kudlow has been approached and is considering the possibilities.

I hope he does it; that race would be a blast to follow.  Rubin says it would be “the most entertaining and most educational senate race in a long time,” and if anything I think that undersells it; running against Sen. Dodd would give Kudlow the chance to put on a veritable clinic on the economy and the roots of our current problems (one of those roots being Sen. Dodd himself), and given his personality, I think it would be absolutely fascinating to watch him do it.  It would also give the GOP a real chance to steal the seat, since Kudlow would be nearly the ideal person to take full advantage of Sen. Dodd’s vulnerability (and would seem to have no qualms about doing so, not being one to pull his punches).Given the way Kudlow’s interviews with Sarah Palin raised her national profile and gave her the ability to show her stuff, do you think we’d see the governor return the favor by campaigning for him in CT?  That could be a lot of fun, too.Update:  Looks like Kudlow’s serious about this—he had dinner with Sen. John Cornyn, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, to talk about it.

A God Who Hides?

(Isaiah 45:14-46:13Romans 11:33-36)

I said last week that Isaiah 45 is a hard chapter, that it digs into things that are neither easy to understand nor easy for us to accept; it deals with truths that are hard like granite, sharp-edged and unyielding as stone. There is comfort in these truths, but not comfort that comes to us on our own terms; it isn’t the comfort of an overstuffed easy chair in a warm room, but rather of the great stone wall that holds out the storm. It’s a comfort that does not promise to give us what we want, but rather asks us to trust God for what he will give; which is, I believe, a better thing in the end, but the truth of that is not always obvious. Indeed, it’s sometimes far from obvious.

Which fact, I think, sets up the last of the really hard statements in chapter 45. We begin this section of the book with another prophecy of the nations coming to Israel—focused this time on the peoples of northern Africa, where Israel had once been enslaved; now, those nations will come and voluntarily submit themselves to Israel, even to the point of making themselves slaves. Why? Because they recognize that the God of Israel is the only true god, and they’re willing to do anything—whatever it takes—in order to get in on Israel’s worship.

And then comes this statement: “Truly you are a God who hides yourself, O God of Israel, the Savior.” “Truly you are a God who hides yourself.” What are we supposed to make of that? It’s hard to say, because we don’t even know who’s speaking here. It’s just been the nations who were talking; is it still? Is this the response of the people of Israel to the promise God has just made? Is it the prophet? We don’t know. There are scholars who argue for each of those possibilities, but none of their arguments are all that strong; the simplest reading is that this is still the people of the nations talking, but that’s really not a great reason all by itself to come to that conclusion. In the end, I think we just have to accept that we don’t know who’s speaking here; it’s obviously not God, but it could be just about anyone else.

And in the end, perhaps it really doesn’t matter all that much. One of the reasons we don’t know who’s speaking in verse 15 is that nobody else argues with this statement—Isaiah doesn’t, Israel doesn’t, the nations don’t; whoever says it, it stands unchallenged. Which means that we should probably read this as a statement they all agree with, one that makes sense from all their perspectives, and see why that might be—and particularly, why it makes sense in this context. Taken by themselves, these words might seem bitter and cynical, but they clearly aren’t; they’re a response to a very good thing, to the nations discovering and coming to faith in the God of all creation, the Lord of the world. These words might be taken to mean that God plays games with people for some negative purpose, but that’s clearly not true either; God himself disclaims that in verse 19: “I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob’s descendants, ‘Seek me in vain.’”

What then does this statement mean? I suspect there are three truths in view here. First, God could be said to hide himself in that he’s often not to be found where we look for him, in the ways in which we expect to find him. From the perspective of the nations, this is the most basic meaning here: they didn’t find the true God working in any of the great nations of the world, playing the game of conquest. According to the way they understood things, that was how you knew which gods were greater than others; thus, for instance, when the expanding Babylonian empire conquered Assyria, that was understood as a victory not just for the emperor of Babylon over the Assyrian emperor, but also for Marduk, Bel, and Nebo, the gods of the Babylonians, over the gods of the Assyrians; by their conquest, they had proven themselves more powerful gods. The idea that there might be only one God, and that that God might be found not with one of the mighty empires of the world but with one of the small nations they had conquered, was a radically strange idea for the peoples of the world. Indeed, that idea was even a strange one to the people of Israel, to God’s own people, which is why God keeps having to make his case even to them, as he does again in this passage, that only he, not the idols of the nations, is to be worshiped and obeyed.

The problem is, Israel kept buying into the world’s conventional wisdom, that the power of God is with the strong, and worldly success is proof of divine favor; as a consequence, they kept concluding that the logical thing to do, the logical way to improve their situation, was to worship the gods of other nations as well as their own. This is a problem because God is not to be found in our conventional wisdom; he doesn’t do things in the ways that we expect, according to what makes sense to us, because he isn’t limited by our knowledge and understanding. That’s why the gifts he gives aren’t limited by our knowledge and understanding, either; that’s why he kept trying to give Israel something so much bigger than they wanted—he kept trying to give them the gift of being the ones through whom he would redeem the nations, when they just wanted him to help them conquer the nations. That’s why the late singer-songwriter Rich Mullins spoke truth when he said, “If you want a religion that makes sense, go somewhere else. But if you want a religion that makes life, choose Christianity.” Because that’s so often the problem, that we’re looking for a god who makes sense to us on our terms; it’s not really that God is hiding from us, but that our expectations and assumptions are blocking our eyes and ears.

What this means is that God is not found by those who are unwilling to find him; he isn’t found by the proud and the haughty, by those who have all the answers, by those who are confident in their own strength to conquer life on their own terms. He isn’t found by those who aren’t really seeking him, who aren’t willing to surrender their lives to him; he isn’t found by the assertive and the self-sufficient. God is found by the humble and the contrite, by those who know they need him. This is why it’s said at times that he hides his face from Israel in judgment—Israel knows he’s there, not because they sought him and found him but because someone else did, but too often, they aren’t really seeking him at all, they’re only seeking his benefits. They want him to give them what they want while they disregard his commands, and so he hides his face from them, he turns away and leaves them in the silence until they will humble themselves and truly seek, not their own best interest, but his face.

There’s another aspect to this as well, that in the ancient world, all the other gods had their statues; only the God of Israel, as far as I know, went without physical images for his people to worship. The nations around Israel expected to be able to walk into a temple and see the god—but in this, too, the Lord was (and is) a God who hides. And while this might seem like a minor thing, it’s really anything but. The gods of the world can be represented, can be seen; the one true God can’t. In theological terms, he is transcendent—he’s so far above and beyond us that, as he tells Moses in Exodus 33, no frail, sinful human being can see him and survive the experience. He is too bright to see; that’s why the hymn we sang last week calls him “immortal, invisible, God only wise, in light inaccessible hid from our eyes.” That’s why the poet Henry Vaughan, in one of his finest moments, wrote, “There is in God—some say—a deep but dazzling darkness”: God’s light is so bright that it overwhelms our ability to perceive it, and becomes to us instead the deepest of darkness. He is too bright, too big, too great, to be seen.

And here, then, is the wonder, and here is the miracle, to which Isaiah has already pointed in chapter 42: this God who was hidden from us in unapproachable light, this God whom no one could see and live, crossed that divide in his own power and revealed himself to us as Jesus Christ. This God who forbade us to make any image of him, who would not allow us to imagine our own version of him, gave us more than just an image of himself—he gave us himself, becoming fully human and living a full human life.

When we talk about Jesus coming, we tend to focus on his death and resurrection—especially in this season of Lent—and there’s certainly good reason for that; and we focus too on all the things he taught, and that’s also completely appropriate. But I think we lose sight, sometimes, of the fact that those aren’t the only reasons he came; and that one of the reasons he came is simply that we might know him in a new way and be able to relate to him more closely. God will always be beyond our ability to fully understand, certainly, as Paul says in Romans 11, quoting from Isaiah 40; and there will always be times when his face seems hidden to us. That’s just the way it is in this broken, sin-haunted, pain-darkened world of ours. But at the same time, even as it remains true that no one in this world has ever seen God in all his glory, yet it’s no longer true that no one has ever seen God: for as John 1:18 says, God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, has made him known. The divide we could never cross, he crossed for us, out of love for us; in Jesus, the hidden face of God has been forever revealed.

The problem for Barack Obama

This from Mark McKinnon:

Obama can never live up to his stratospheric expectations. He set the bar himself. But now he is realizing how hard it is to clear. He’s extraordinarily gifted. As gifted, perhaps, as anyone who has ever held the office. But in today’s world, gifted only gets you in the zoo. Then you have to tame the animals.

Sarah Palin vs. David Brooks for the soul of the GOP

OK, so that’s both oversimplified and overstated, but I think that captures the essence of the problem R. S. McCain’s talking about in his latest post.

Friday, I had lunch with Tim Mooney of Save Our Secret Ballot and, in the course of discussing everyone’s favorite CPAC ’09 topic—what’s wrong with the GOP?—discussed the problem of the polluted information stream.Among the ill effects of liberal bias in the media is that much political “news” amounts to thinly disguised DNC talking-points. The conservative must learn to think critically about news and politics, to filter out that which is misleading, or else he will internalize the funhouse-mirror distortions of reality that define the liberal weltanschauung.This, I said to Mr. Mooney, is one of the major problems of the Republican Party, that so many of its supporters have unwittingly accepted liberal beliefs as political truths. Therefore, when those who present themselves as conservatives parrot the liberal line, the damage they do is far worse than if the same statements were made by Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. Why? Because this “conservative” echo tends to act as a hardening catalyst for the conventional wisdom.I have never forgiven David Brooks for “National Greatness.” Brooks’s argument, that “anti-government” conservatism is both wrong as policy and doomed as politics, had a demoralizing effect on the Republican Party. The elegance of Brooks’s writing—whatever your opinion of the man, the elegance of his prose style is beyond dispute—was the spoonful of sugar to make that poisonous medicine go down. That was 12 years ago, and if the GOP now appears disastrously ill, Brooks and his erstwhile publishers at the Weekly Standard are heavily implicated in this perhaps fatal disease.

This is, I believe, both a major reason why the David Brooks segment of the GOP is opposed to Gov. Palin and the major reason why the party needs Gov. Palin to play a major role, not just in Alaska but nationally.  She’s a Reagan conservative (and hands-down the most Reaganesque conservative we have, to boot) and an outsider to the “chattering class,” and both these things are essential characteristics for the next leader of the GOP, if the party is to have any hope of recovering from its political exile any time soon.  She won’t make the party elites happy—but then, neither did Reagan, at least until he was safely out of office and one of their own (George H. W. Bush) was safely in control.  (Of course, the elder Bush promptly lost the next election, the one he had to run on his own merits, but the GOP establishment didn’t get the point . . .)  What she can do, and I believe will do, is lead the party back to the point where it actually stands for something besides merely gaining and using political power—and that’s what matters most.Update:  Here’s a fine example of what I’m talking about, courtesy of the ever-diminishing David Frum, who looks increasingly like a RINO in sheep’s clothing.  Allahpundit linked to it as “the quote of the day,” which makes me think he was hoping to use it against Gov. Palin, but it looks like the commenters on his post have been too smart for that; one of them, DFCtomm, summed it up particularly nicely:

Frum is willing to say or do anything to win. I imagine there is no principle too big to be abandoned, and he justifies this by saying that once we’re in total power then we can steer the country to the right. It just doesn’t seem like a workable strategy to me.

What will matter?

Here’s a bit more wisdom from Rich Mullins, from that 1997 concert in Lufkin, TX:

You know, people go to Ireland, and they come back and they have those really beautiful, big sweaters, real big, bulky, and they’ve got all kinds of stitches and stuff in them. Well, they started doing that because each of those different stitches are different charms and prayers and stuff that they would weave into their husbands’ sweaters. If it worked, then their husbands would come back alive, and if it didn’t, because fish don’t eat wool, they could tell who was who by what sweater was on them. . . .So go out and live real good and I promise you’ll get beat up real bad. But, in a little while after you’re dead, you’ll be rotted away anyway. It’s not gonna matter if you have a few scars. It will matter if you didn’t live. And when you wash up on that other shore, even though you’ve been disfigured beyond any recognition, the angels are gonna see you there and they’ll go, “What is this? We’re not even sure if it’s human.” But Jesus will say, “No, that’s human. I know that one.” And they’ll say, “Jesus, how do you know that one?” And he’ll say, “Well, you see that sweater he’s got on?”

“God is right; the rest of us are just guessing.”

The late, great Rich Mullins on Psalm 137, from a concert in Texas shortly before his death:

It starts out: “By the waters of Babylon we lay down and wept when we remembered thee Zion, for our captors required of us songs, saying, ‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion.’ But how can we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?” Which is a good question because what land have we ever been in that wasn’t foreign?It starts out so beautifully and then at the end of that psalm, the last verse of that psalm is, “How very blessed is the man who dashes their little ones’ heads against the rocks.” This is not the sort of scripture you read at a pro-life meeting. But it’s in there nonetheless.Which is the thing about the Bible . . . that’s why it always cracks me up when people say, “Well, in du du du du du du du duh, it says . . .” You kinda go, “Wow! It says a lot of things in there!” Proof-texting is a very, very dangerous thing. I think if we were given the Scriptures, it was not so that we could prove that we were right about everything. If we were given the Scriptures, it was to humble us into realizing that God is right and the rest of us are just guessing.

Are you pondering what I’m pondering?

For other Animaniacs fans out there, and particularly for fans of Pinky and the Brain, here’s an almost-complete list of one of my favorite of the show’s running gags:  “Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?”A few of my favorite responses:

  • “I think so, Brain, but burlap chafes me so.”
  • “I think so, Brain, but me and Pippi Longstocking—I mean, what would the children look like? . . . Well, no matter what they looked like, they’d be loved.”
  • “Well, I think so, Brain, but I can’t memorize a whole opera in Yiddish.”
  • “I think so, Brain, but if you replace the ‘P’ with an ‘O,’ my name would be Oinky, wouldn’t it?”

Three ways to live

This short clip from the Rev. Tim Keller, working off an insight from C. S. Lewis, is as good as you’d expect given that combination.  He’s right that the contrast you hear from so many preachers between “living God’s way” and “living the world’s way,” or “living according to the Spirit” and “living according to the flesh,” is both wrong—because what many of those preachers are actually calling people to is really just another way of living according to the flesh—and unhelpful—because what non-Christians have learned to expect from such a call, in consequence, is really just another way of living according to the flesh.  If we’re going to preach the gospel, we need to start by making it clear to people (both outside the church and within it) that the gospel isn’t what they think it is.  Right now, an awful lot of churches are doing a better job of training future atheists than they are of training Christians.

HT:  Jared Wilson