Evil and the Justice of God Review at Synchronicity

If anyone is still out there following this feed, you might be interested to know that I just started a series reviewing NT Wright’s Evil and the Justice of God over on the synchronicity podcast site.

No Death Panel Overlords Here

Yesterday, I had a chance to watch John Stewart’s recent interview of Betsy McCaughey, an interview that apparently resulted in Ms. McCaughey’s resignation as director of Cantel Medical Corporation.

Ms. McCaughey’s now infamous interview focused on a section of House Bill 3200, titled “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” which you can read for yourself here. McCaughey claimed that the bill implemented so-called “death panels” which would decide whether a person with a chronic or terminal condition would be afforded federally-funded health care.

I was fascinated by the claim, and by the apparent inability of McCaughey and Stewart to agree on what was in the bill, that I decided to check it out.

Not the whole thing, mind you. Like a lot of Federal legislation, HB 3200 is unimaginably complex. If it is implemented, entire careers will be devoted to trying to understand and implement the bill. Nevertheless, I thought it might be interesting to at least check out the provision that was the focus of the discussion.

The journey through this bill began on page 424, the beginning of the section which McCaughey claimed creates a “death panel.”

This section amends the Social Security Act by adding “advance care planning consultation” to the Social Security Act’s definition of “medical and other health care services.” (You can find the section of the SSA that would be amended here.) 

Why is the SSA’s definition of “medical and other health care services” important? Because it is one of the key phrases that describes the types of treatment that will qualify for Medicare benefits. (The section where the definition is deployed in the Medicare statute can be found here.)

In other words, what HB 3200 does is provide Medicare patients with an opportunity to meet with their physician to discuss “advance health care planning” on the Federal government’s nickel.

Notably, this meeting does NOT appear to be mandatory. No one is forced to participate in this discussion. The bill simply provides that, if a patient elects to discuss this issue with their doctor, Medicare will pay for it.

HB 3200’s definition of “advance health care planning consultation” goes into some detail, but the practical upshot of it is that the phrase refers to a meeting between a doctor and a patient on the subject of advance directives, which are decisions that are made by a patient about how their health care should be handled in the event they become mentally incapacitated.

There are two key components that have long played a role in advance directives, and HB 3200 recognizes them explicitly:

First, there is the living will, which provides guidance to the patient’s family and health care providers about the circumstances, if any, under which life-sustaining treatment should be withdrawn. The decision regarding the contents of a living will, or even whether a living will is created, are completely up to the patient.

Second, there is the “durable power of attorney.” This is a document that a patient can execute which indicates who will make health care decisions for the patient in the event the patient cannot make decisions for themselves.

As Stewart, and a good many folks in the media, have since observed, there is no “death panel” – or anything even remotely like it – in this part of the bill.

However, what fascinated me about this particular provision of the bill was the fact that it appears to do exactly the opposite of what McCaughey was claiming it does. Rather than handing over end-of-life decisions to a Federal panel, this bill reinforces  the patient’s power to make their own choices – by ensuring that they have an opportunity to apprise themselves of their options before they become incapacitated, and by providing them with an opportunity to designate the person who will make their decisions for them.

No shadow overlords here, I’m afraid. Just a fairly innocuous provision that will probably help elderly patients to become more aware of the ways they can continue to exercise a degree of self-determination if or when they become gravely ill.

What is disturbing here, of course, is the way a debate over complex Federal legislation can be hijacked by profoundly misleading accusations. It probably took me an hour to work through this to see for myself what was going on. Most folks won’t have the time or inclination, and may not even have the education – or internet access – to do it. They are stuck relying on their trusted news sources – CNN, Fox News, radio talk show hosts – or even entertainment sources (such as Stewart’s show) to tell them what is going on.

Synchronicity Has Moved

I’ve moved the Synchronicity podcast from pod0matic to its own web site. The address is now http://synchronicitypodcast.com.

I still haven’t decided on the final fate of this blog. I’m going to leave it dormant for a while longer, at least. However, my plan is to post some written entries on the synchronicity site, many of which will be along the lines of things I have posted here before. So… even if you don’t want to listen to the podcasts, you might think about subscribing to the feed.

Podcast Update

For anyone who is interested, the podcast is now twittering @SyncPod.

Seriously?

Via Tall Skinny Kiwi, this link to the Rapture Index.

Qoheleth, the Infinite Universe, and New Creation

I recently discovered a podcast called Radiolab, which is a series of hour long programs that focus on diverse scientific topics. In exploring some of the past offerings of Radiolab, I discovered this interview of Cambridge cosmologist Brian Greene regarding the implications of an infinite universe.

Here, Greene discusses the theory that nothing – and he does mean nothing – is unique in the universe.

Here is the concept:

1. The best data that is available today is that the universe is not “curved.” This means that, in theory, if you start traveling straight in one direction, and keep going that direction, you will keep going and going and going. You never end up – like you would on a globe – at the same place where you begin.

2. On the other hand, all conceivable patterns of matter are finite. He encourages us to think of Imelda Marcos. She may have many, many dresses and many, many shoes, but there are ultimately only so many combinations of the two that are possible.

3. Thus, while the universe itself is infinite, the potential arrangements of matter are finite. The number that describes all potential arrangements of matter is inconceivably large – but it must exist, and it must be finite, because matter only arranges itself in so many forms.

4. Thus, in an infinite universe, the finite patterns of matter must necessarily repeat themselves again and again and again.

Now…get ready for the weird part.

This means that, if you searched the universe long enough, you would eventually find an exact copy of yourself sitting in a room that is identical to where you are sitting right now, reading this exact blog post.. Except, maybe, the last sentence in the post didn’t include an extra period at the end.

But…if we kept searching, we could find yet ANOTHER person in an IDENTICAL place doing EXACTLY the same things reading EXACTLY the same post with the EXACT same typographical error.

Today, you might have exactly 100,000 hairs in your head. If we looked, we could find someone with the same number – or more, or less – who would otherwise be identical to you: right down to the color and style of your shirt.

You name it, you can find it. And you can find multiple copies of it.

…and why not, Greene argues? The universe has literally all of the space, matter, and energy it needs to randomly reproduce things – like you – again and again and again.

My sophomoric question – which I don’t think was answered in the podcast – is how we can know that the universe contains infinite quantities of matter and energy. It strikes me that this should not be a given, though I’m sure people much smarter than me have asked (and answered) the question already.

This cosmology leaves us with at least two potential configurations:

#1: One creator/One unique universe

#2: One Infinite universe

Option 2 does not eliminate the existence of God, but it does call into question the idea of a “Creator” God in the sense that “creation” brings about something that is unique or one-of-a-kind. Instead, if this cosmological view were to ever become widely accepted, theology would have to conceive of a God who brought about all possibilities at once and in infinite quantities.

Furthermore, Option 2 puts us in a serious existential crisis. I can no longer think of myself, my home, my loved ones, my planet, or my talents as unique. All of these things are, in fact, on a cosmological scale, quite common and thus – mundane.

I am reminded of the poem of Qoheleth – found in the first Chapter of Ecclesiastes:

Is there anything of which one can say,
       “Look! This is something new”?
       It was here already, long ago;
       it was here before our time.

If Greene is right – we can add: “It is also in the universe right now, in infinite quantities, and will exist in the same quantities in the future.”

Now…before we get carried away, lets be clear that this view is NOT, so far as I can tell, universally embraced amongst cosmologists. Even in this podcast, there is some discussion of a multi universe theory that is slightly different from this one, though it also holds the the existence of all possibilities.

Nevertheless, I think this viewpoint could inform the development of Christian theology in two important ways:

First, it provides a promising framework for a discussion on the issue of the existence of evil. If God did, in fact, allow for all possibilities to exist at once, as a part of the act of “creation” – then inevitably evil is going to spring up in that creation. Before creation can become what it was intended, all of the evil possibilities have to be identified and eradicated, in the same way that a novel must be edited or a script must be re-drafted. This explanation, I think, could help to move forward a discussion that has puzzled believers for centuries. [It could also serve as a great plot for a science fiction novel: imagine someone from a "perfect" - but largely identical part of the universe - coming into our own or vice versa...]

Second, it serves as an important reminder that our eschatology must deal with the basic existential crisis that was expressed by Qoheleth. If humans are, in fact, destined for immortality – how, then, can we avoid falling into Qoheleth’s despair? On the one hand, it could be argued that hell is nothing more than immortality in a universe with finite possibilities. On the other hand, it could be argued that God’s project of “new creation” is just that – to bring into existence, for example, infinite combinations of matter, or to introduce new combinations infinitely over time. This would free the universe from finite possibilities and open up something entirely new.

Thoughts?

Quilting

I don’t know a lot about quilts, but I’m pretty sure we have only one true quilt in our house. Rachel – my oldest daughter – is really fond of it. If you ever manage to peek in her room – you will probably find it casually draped across her bed.

I’m not a discerning consumer of bedding and linen, and I don’t usually have much of a recollection of where things of this nature came from. Ask me, for example, where my pillowcase came from, and you will probably get a blank stare. But in the case of this particular quilt, I can take you to the very place where it was bought, and I can even tell you about when it was purchased.

In the late 1980s, shortly after I was married, my grandmother – “Momma Ritchie” we called her – gave this quilt as a Christmas present to my (then) new bride. It was beautiful. And it struck us as an unusually extravagant thing to give, especially for the wife of a retired farmer/preacher from East Texas. To this day, we still occasionally lapse into warm recollection of the sense of elation that she experienced in presenting it to us.

Momma Ritchie was a living expression of one of the great paradoxes of the Christian faith: that of joy amidst every circumstance, even great hardship. She raised four children through the Great Depression, a period in our history that makes the current “downturn” look like a walk in the park. One of her girls, a young adult at the time, died in a tragic accident.  Yet in spite of the weighty events and struggles that she experienced during the prime of her life, and in spite of the fact that she and my grandfather no doubt continued to strain to make ends meet throughout their lives, Momma Ritchie remained a beacon of exuberance and happiness.

More often than not, she would greet me with a scream of delight, dropping everything that she was doing at the moment, then seizing the opportunity to kiss me on the lips  and pinch my cheeks (even in adulthood) while going on and on about how glad she was to see me.

During my childhood and teen years, my family – along with the families of my dad’s other siblings – would often travel to visit her shortly after Christmas. During those visits, she would work tirelessly to make sure that her children and grandkids had all of the food they wanted (and more!), and comfortable places to sleep. Often, she was the last one to bed and the first one up in the morning. And through it all, she would whistle and hum softly to herself. It was only years later that I came to appreciate how much WORK she was actually doing. When I watched her, it all seemed so effortless and natural. Service and hospitality were simply two more sources that fed the seemingly inexhaustible well of joy from which she drew.

During the last few years, Momma Ritchie has suffered from what I gather was some form of dementia. Though she could still recognize my dad, she knew very little else about when or where she was, or who was around her. Still, in spite of the loss of much of her memory and awareness, her pleasant, even enthusiastic demeanor remained.

Today, I learned that, after living for over 98 years, Momma Ritchie has passed away. Later this week, she will be laid to rest just a short drive away from the home where she lived for most of her life.

I will not be there. But thats okay. As many who are close to me already know, one of my eccentricities is that I often grieve best in solitude and reflection, a place where I find myself during these early morning hours.

As I sit here, awash in memories – many of which are decades old – I see that, like an elegant patch on the quilt that lies across my daughter’s bed, Momma Ritchie’s character and demeanor has become an integral part of my own identity. I am grateful to have known and loved her, and equally to have been loved by her. She will be dearly missed.

May she rest in peace, and rise in glory.

Voting for Obama 6: Why I Don’t Care All That Much

Nations are in uproar, kingdoms fall;
       he lifts his voice, the earth melts.

The LORD Almighty is with us;
       the God of Jacob is our fortress.

Come and see the works of the LORD,
       the desolations he has brought on the earth.

He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth;
       he breaks the bow and shatters the spear,
       he burns the shields with fire.

“Be still, and know that I am God;
       I will be exalted among the nations,
       I will be exalted in the earth.”

- Psalm 46:4-10

Last week, I stepped into an early voting booth and submitted my ballot in the Presidential election. I voted for the Democrats’ candidate this time around. Next time, it may be a Republican again. I tried to be responsible with my decision, but the truth is, it doesn’t matter all that much to me.

The other day, I heard about someone who I know to be a sincere, committed Christian saying: “I just don’t know what we [i.e., Christians] are going to do if Obama wins.”

I’m sure this person is not alone. There are lots of people out there – Christian and otherwise – who think that the fate of their world hangs on whether their candidate wins.

They are wrong.

As I stated in a previous post in this series, the fate of the world is not to be found in the triumph of human authority, but in the end of it.

Both McCain and Obama, when they are at their very best, are capable of doing good things. McCain’s desire to deal with government waste, so that our tax dollars are used more efficiently, is a responsible thing to do for the generations that will follow us. Obama’s vision of making health care more accessible to the poor is likewise worthy of pursuit. Both candidates, I think, want to see a responsible end to the conflict in Iraq.

But, as the Psalmist reminds us, our ultimate hope should not lie in Presidencies or nations.

God’s plan, we are told, is to end the tumult of wars and political bickering, and – at the same time – to take away the instrumentalities of conflict, so that they can never again bring about destruction.

So…as this election draws to a close amidst the uproar of the attack ads, the chain emails full of half truths, and the hate filled talk shows, I invite you to hear the invitation of the Psalmist.

Be still.

Then, you will know.

There is only One who can bring lasting peace to our planet. Only One who can bring prosperity where economies falter. Only One who can lead the poor and oppressed of all nations out of slavery and into freedom.

May His Name be blessed forever.

[Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5]

Voting for Obama: Part 4: Of Fear and Hope

Lets have a look two TV ads. One for McCain and one for Obama.

Notice the way McCain (very politely) denounces those who want to “spread the wealth around” and asserts that “your savings, your job, and your financial security are under siege.” Notice also how this ad is directed at those who already have: they have savings, jobs, security. There is some mention about how his policies might create new jobs for others, but the driving philosophy is clearly to protect those who are already secure.

I don’t think that this ad explicitly plays the American exceptionalist “card,” but it seems designed to appeal to that demographic.

Now…lets have a look at the ad for Obama:

Notice the emphasis on themes like the need for quality health care and national unity. Obama’s vision of the America of the future, overidealized though it may be, is not about preserving and protecting the privileges of those who already “have,” but finding a way where we can all share in the American dream.

I picked these ads, because I think they are typical of each candidate’s overall political philosophy, based on everything else that I know about them.*

They tell two very different stories of America’s future. The first story goes like this:

People want to take from you. If you don’t act quickly and decisively to stop them, then you may lose your financial security.

In short, this is a story about fear – fear of losing what you have.

The second story goes like this:

Instead of “cashing in” on the things that we have, what if we take them and devote them to making people’s lives better? Rather than dividing ourselves against each other, lets find ways to move in a new direction so that we can all share in the blessings that our nation enjoys.

It is a story about national hope. It takes pride in our culture and system of government, to be sure, but it doesn’t seem geared toward the ideas of national privilege that dominate exceptionalist thought.

There is no guarantee, of course, that either candidate can accomplish what they promise. With a recession looming, with the potential for layoffs and declining values in investments, and considering that he may be working with a Democratic majority in the legislature, McCain may not be able to do much to prevent the erosion of personal assets for most Americans. Likewise, Obama may find that it proves much more difficult than he imagines to implement meaningful social change in a deeply divided country.

However, if I have to take a chance on one or the other, and in light of my new, provisional political philosophy, it is not difficult for me to know which “story” I will pick. I choose the one that provides hope for everyone, including those who have less than I do – or even nothing. I will take that chance when I vote.

I could continue to break things down on an issue by issue basis, but I wouldn’t be adding much to what I’ve already said. Both candidates have good ideas about dealing with the Iraq war, the financial crisis, the environment, and health care, among other things. If he loses the election, I hope that McCain will continue on as an important voice in the Senate. He is needed there. However, if I have to pick an overall vision for the future of the country, I pick a vision that is about inclusion, openness, and care for the vulnerable.

…which will bring me – in the next post – to what I know for many of you is the most important issue in the election: the very difficult issue of abortion.

__________________________

*In selecting these ads, I’ve specifically avoided the so-called “attack” ads – those that are designed to motivate the voting base of the candidate by creating hostility toward the opponent. The distortion of the opponent’s positions and affiliations in such ads is often deplorable, and both sides seem to be equally talented at generating these abominations.

[Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3]

Revisiting the Wesleyan Quadrilateral

The early reformers clung to a principal known as sola scriptura – or “only scripture.” The idea was that authority didn’t come from the Pope or the Church, it came from the Bible. Thus, it was appropriate to reject the authority of the Church where it was clearly inconsistent with the text of the Old and/or New Testaments.

In a sense, the American Restorationists took this concept and pumped it full of steroids. Restorationists assumed not only that scripture was the sole authority for our lives, but that it also contained “patterns” of behavior which – if logically discerned from the text – ought to be used by modern Christians. This is a fairly well established concept among the more traditional and conservative members of Restorationist churches, and even those who don’t agree with it still generally understand it correctly.

Wesley, on the other hand, may have been sorely misunderstood on this issue. In 1964 (my year of birth, incidentally) a theologian/scholar named Albert Outler coined the term Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Outler posited, in a collection of Wesley’s works, that Wesley looked to four sources that should be utilized in reaching theological conclusions: (1) scripture, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) experience.

While Outler’s summary is generally considered to be correct – there is an implied assumption behind the concept of the “quadrilateral” which has caused it to be widely misconstrued. Specifically, it is easy to assume – when you summarize Wesley in these terms – that he believed all four “sides” of the so-called quadrilateral should be considered equally. Thus, for example, if reason, tradition, and experience all pointed in one direction, then scripture is “overruled.”

This implicit assumption about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is essentially wrong. Wesley, in fact, was a big fan of sola scriptura, just like the reformers and the early Restorationists.

To Wesley, the other three “sides” of the Quadrilateral were, in fact, guides to interpreting scripture. Thus, reason, tradition, and experience were not so much independent means to reach theological conclusions as they were important voices to hear in arriving at a responsible reading of scripture.

The Restorationist – I think – would eagerly agree that reason and experience are important tools in understanding scripture. However, considerably less weight would be given to tradition since – in the mind of the Restorationist – “tradition” is a kind-of poison that, over time, has diluted the purity of scripture.

In some respects, I continue to wrestle with broader issues about the nature of scripture – yet the questions I am asking, in some ways, transcend the issue of whether or how it is “authoritative.”

In The Great Emergence, Phyllis Tickle hits this issue right on the head. In the same way that the early Reformers wrestled with the nature of Papal authority, Christians are now beginning to wrestle with understanding how “authority” rests in scripture.

Is scripture authoritative? It never claims to be. To the contrary, scripture claims that authority rests in Jesus. Yet scripture has played an undeniably powerful role in understanding Jesus and the history of God’s people. How, then, does it fit into the picture as we struggle to come to know God?

Neither Wesley nor the early Restorationists have settled this question for me. However, I am grateful for the legacy of love for the Christian scripture that is infused throughout both traditions.

______________

Post Script – some of you may have noticed that another factor has been left out of my summary of both traditions: the ongoing role that the Holy Spirit plays in the revelation of God to His people. This approach to “understanding” God was largely rejected within the Restoration traditions, which assumed that such revelation was unnecessary (and, thus, absent) after the text of the New Testament was complete. Furthermore,  while God’s ongoing revelation through His Spirit does seem to play a role in the Wesleyan tradition, it seems to be somewhat diminished in comparison to the stronger charismatic traditions.