The Republican Tree-Hugger

JohnMurdock.org is now the place to be

2015-04-04T17:35:00.000-04:00

For the latest from the mind of the Republican Treehugger, go to johnmurdock.org.

N.T. right again

2014-06-11T15:36:00.000-04:00

What is marriage and has it changed just because we've hastily scribbled something new into the dictionary? N.T. Wright says "no" at First Things.

Preach it Pope

2014-05-23T14:00:00.001-04:00

Pope Francis continues to do his namesake proud.

The latest from Rome.

Here are some highlights:

[T]he gift of knowledge helps us to avoid falling prey to excessive or incorrect attitudes. The first lies in the risk of considering ourselves masters of Creation. Creation is not a property, which we can rule over at will; or, even less, is the property of only a few: Creation is a gift, it is a wonderful gift that God has given us, so that we care for it and we use it for the benefit of all, always with great respect and gratitude.

The second incorrect attitude is the temptation to limit ourselves to creatures, as if they can provide the answer to all our expectations. With the gift of knowledge, the Holy Spirit helps us not to give in to all of this…but I would like to return to the first wrong path…Custodians Creation, not Masters of Creation it is a gift that the Lord has given us, to us! We are Custodians of Creation. But when we exploit Creation we destroy the sign of God’s love for us, in destroying Creation we are saying to God: “I don’t like it!. This is not good!” “So what do you like?” “I like myself!” – Here, this is sin! Do you see? Custody of Creation is custody of God’s gift to us and it is also a way of saying thank you to God. I am the master of Creation but to carry it forward I will never destroy your gift. And this should be our attitude towards Creation. Safeguard Creation. Because if we destroy Creation, Creation will destroy us! Never forget this!

National Climate Assessment: Starting at the Back of the Book.

2014-05-20T13:16:00.000-04:00

There is a lot of good information in the recently released National Climate Assessment, but you are probably not going to get around to reading all 800+ pages of it. One of the best strategies might be to start with the ending. The final appendix of Frequently Asked Questions has some useful perspectives and some good information for busting prevalent myths.

The last graph illustrates the relationship between the reduction of carbon emissions and the stabilization of CO2 levels. Each year that we burn billions of tons of hydrocarbon fuels we are adding to the atmospheric load of this very persistent greenhouse gas. Sometimes we hear about reduced annual emissions, say from the recent shift from coal to natural gas as a fuel for electric power plants. This is a bit like talking about reducing the annual federal spending deficit. While a reduction is a step in the right direction, we still end up with more debt or CO2 than we had the year before. We are talking about heading in the wrong direction a bit more slowly, not heading in the right direction. I’m not highlighting that fact to depress you, but just to make clear the mountainous size of the problem we face. Right now, with both our debt and our greenhouse gas levels, we are the equivalent of a fat person who is trying to reduce his calories to the point that he’s only gaining five pounds a month instead of ten.

Acknowledging the problem is the first step towards a solution.

Happy St. Isidore's Day

2014-05-15T15:53:00.001-04:00

It's May 15th. You know what that means, or maybe you don't . . .

but you can find out here.

Q questions

2014-05-15T15:52:00.000-04:00

I recently posted an FT piece on the Q gathering.

Q founder Gabe Lyons noticed:

A colorful take on #QNashville from @firstthingsmag - a journal I read regularly and respect. http://t.co/wiDnNEvJ0t
— Gabe Lyons (@GabeLyons) May 9, 2014

and more from Gabe

My only critique of the article is the "intellectual" notion that style and substance are somehow mutually exclusive. You can have both.
— Gabe Lyons (@GabeLyons) May 9, 2014

and then Noah Toly wanted to weigh in back at FT with this.

Responses may or may not be forthcoming.

Putting the Cosmos in its Place

2014-05-07T13:11:00.000-04:00

With Cosmos, big science is back on network TV. Unfortunately, so are some unnecessary frictions with religion that will likely make it harder for pious viewers to stomach what is being preached about climate change.

I am just old enough to have some fuzzy memories of Carl Sagan discussing the “billions and billions” of stars in the original 1980 PBS series. Now, some 34 later, an updated Cosmos is on the tube again. Surprisingly, it’s not on PBS, but Fox (perhaps as a form of penance for pioneering “reality” shows such as Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire? and Temptation Island).

Fortunately, the old formula hasn’t been too Foxified. We are not walked along the sands of time by a buxom bikinied model reading from a teleprompter. Instead, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, a familiar face to regular watchers of PBS, has stepped into Sagan’s presenting role and the series plays out much like a NOVA episode with a larger graphics budget.

In the most recent episode, “The Lost Worlds of Planet Earth,” Tyson walked viewers through several hundred million years of a living Earth’s traumatic history. Life’s relationship to a changing atmosphere—lots more oxygen in the air once let scorpions grow as big as people—and the cascading dominoes, like oceanic methane releases and the disruption of currents, that led to past mass extinctions and are in the air again were major themes. It was, therefore, no great surprise when the show culminated in a rather preachy plea to face the perils of anthropogenic global warming today.

Personally, I had no major qualms with the sermon. Cosmos made the valid point that humanity has thrived in an interglacial period of climatic stability, but by converting the buried residues of ancient life into carbon dioxide we are changing the atmosphere at a rate not seen since past cataclysms that triggered deadly chapters in the story of life. This is a big roll of the dice, and the timeframes in which we normally operate are so anthropocentric and compressed that the broad swath of pre-history covered by Cosmos offered a rare opportunity to see the last two hundred years through a more relevant lens. Our post-Industrial Revolution carbon explosion may have more in common with a dinosaur killing comet collision than we might care to admit. Just because it’s apocalyptic doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Still, it is a lot to swallow, and the producers did themselves no favors by beating the less supportable drum of materialistic philosophy. Science is a good system for understanding the physical world, but it gets itself in trouble when it assumes that its subject is all there is or could be. That’s exactly what happened in the original Cosmos, where Carl Sagan declared, “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” (Thanks to Jay Richards’ Money, Greed, and God that I just happened to be reading a few hours after watching the show for that quote.)

Tyson intoned a similar theme as Sagan by repeatedly describing the powers that have shaped our planet and the life on it as “random” before boldly declaring that these defining forces “do not care” about us or our well being. We are the unlikely present culmination of a long chain of being that is ultimately purposeless. If we want to stick around as a species, it is up to us to change our ways, but even that is no guarantee of success. Another comet might come out of the blue and rearrange everything on the table of life.

Thus, rather than serving the heavy meal of climate change with a theistic teaspoon of sugar (or even the water of neutrality), Cosmos first rammed down a bitter pill of hopelessness. Then, the producers seemed to expect the audience to open wide again and drink the elixir of human ingenuity and so be energized to take on the task of remaking our fossil-fuel based society. That’s an unlikely one-two punch to land successfully.

Indeed, for Christians, the combination approach likely proves less effective than a single climate change jab would have been. If these godless scientists-turned-philosophers are wrong about the universe’s purpose, the argument goes, then why should we listen to them on anything else. When you blow your credibility taking on big questions outside your realm of knowledge, it is hard to be convincing even when you are dealing with matters more within your expertise.

Sagan faced these hurdles as he took up the activist scientist mantle, campaigning first against atomic weapons that he theorized would devastate all humanity through a “nuclear winter” and later working to combat global warming before his death in 1996. Yet, instead of being persuadable and open to his data, many believers could not get beyond the irreligious mouthpiece. Sadly, history seems to be repeating itself. Messengers matter as does the manner of messaging.

Declaring that life and death on planet earth are merely the result of uncaring, random forces attempts to answer a question that extends beyond science. There are, of course, other possible answers. For example, the recent movie Noah included an interpretation of the Genesis creation story highlighted by a visually powerful montage portraying evolution as being fueled by a deliberate Creator. Such a view is not just the musings of a creative filmmaker but also draws support from scientists at least as prominent as Dr. Tyson—Francis Collins, he of the Human Genome Project, comes quickly to mind.

Moving from a controversial film to a controversial book, the Gospel of John famously declares that “God so loved the world” and, incidentally, the Greek word for that object of affection is pronounced cosmos. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul offers a Christological crescendo on the relationship of Jesus to “all things.” Christ is the creator and sustainer who by the cross has reconciled all things to himself. This is a messiah whose work is cosmic in scope, intentional, and purposeful; a vision clearly at odds with Tyson’s uncaring and random natural forces.

I am not contending that a discussion of these and other teleological alternatives was necessary for the program, merely that Cosmos would have better served its audience (and, frankly, its more narrow climate activism mission) by not making a broad truth claim that was sure to run counter to the beliefs of many viewers and was irrelevant to its overall theme. One can lay out the story of life and death on planet earth and even take a speculative glance into the future without addressing questions of purpose. Such questions may naturally arise in the human mind, but are better suited for a prequel of their own. I’d be happy to see I Wanna Marry “Harry” replaced by What’s Behind the Cosmos? but I’m not holding my breath.

John Murdock writes from a little corner of the universe in Texas.

Happy Earth Day

2014-04-22T10:40:00.000-04:00

Yes, this blog has sat dormant for a while, but Earth Day is a must post day if ever there was.

So, here is a little history of the day that I wrote for Patheos a couple years back when Earth Day fell on Good Friday. (It's still appropriate for two days after Easter, or any Earth Day for that matter.)

More on the man behind it all here:

http://www.flourishonline.org/2012/03/earth-day-forgotten-founder/

Rest in peace John McConnell.

The Football Bubble

2014-02-08T12:53:00.000-05:00

Did you feel it? Last Sunday (Super Bowl Sunday) may have been it. In the past 20 years we have experienced the tech bubble, the housing bubble, and we now be may be nearing the peak of the football bubble. If we just experienced it, with the game’s biggest stage coming to the most important city in the world (or a suburb thereof), it was a bit of letdown unless you live in Seattle.

I predict that in 20 years, football will still be an important part of American popular culture, but we’ll likely be looking back and seeing this as a time marked by what former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan once called “irrational exuberance.” Greenspan offered that synopsis a few years before the tech stock bubble burst, and we may well have several more years of football froth yet to go, but our current path is unsustainable and cracks are already showing in the armor. Concussions, moms, and the power of East Coast elites may signal the turning of this very high tide.

I was among the hundreds of millions who watched the Super Bowl. Despite the blowout, this was still the fifth most watched edition of the NFL championship. Between plays by the padded gladiators we were pounded with consumerism and celebrities, the bread and circuses of our day. More than 47 million people in America watched the first round playoff game between the Green Bay Packers and the San Francisco 49ers. That’s millions more than watched the President’s State of the Union address. (Count me among those.) That game was played before a sold out stadium on a day featuring below zero wind chills. The big game itself just dodged similar temperatures but an empty stadium was never a concern.

In an era marked by cultural fragmentation, football is one of the few unifying common denominators left. I am not immune and drove hundreds of miles to ring in the new year by watching Johnny Football (whose last name is still technically Manziel) and the rest of the Texas A&M Aggies win a thrilling bowl game that, truth be told, did not much more than cement their status as the 20th best college football team in the nation.

The money I spent is a drop in the bucket compared to what universities are paying to coaches. Seemingly feeling the competitive heat from my Aggies and others, the University of Texas will pay $5 million annually to a new coach, their second choice after Nick Saban decided to accept $7 million to stay in Alabama. In 27 of our 50 United States, the highest paid public employee is a football coach. (Thirteen other states give the honor to a basketball coach.) The professional clipboard holders are doing fine too. A quarter of NFL head coaches bring in over $6 million a year.

Coaching money pales in comparison to stadium money. My alma mater is pumping a staggering $450 million into Kyle Field renovations, and even a smallish Baptist school like Baylor is spending over $250 million for new digs in the hope that their recent run of pigskin success will continue. Not to be outdone by Baptists, the Catholics at Notre Dame are reading to spend $400 million to upgrade their historic stadium and focus more of the academic buildings near the House that Rockne built, so that football truly is at the center of the university experience. (One wonders if they will update Touchdown Jesus by adding some dollar bills to his hands.)

The pros are now scoffing at mere millions. The Dallas Cowboys play in a billion dollar gridiron palace funded largely by the city of Arlington who “won” the bidding/bribing war among DFW municipalities for the right to build what has been popularly known as Jerry World, a structure barely able to contain the ego and subsidized wallet of owner Jerry Jones. The Super Bowl was played at a billion dollar facility in New Jersey, and even the Minnesota Vikings are bringing down the 1980s Metrodome to join Club B with a new football cathedral. Also on the chopping block is the 1990s era Georgia Dome, which looked in fine shape when it hosted my new year’s eve festivities but must make way for a new $1.2 billion dollar edifice.

The Astrodome that helped to ignite an earlier wave of construction when it was unveiled in 1968 is now slated for implosion, after sitting idle for several years. The site of the one-time “Eighth Wonder of the World” will serve as a parking lot for the NFL stadium next door that now towers over it and was built in 2000 for under $500 million in today’s dollars. One wonders when the wrecking ball will be coming for it.

These are frothy times, but the times they are a changin’. A few months back The Atlantic arrived at my rural Texas mailbox with a cover story about how sports (and by "sports" they meant "mostly football") are ruining schools. I was a bit worried that merely receiving this magazine might ruin me in still football feverish Texas, but I have survived so far.

Football is still embraced by many around the nation, and to a near religious level in the Southeast (from which was birthed the NASCAR bubble that we now see receding to its geographical roots) and parts of the Midwest. Nevertheless, many rich coastal parents seem to be moving their kids away from football to sports like lacrosse, soccer, and swimming. The college football programs seem to reflect this realignment of athletes and interest. Fans will still turn out for the pros, but when was the last time once relevant northeast programs like Boston College and Syracuse were real factors in college football.

Concussions are a major reason that some channels feeding the football pipeline are drying up. Moms have always been leery of this most violent of team sports. Now, the moms have data. Recent lawsuits by battered old pros, the suicide of former All Pro Junior Seau, and New York legend Joe Namath sharing his own struggle with brain damage are just adding fuel to the fire. The media, including pack leaders like 60 Minutes, are starting to turn on the NFL and highlight the medical issues and the subsidization of billionaire owners.

Don’t expect things to change overnight. For some communities, whatever the risks, football is a valuable lottery ticket out to a better life. And winning is still fun and a key source of local pride. Sean Payton, head coach of the Saints, was suspended last year because of so-called Bounty-gate where his players were paid extra to try and knock-out those on the other side. He was welcomed back with open arms by the fans, the team, and ownership, all of whom still remember the sweet taste of Super Bowl success and hope for a return to glory. Payton is the highest paid coach in the league at $8 million a year.

One could also argue that our culture, like the Romans, will just turn even more brutal and fiscally irresponsible. The UFC has skyrocketed in popularity the past decade and this is just a shade below actual gladiators. Still, the number of athletes and fans associated with the rise of that “sport” (and there are certainly brutal skills involved) is a fraction of what football requires.

I am not saying that we are on the edge of a cliff. They will not be giving away NFL or Notre Dame tickets when you buy a pizza next year. Far from it, as I was reminded when a friend plaintively lamented the “end of football” and the long wait until it begins again. We may not even be at the absolute peak of the madness, but check back with me in a decade or so and I expect that Super Bowl ad rates will be slowly dropping along with salaries, and there won’t be nearly as many diamond encrusted stadiums on the drawing board. We shall see.

Pecking Blogging on the Cheek

2013-12-05T17:28:00.002-05:00

How does one re-start a blog that ended with a post entitled “Why I Kissed Blogging Goodbye”? I am reminded of a sign that hung in the barber shop of my childhood: We Cut Hair Like Porcupines Cuddle. Very Carefully.

There were good reasons to step away from the keyboard a couple years ago, but as I embark on my book writing adventure, a number of friends have asked for some way to follow the journey. Truth be told, it’s probably a good idea, especially if it provides a means of keeping me on track. It’s a big mountain to climb, and even though I’ve looked forward to it for some time, there is still the temptation to stay warm and snug in the ski chalet. I’ve probably sipped an extra cup or two of hot cocoa already.

Here’s what has happened so far. In late August, with a big assist from my wonderful family, I packed up my townhome before the bulldozers arrived (my homeowners association having gotten the two-thirds vote needed to sell out) and sent most of my earthly belongings down to await my arrival in Texas. Thanks to a friend generously lending me the use of a spare bedroom, I was able to stick around for another good friend’s wedding and a few parties before heading down to Texas myself in mid-September. Along the way, I got to visit the great state of Kentucky and stop by Wendell Berry’s place for a memorable visit, followed by a side-trip to Alabama to meet another thoughtful farmer.

Then, I arrived back in the Lone Star State where I began to attack the vines on an old family farmhouse and the boxes inside of it. Thanks to the care of my mother’s cousin, the place was in working order, though the previous inhabitants (the mice) had left their calling cards generously. I didn’t throw myself into the work of homemaking with too much abandon, though, choosing instead to take in several Texas Aggie football games and jetting off to Clearwater Beach, Florida to gather with the Christian Legal Society (and, as it turned out, watch a sunset with Hulk Hogan and his wife). There was also some work to finish up for Uncle Sam.

November brought the need to see another good friend get hitched in D.C, and friends at work threw me a nice final going away party, complete with Frito pies. Back in Texas, I closed out November by successfully (despite the wind and cold) running the Shiner Beer Run Half Marathon with a dear old friend and hosting a family Thanksgiving here at the farmhouse.

So, December now arrives and I’ve got a house and life that’s survived the chaos of moving and is now fairly well organized. There’s also a Texas driver’s license in my wallet and a bunch of fun memories in my head. But, it’s time to get to work. There have been lots of wonderful sunsets and starry nights to rejuvenate me, but not a lot has happened on the book so far, though I have made some progress on a couple of chapters.

For those not familiar with the project, my working title is Not an Oxymoron: Conservative, Evangelical, Tree-Hugger. Now, there are plenty of real oxymorons and ironies associated with this effort. It’s a book about environmental stewardship essentially funded by my mini-windfall from a developer, and not some crunchy developer but one who will probably tear down not only the 1940s townhomes but most of the mature trees as well to make way for a dense apartment complex. I also write as the social conservative I am, one who is pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, but unmarried and without kids (though quite open to both possibilities, in the correct order).

Yet, I find nothing oxymoronic about being conservative and caring for God’s creation. My love of creation flows from the same pro-life ethic that fuels my efforts on behalf of the unborn. My belief in preserving the traditional structures that have helped society survive extends to the natural systems that undergird it. There's a reason "conservatism" and "conservation" have the same etymological roots.

Nor, does my Christian faith put me at odds with my environmental concerns. Certainly, bad theologies, bad policies, and bad politics can exist under the Green banner. For too many of my fellow conservative Christians, this fact has stopped the thought process. If they’re for it, we're against it becomes the sum total of the thinking. I argue that we Evangelicals should not be known primarily for those with whom we refuse to associate but for our love and devotion to the God of the Bible, a Creator whose expressions of love for his creation start on page 1 and continue until Revelation.

Well, I won’t spoil the book for everyone, nor will I try to write it all right here and now. If it sounds interesting to you, though, check back every month or so for some more thoughts and an update on my progress.

Why I kissed blogging goodbye

2010-01-11T23:10:00.003-05:00

Note: This blog has been dangling online for a while now. So, to my loyal readers who may still be wondering "what happened" . . . now the truth can be told. And in true blog style it will be told here because I haven't managed to get it published anywhere else. ;-)

------

How does a single voice survive in a culture dominated by weapons of mass distraction? One option is to grab the latest techno-bazooka and fire away in the hope that your message makes it out alive. For over a year I picked up my info-weapon and let ‘err rip. Now, I’m giving peace a chance.

I write as a recovering blogger who jumped on board late but still fell victim to the medium’s faults. I have not been an early adopter of technology since the days of the Atari 2600, and thus it should come as no surprise that I did not type my first blog until October 11, 2007. My second entry came four months later and was entitled, “Why I should not be blogging.” It was probably one of my better posts.
My literary hero essayist Wendell Berry, who completely eschews the use of a computer, had already warned me when he wrote in What Are People For?

My standards, are not speed, ease, and quantity. I have already left behind too much evidence that, writing with a pencil, I have written too fast, too easily, and too much.

I am no Wendell Berry, though, and so my computer and I managed to pound out 112 posts in 2008 and another 29 in the first half of 2009, covering everything from Beltway politics and global warming to the guilt I feel when drinking bottled water. Despite my best intentions to calmly write, edit, and proofread thoughtful pieces, I too often would find myself blasting out something at two o’clock in the morning because I felt it simply had to be said.

Starting a blog from scratch is a little like stuffing a message in a bottle, tossing it out into a vast sea, and hoping the right people see it. Occasionally it happens. Thanks solely to his blog, a pastor friend of mine, Rev. Guy Williams, was interviewed by a CNN reporter who was looking for perspectives on a controversial religious writer.

My bottle got picked up too, not by a random reporter, but by a friend at church who knows David Frum, the neo-conservative author/columnist and former adviser to President Bush. Frum was launching a GOP revitalization website called NewMajority.com and was looking for a “green” perspective. I, as the blogosphere’s only self-proclaimed Republican Tree-Hugger, fit the bill. I went from a dozen or so hits a day to helping launch a site with several thousand readers.

Some read so they can shout, and I was soon introduced to the serial commenters, people who apparently have no life away from their computers and who work hard to have the first and last word on everything. In addition to the regular snipers at NewMajority, others on the Right happily took aim as well. The blogosphere is more about dissing than discourse, but yet I took a perverse pride in getting called names. The American Spectator’s blog said that I was a “thug” debater who had “drank the global-warming Kool-Aid.” Stephen Milloy, a former tobacco apologist turned anti-green crusader, awarded me his “Useful Idiot of the Day” award. I was truly thrilled. Who knew if I was changing any hearts and minds, but at least I was getting the right people mad.

Such thoughts, however, left me feeling uneasy about how blogging was changing me. I wrote plenty of things that never would have made the final cut using Wendell Berry’s pencil in the sunshine. And if, as Proverbs says, “A gentle answer turns away wrath,” I instead was often itching for a fight, confident that I could win any rhetorical duel. The goal of a duel, of course, is not to preach the truth in love, but to kill your opponent. The bullets are certainly flying online, and the real victim may be the collective concentration and civility needed to maintain a democratic republic.

At times, speed is a great virtue, and the democratization of the media via blogging, YouTube, Twitter, and cell-phone cameras does have some real benefits. The recent Iranian uprising, for example, could not have occurred without these technologies. Yet, these tools also fuel a flickering celebro-centric attention span that quickly pushed this truly historic occasion out of our consciousness. Michael Jackson died and the world seemed to say to the people of Iran, “If you can’t complete a revolution in a week, well then, we are just moving on.” Luckily for us Americans, our revolution occurred during the bookish 1770s.

Neil Postman, in his prophetic 1985 work Amusing Ourselves to Death noted the often determinative link between a medium’s form and its content. The brain simply reacts differently to a terse telegraph, a complex novel, or images on a screen. Different mediums create different cultures, and Postman worried that we were entering Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, a place where people would “adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.”

The internet creates a culture of instant gratification and instant distraction. By offering an ever present cornucopia of tangents, the internet inhibits our ability to---oh, oh, what’s the word---focus. A friend’s recent head injury brought this home for me. To combat his post-concussion inability to concentrate, the doctor’s prescription was to (1) religiously avoid television and the internet and (2) read books.

As Berry observed, the marks of computerized media are “speed, ease, and quantity,” and Postman noted that an oratory and print-based society was capable of what seem to us today to be a surprisingly deep, nuanced, and long attention span. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas could debate slavery for three hours without losing their audience. Today, politicians are coached to talk in seven second sound bites. Blogs further this dominance of the new and the quick over the long and the lasting.

Surprisingly, despite the literally millions of perspectives available, blogs also foster dogmatism over diversity. Adding relatively little new information into the mix---perversely all these new “journalists” have led to a decline in detailed investigative journalism---blogs instead serve as ideological highlighter pens. Thus, for those who read a particular Cliffs Notes version of reality, their perspective shrinks rather than expands. My opinion is what matters, and I can instantly enter echo-chambers where I hear only opinions similar to mine.

I would like to say that after some contemplative soul-searching, I swore off blogging on principle. And, to some extent, that is what happened. While there were other factors, primarily David Frum’s embrace of judicial activism to further gay marriage, it was a 94 year old Catholic monk who put me over the top.

Sensing a need for a quiet place amid the storm of life, I sought out the experts. Holy Cross Abbey is within commuting distance to the hustle and self-importance of Washington, D.C., but the monks who work the rolling hills and set their day to an “office” of prayer seem to occupy another dimension, a place that feels not detached from reality, but at its center. As another visitor wrote in their retreat center guest book: “Welcome to the real world.”

The majority outside the abbey walls seemingly do not agree with that assessment, as few are racing to this lifestyle. Of the mere twenty or so monks who remain, several are over 80 years old. Nevertheless, as they sang their prayers in a hauntingly beautiful harmony, I did not feel that the world had passed them by but that they have somehow overcome the world.

While I have taken occasional personal retreats before, I never before availed myself of the spiritual direction often made available. As an evangelical Protestant I have not completely come to terms with the Catholic confession system that is usually at the heart of such encounters. This time, however, I could not resist visiting with one who had taken up the monastic life as a second career some 55 years prior.

Dr. Mark Delery left medicine in his late-30s for the work-prayer simplicity of a Trappist monastery. As we met for conversation rather than confession, I asked Father Mark what the message of the monastic life was for the world today. He answered, “Silence.” The former abbot then described silence as a form of pilgrimage that protects the internal flame of the Holy Spirit from the blustery drafts of modern life. Through silence, he said, “We learn the language of God.”

One does not proclaim a message of silence loudly and with fanfare. Yet, in a society where it seems everyone is screaming for attention, encountering people of calm devotion and few words spoke more effectively to me than any billboard or flashy website could. Father Mark did not dispute that there is indeed a need for preaching, teaching, and, as some might put it, doing something. Nevertheless, the quiet lives of these men at Holy Cross remind us that there is value in not doing as well. During my three Spring days of not doing anything at the abbey, I was able to smell the wild roses, hear the woodpecker, see the fireflies, and better sense the still small voice of God.

My final hours at the abbey were spent at the intersection of two worlds. The monks, who had prayed alone during the week with only a handful of retreatants observing (though I wonder if any of us ever once made their first prayers at 3:30 AM) were met by 120 Sunday parishioners who packed the small, simple wooden chapel.
The contrast between the monastic and “regular” worlds was most notable in the Nicene Creed. The Trappists said the ancient words slowly, almost as though they were meditating on each one. While most of the lay worshipers undoubtedly came regularly, and so this pace could not have been unexpected, the congregants simply could not slow down and were perpetually lurching a half sentence ahead of the monks. For us in the pews, the creed was a box to be checked; for those in robes, these words were truths to be savored. As I drove away and left the abbey’s country road for the fast lane of the highway, I could not help but feel that often in my rush to get to the next place I was missing the place where I am.

A few weeks later, I watched Kobe Bryant celebrate an NBA title. As the confetti was still in the air, I flipped one channel over and commemorative Lakers championship attire was already being hawked on QVC. Then, within two minutes of the final horn, I had uploaded my thoughts about the situation, concluding, “I felt I simply had to criticize our culture of the immediate and do it right now.” It seemed a fitting sentence with which to end my time in the blogosphere.

It has now been several months since I kissed blogging goodbye. I have also unhooked the cable TV and I no longer have internet access at my house, though do not expect me to toss my laptop or unplug completely anytime soon. I am now working through a stack of books that I purchased long ago but for which I could never seem to find time, even as Facebook often claimed an hour or more daily.

I am not seeking disengagement for the sake of disengagement. In fact, I am not seeking disengagement at all. There are indeed benefits to technology, but not all technologies are beneficial. Too often we forget to ask any questions of the electronic wonders that we encounter, wrongly assuming that progress marches forward on its own, immune to the possibility of sin and corruption. At our peril we forget Richard Weaver’s insight from Ideas Have Consequences: “With piety gone, every great invention proves short sighted.”

Yes, I still believe in the power of words, but writing and blogging are not really one and the same; neither are reading and surfing. My new motto is think more, write less. When I do put pencil to paper (or more likely, fingers to keyboard) I pray that my words will not just add to the digital tornado competing with a divine voice that still longs to whisper into listening ears. For as Elijah found to be true, “the Lord was not in the wind.”
-----
John Murdock is a natural resources attorney in Washington, D.C. You can follow him on Twitter at twitisbadforyou, just don’t expect too many tweets.

Thanks everyone!

Our Culture of Immediacy

2009-06-14T22:41:00.004-04:00

The L.A. Lakers just won the NBA Finals. I watch the celebration for a few seconds and then then start clicking. One channel away is QVC---already selling championship attire. (And now I'm blogging about this two minutes later.) We are a weird society.

After visiting with a 94 year old monk a few weeks ago, I'm trying to embrace the values of silence more. Think more, talk less.

I'm not sure if this post is a positive or a negative in that endeavor, but I felt I simply had to criticize our culture of the immediate . . . and do it right now! ;-)

Thumbs are Way "Up"

2009-06-06T00:43:00.004-04:00

Pixar outdoes itself again.

WaLL-E was a wonderfully entertaining movie with a creation care message (and direct Christ imagery). Somehow, the creative and theologically sound minds in that movie-magic shop do it again with Up. Family values, dedication to promises, the struggle to find mankind's proper relationship to Creation, "progress" versus tradition, materialistic science versus holy wonder, positive intergenerational relationships, and some very funny dogs all mix seemlessly to achieve one of the best movies of this year or any other. Don't dismiss it because it is a "cartoon." This is great story telling, and it like much of their previous work it imaginatively echoes the Greatest Story Ever Told.

See it. Maybe twice.

.

What NewMajority Didn't Want You to See!

2009-06-05T00:55:00.006-04:00

Sorry for the overly dramatic title. I just couldn't resist.

I've had several pieces rejected by NM's David Frum (often for good reason). Editor/publishers get to set the tone and that is as it should be. As many of you likely suspected, some previous pieces on this treehuggin site were too godly for NM . . . and that was fine. The problem never was what pieces of mine David rejected---it was that the traditional viewpoint was rarely being highlighted at all on NM.

The following post was actually invited by David in response to my persistent prodding on judicial activism. It was my hope that this process issue could be a unifier among conservatives and moderates at NM. After several rewrites, I thought we were getting there and hoped that this would run the day that the California Supreme Court released its latest opinion on Prop 8. Instead Frum that day started a love train for Ted Olson's new effort to enlist judicial activism and take gay marriage nationwide with a new Obama justice headed for the Court.

Granted, Olsen's effort was noteworthy, but it certainly wasn't conservative. This was the judicial equivalent of Arlen Specter biting the hand that fed him and going Democrat. Ted Olsen, former Bush Solicitor General and Federalist Society darling, was now embracing the two words that legislators-from-the-bench love most: equal protection. For when you really, really care deeply about something, you don't trust the people when you only have to convince 5 justices.

After some time away, it became clear that the drums of gay marriage would only beat more loudly even as David tried to simultaneously dampen the good news that more Americans now consider themselves pro-life than pro-choice. A bloody hand graphic implying that I as a long time pro-lifer had helped to pull the trigger and kill an abortionist was just the icing on the cake.

And so now, without further interruptions, what NM didn't want you to see (don't get too excited, it's not really that shocking) . . .

How Not to Bake a Gay Wedding Cake

California’s game of gay marriage ping-pong will likely continue today. After voters passed Proposition 8 to effectively undo a 4-3 state supreme court decision mandating gay marriage, the Court may now try and undo the undoing. As I write, the opinion has not yet been released but already it is clear that this is a game that never should have been started. Judicial activism is a sloppy way to begin a social revolution. [Note: The state Supreme Court, with one dissenter, ultimately reached the correct decision that their institution must be bound by an explicit and legally enacted constitutional amendment. Why this was ever a question at all is still baffling.]

After the Massachusetts Supreme Court first usurped democratic means in 2003, other judges soon sought to follow suit and marriage traditionalists were further spurred to codify in writing what had long been held as culturally axiomatic: that a marriage is between one man and one woman. And so today in the strange world of gay marriage, we find the practice legal in corn-fed Iowa and illegal in the land of fruits and nuts, California. Process matters, and when courts get involved things start looking weird.

In Iowa, the legislature thought it had spoken clearly on the issue in 1998. A decade later, an appointed body declared that the state must recognize new rights even though those rights “have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time.” The Iowa decision mocked words in the opinion itself: “The constitution belongs to the people, not the government or even the judicial branch of government.” While its logic was suspect, the message was clear: Iowans of today and you constitutional framers who would have never dreamed that the words “equal protection” require gay marriage, it is time to take your medicine whether you like it or not.

Taking a page from Brown v. Board of Education, which with its footnote 11 famously brought social science stumbling into the courtroom, the Iowa Supreme Court spent pages summarizing the gay plaintiffs’ expert opinion evidence to show that homosexuals are good citizens and good parents. Those defending the one-man/one-woman statute had their evidence summarized in a single short and terse paragraph.

The unbalanced litany of dueling experts was not a legal maneuver, as the posture of case made nothing but the legislature’s reasoning germane. To put it bluntly, the justices set aside the impartial scales of justice and put on their public relations hats. The court even issued a press release so fawning reporters would not have to read the 69 page opinion. When decisions are made with a focus on broad public policy rather than a specific case, and opinions are written to placate the public rather than interpret the law, courts have lost all sense of their proper role.

Unlike Iowa and California, Vermont recently instituted gay marriage through its normal legislative process. All the democratically elected players played their part. The legislators crafted a bill that attempted to recognize the rights of religious objectors and then voted on it; the governor vetoed the bill; and the veto was overridden by a super-majority.

The fact that Vermont took this step saddens me, but I can at least acknowledge that the move was made in keeping with a republican form of government. It may be a disastrous win for the foundations of society, but at least it was a clear win for democratic processes over judicial fiat.

Homosexual rights proponents have attempted to appropriate the language of civil rights, much to the dismay of many in the black church that birthed that movement. And to the dismay of all who favor democracy and a separation of powers, this new movement is also seeking to follow the flawed and counterproductive path of judicial activism. As University of Texas constitutional law professor Lino Graglia noted in Disaster by Decree, his exhaustive examination of the long, bitter, logically contradictory, and ultimately abandoned march from Brown to busing and federally run local school districts:

The Brown case was less a traditional law suit than a call for a social revolution, and in a healthy democracy social revolutions are made by elected representatives authorized to effectuate their political views and accountable for the results. The fact that this revolution was made, or greatly advanced, by judges soon led to many other revolutions, much less justifiable, being made in the same way.

When the robed ones seek to solve a major social problem they usually just create more heat than light.

Citizens disagree about the propriety of gay marriage, and I welcome a vigorous policy debate that is not afraid to explore the religious, social, and governmental principles associated with marriage. Policy-wise, there is a lot to talk about as marriage was already put on the ropes by easy divorce and co-habitation long before the same-sexers entered the picture. Strangely, to my ears, the damaged state of the institution has been cited by some as a justification for this latest marital revolution. In other words, you straights have already run marriage into the ditch, why should you care if gays try and get behind the wheel for a while.

Perhaps these advocates have a point, but it’s not a point appropriate for litigation. That’s something we should all be able to agree upon.

.

Adios NewMajority

2009-06-05T00:04:00.003-04:00

With some real sadness that it came to this, I must report that my relationship with NewMajority.com has ended. While I wish them well and agree with much of the perspective pitched there---Rush often is not Right (sometimes on policy, almost always on tone), and conservation is indeed conservative---the site's drift and then avalanche to the left on judicial activism, gay marriage, and abortion was eventually more than I could take.

No need to go into all the inside baseball here, but suffice it to say that my efforts to bring more balance to newmajority.com on social issues were rebuffed. While my perspectives on global warming and greening the GOP were always welcomed, my traditional conservative views on the unborn and the family were not. The site, originally billed as a place where conversation could occur among all who wear the Republican label proudly, was instead becoming a monologue with different voices saying the same thing. I sincerely doubt a Republican majority can be cobbled together by moving away from life and towards gay marriage.

And Green does not equal gay in my book. There indeed is much, much, much that the Church and the far right wing can do to better relate to those struggling with homosexuality (and those not struggling as well). Offering blessings and a marital stamp of normalcy to sin is not merciful however.

I will continue to embrace the care of God's creation from a biblical and classically conservative viewpoint. As Russell Kirk wisely noted, "Nothing is more conservative than conservation."

I am, though, generally proud of my work there and you can view my archive here.

Perhaps walking away will be good for both of us. I've already seen some signs of hope in the last couple of days at NM---including a link to an Albert Mohler piece on the Tiller murder (a welcome turn from the bloody hand graphic that implied all pro-lifers were to blame for the actions of one on the fringe). May the trend the continue.

Tech article in CT

2009-05-14T23:18:00.003-04:00

Good article in CT on technology

Includes a brilliant comment ;-)

Lots of good stuff here. Those interested in the impact of technology would do well to read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. If a work from 1985 can be called prophetic, this is it.

The final answer is somewhat disturbing, though. Calling technology as inevitable as the winds and tides buys into a view of "progress" that can be at odds with eternal truths. Frankly, there are some technologies that we should indeed oppose, not just "understand." One of Russell Kirk's canons was a "recognition that change and reform are not identical, and that innovation is a devouring conflagration more often than it is a torch of progress." In short, perhaps we'd all be better off without our cell phones (and in-vitro clinics, and the internet, and atomic bombs . . . ).

It is indeed difficult to put the genie back in the bottle, but that doesn't mean we don't pay more attention to the next genie trying to squeeze his way out of the lamp. Perhaps we even stick a cork in it.

Oh, and we believe in God too . . . pass the pizza.

2009-05-07T00:32:00.005-04:00

The National Council for a New America launched with what liberal critics derisively (and frankly humorously) labeled a “pizza party.” Taking retail politics to the strip center level, Minority Whip Eric Cantor was joined by Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney at a suburban Italian eatery in Arlington, Virginia. Let’s hope this effort generates strong ideas for the future, but Cantor’s list of “unifying principles” is instructive regarding the state of conservatism. The bottom line: Republicans of today believe in “free markets” first while God gets the bronze.

The final question of the “we’re just three regular guys” session was about whether the GOP would flip the successful Democratic strategy of running socially conservative (“pro-life, pro-gun”) candidates in socially conservative districts. Would Republicans mold their candidates to the district on these issues too? (You can watch the event here; go to the 58 minute mark to catch the final question.)
Cantor did not provide a direct answer (sadly, when does a politician ever do that), but he laid out the “essence” of Republicanism beyond which one presumes candidates would have freedom to roam:

The essence of being a Republican is the belief in free markets, the belief in individual responsibility, the belief in the faith in the individual, the faith in God. These are unifying principles.

I find it instructive that the lead is free markets while God is the afterthought. These are not unifying principles---no, these are contradictory principles when placed in this order. Man and mammon cannot be before the Creator of both.

Representative Cantor might well argue that he was not giving a prioritized list, but listen to the remark and judge for yourself whether the mention of God has any of the enthusiasm associated with the others.

In The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk provides a different set of priorities. He labels “religious sanction” as “the indispensable basis of any conservative order.” (p. 400)

Kirk’s first canon for conservatism is not one of economics, but of spiritual and intergenerational connections for society:

(1) Belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience, forging an eternal chain of right and duty which links great and obscure, living and dead. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. (p. 7)

“Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic leveling is not economic progress,” certainly enters Kirk’s list, but at number four. (p. 8)

To the contrary, Cantor and many Republicans, funded by their dollar-con allies like the Club for Growth, apparently view political problems as primarily economic problems.

Kirk instead saw an overreliance on commerce, industrialization, and instant gratification as a poor substitute for a conservative moral foundation.

Materialism, confused with tradition, is turned into a sort of religion, and more and more America inclines toward a universal crusade on behalf of this credo of mechanized production and mass consumption. Americans seldom perceive the terror just underfoot. (p. 394)

In his concluding remarks, he calls on conservatives to swim clear of “the running tide of our prosperity and triviality” and reject vanity for a “new life of humility and charity.” (p. 428)

Kirk is not an island in conservative thought. Richard Weaver, in Ideas Have Consequences, has little good to say for those who posited that “human beings act always out of economic incentives.” He summarizes the impact of this economic Darwinism: “Man created in the divine image, the protagonist of a great drama in which his soul was at stake, was replaced by man the wealth-seeking and -consuming animal.” (p. 6)

In this time of supposed GOP soul searching, little actual soul searching is occurring. Number crunching and poll reading are poor substitutes for contemplation of proper first principles. Kirk and Weaver’s works, though written decades ago, continue to ring with prophetic truth. We would all do well to put down the mouse and take up these books so that our fundamentals are not forgotten as we scramble to cobble together a formula that can win again.

What is the center pole of conservatism? Few are asking that question, and, as our party’s young star has shown over a slice of pepperoni, fewer still are prepared to answer it.

.

Happy Earth Day!

2009-04-22T23:35:00.001-04:00

Two Earth Day pieces from yours truly:

NewMajority

and

DeepGreen

Blessings all. Oh, and it is the birthday of St. Francis. Fitting.

.

Rick Warren gets it almost right (N.T. gets it right)

2009-04-12T22:21:00.008-04:00

This Holy Weekend, Fox News broadcast "Easter with Rick Warren." Pastor Warren delivered a sweeping Cliffs Notes version of salvation history to hundreds of thousands of viewers. That's a good thing.

Warren's fate of the Earth theology may need a little work though.

He referred to
(1) the goodness of God's creation (check);
(2) the fact that sin has produced a "broken planet" (check);
(3) Warren noted the biblical "groaning" of creation (check);
(4) Jesus's life, death, and most importantly resurrection was described as a turning point in history (big check);

but while Pastor Rick wanted his audience to know that God has eternal plans for them, he said that God "does not have long range plans for the Earth" (hold the phone!).

Now most of his major points were presented with some biblical backup blasted onto the TV screen, but this statement was scripture-less. Admittedly, it was a passing reference as his major theme was the salvation history for mankind. Throw-away line or not, the Earth is a pretty big thing to literally throw away without a verse.

Ironically, shortly after making the statement, Warren quoted Romans 8: 19 - 21 and put it up on the screen.

Romans 8:19-21 (New Living Translation)
19 For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. 20 Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, 21 the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay.

To my ears, that sounds like a pretty good long term plan for the Earth and all the rest of creation. And the last time I checked, the "world" (kosmos in Greek) that God so loved and sent his Son to save includes more than just homo sapiens.

Warren later emphasized the coming new heaven and new earth. This is true and good news. But, as some wise person said [unfortunately, I can't remember who]: "Jesus said 'I make all things new' not 'I make all new things.'" (See Revelation 21:5)

Romans 8:21 suggests that the future of creation is similar to the future of our bodies. Yes, our bodies are flawed, damaged by sin, and will temporarily decay with the passing of time after our death. But our resurrection, like that of Christ, will be a bodily resurrection. As with Christ, we will have a new, better form---but it will still be a form.

Christ was recognizable and very much physical. He was not, and we will not be, amorphous spirits, life-forces, or drops that simply joins the ocean of the universe. My resurrected body will still have a relationship to my body of today. Likewise, the new earth will still have elements of the present earth. How all this works in practice is indeed a grand mystery, but it seems quite clear that we and all of creation are not headed for nothingness.

If Warren had a verse in mind when he declared there are "no long range plans" for the earth, it might have been II Peter 3:10. However, that text is probably best read not as an annihilating blaze, but as a refining fire that exposes the earth's true essence minus its impurities.

N.T. Wright was on to something when he told Christianity Today the following:

CT: How does the doctrine of the resurrection affirm the goodness of creation?

NT: This absolutely central. In both the Jewish circles where resurrection was firmly believed, moving on towards the rabbis, and in early Christianity, both in the New Testament and in the second-century fathers, where you get resurrection, it goes very closely with two things—a doctrine of the goodness of creation and a doctrine of the justice and ultimate judgment of God. Judgment is not just negative, but also positive. Judgment is God's putting the world to rights.

If death is the dissolution of this body, never to be reassembled, then death has succeeded in saying present creation is bad and is going to be abandoned. But resurrection says, No. Present creation is good. It is corruptible and transient, not least because of sin, but God, having dealt with sin in the cross of Jesus Christ, will deal with corruption. And the result therefore must be the reaffirmation of the good creation, including the reaffirmation of human bodies.

(More on these themes here.)

The good news is that even if Rick Warren thinks the Earth won't be sticking around, he is still on board with taking care of it in the here and now. As one of the most prominent signers of the Evangelical Climate Initiative, Warren took a bold and important stand on behalf of God's creation. His Saddleback Church is taking other steps to improve their stewardship as well.

The even better news is that Warren's good works today might actually have lasting significance. When we pray "thy will be done on earth" and when we let God work through us to answer that prayer, something real is happening.

Undoubtedly, the work will not be finished until Christ comes again, but introducing people to Jesus now, seeking justice now, caring for the sick now, feeding the hungry now, protecting the creatures God created from extinction now, and generally alleviating creation's groaning now are not just ways that we "play house" before leaving for our true spiritual home.

No, this is our real home, set for a major remodeling in the future, but part of that future is now. The good news is that God has long range plans to which all of creation can indeed look forward joyfully.

This weekend, I wrote a check to an environmental organization working to save a particularly wonderful piece of creation. In the memo line I wrote, "Easter---Good news for all creation!" I believe that. And I believe that the work we do to care for creation does indeed, in ways I do not fully understand, have eternal value.

.

Green Revolution Book Review

2009-04-12T22:15:00.002-04:00

You can read my review of Ben Lowe's Green Revolution: Coming Together to Care for Creation here at deepgreenconversation.com.

And after you read the review, you can buy the book here.

Happy Easter to all.

.

N.T. gets it Right

2009-04-11T17:35:00.001-04:00

An excerpt from an interview with N.T. Wright up on Christianity Today right now.

How does the doctrine of the resurrection affirm the goodness of creation?

That is absolutely central. In both the Jewish circles where resurrection was firmly believed, moving on towards the rabbis, and in early Christianity, both in the New Testament and in the second-century fathers, where you get resurrection, it goes very closely with two things—a doctrine of the goodness of creation and a doctrine of the justice and ultimate judgment of God. Judgment is not just negative, but also positive. Judgment is God's putting the world to rights.

If death is the dissolution of this body, never to be reassembled, then death has succeeded in saying present creation is bad and is going to be abandoned. But resurrection says, No. Present creation is good. It is corruptible and transient, not least because of sin, but God, having dealt with sin in the cross of Jesus Christ, will deal with corruption. And the result therefore must be the reaffirmation of the good creation, including the reaffirmation of human bodies.

New NM & new stuff coming

2009-04-11T00:15:00.002-04:00

Newish NewMajority piece here.

After several months of being a blogger without internet, I am now back in the 21st century (for better or worse) and expect to have some treehugger exclusives soon.

Thanks for sticking with me.

.

Updates from NewMajority and Relevant

2009-03-10T18:26:00.002-04:00

Sorry to neglect the blog that started it all. It has been a busy time on multiple fronts. I do have some relatively new content to share though.

A piece on my adventures with Wendell Berry can be found here.

And my encounter with Big Al in Nashville is chronicled here on RelevantMagazine.com.

Blessings all.

.

(Not so) unbelievable

2009-02-06T07:01:00.004-05:00

A depressing story that highlights our strange sense of national outrage regarding abortion. A 23 week old child filled her lungs with air and was subsequently killed and tossed in the garbage. There is outrage because this happened outside the womb. If the "malpractice" of leaving the mother dilated and unattended had not occurred, this would have just been business as usual. The AP would not have carried a story about a "successful" abortion though the same baby would have ended up in the same trash.

"I don't care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community," said Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney representing Williams in her lawsuit against Renelique and the clinic owners.

Of course is does indeed matter what your morals are, and these morals should influence your politics on this topic.

.