GeorgePWood.com

Christianity Today offers two articles on hymns today. The first is actually a slideshow of hymnals and hymn-singing from around the world. The second is an article by my college history professor, Mark Noll: "We Are What We Sing." Here’s the opening paragraph of Noll’s article, with which I heartily agree:

Evangelicalism at its best is the religion displayed in its classic hymns. The classic evangelical hymns contain the clearest, most memorable, cohesive, and widely repeated expressions of what it has meant to be an evangelical.I

I’m a fan of contemporary worship music, but I also think we should keep singing the best of evangelical hymns. Noll’s article helps me explain why.

Sunday, May 27, was the Global Day of Prayer. At the morning service, I spoke on the theme, "How to Pray for the World" from 1 Timothy 2:1-7.

The featured article in today’s Opinion Journal is "The Conservative Mind" by Peter Berkowitz, senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Here are the opening paragraphs.

The left prides itself on, and frequently boasts of, its superior appreciation of the complexity and depth of moral and political life. But political debate in America today tells a different story.

On a variety of issues that currently divide the nation, those to the left of center seem to be converging, their ranks increasingly untroubled by debate or dissent, except on daily tactics and long-term strategy. Meanwhile, those to the right of center are engaged in an intense intra-party struggle to balance competing principles and goods.

One source of the divisions evident today is the tension in modern conservatism between its commitment to individual liberty, and its lively appreciation of the need to preserve the beliefs, practices, associations and institutions that form citizens capable of preserving liberty. The conservative reflex to resist change must often be overcome, because prudent change is necessary to defend liberty. Yet the tension within often compels conservatives to wrestle with the consequences of change more fully than progressives–for whom change itself is often seen as good, and change that contributes to the equalization of social conditions as a very important good.

To be sure, some standard-order issues remain easy for both sides. Democrats instinctively want to repeal the Bush tax cuts, establish government supervised universal healthcare, and impose greater regulation on trade. Just as instinctively Republicans wish to extend the Bush tax cuts, find market mechanisms to broaden health care coverage and reduce limitations on trade.

But on non-standard issues–involving dramatic changes in national security and foreign affairs, the power of medicine and technology to intervene at the early stages of life, and the social meaning of marriage and family, the partisans show a clear difference: the left is more and more of one mind while divisions on the right deepen.

Read the whole thing to see what roils the right, and why.

Over at First Things, Francis J. Beckwith reviews Hugh Hewitt’s new book about Mitt Romney: A Mormon in the White House? He argues that American Christians considering Romney’s candidacy for the presidency should not make "the Creedal Mistake," i.e., believing that "the planks of his [religious] creed are the best standard by which to judge the suitability of a political candidate." By the same token, however, he cautions Romney not to make "the Kennedy mistake." Citing Kennedy’s September 12, 1960, speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, Beckwith writes:

Kennedy’s speech reads like a complete acquiescence to American mainline Protestant notions of privatized faith and anti-clericalism, as well as its stereotypical, outdated, and uncharitable ideas about the Catholic hierarchy and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Kennedy could have argued that his Catholicism informs him of certain theological and moral doctrines that will make him a thoughtful and principled president. He could have consulted and mined from the works of Catholic scholars who were able defenders of liberal democracy and the natural law that grounds it. But he did not. Kennedy’s speech was a terrible concession. For it played to his audience’s anti-Catholic prejudices while saying that his religious beliefs are so trivial that he would govern exactly the same if they were absent.

Beckwith applies these lessons directly to Romney:

Romney, in order to pacify secularists and traditional Christians, may be tempted to emulate Kennedy and claim that his theology and church do not influence or shape his politics. But this would be a mistake. For it would signal to traditional Christians that Romney does not believe that theology could, in principle, count as knowledge; but this is precisely the view of the secularist who believes that religion, like matters of taste, should remain private. Yet if a citizen has good reason to believe her theological tradition offers real insights into the nature of humanity and the common good—insights that could be defended on grounds that even a secularist cannot easily dismiss—why should she remain mute simply because the secularist stipulates a definition of religion that requires her silence? Why should she accept the secularist’s limitations on her religious liberty based on what appears to many of us as a capricious and politically convenient understanding of “religion”? If Romney commits the Kennedy Mistake, it would give tacit permission to secularists to call into question the political legitimacy of not only Romney’s fellow religionists (including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) but also conservative Catholics and evangelicals.

Then he wraps up his discussion with this conclusion:

If one does not support Romney’s candidacy, it should not be because he is a Mormon. It should be because one has good reason to believe he is not the best candidate for the office. That is the message of Hewitt’s book. It is one that would resonate with Martin Luther, who once tersely said, “I’d rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.”

Precisely!

…can be viewed online here.

Over at the Christianity Today website, Mark Dever answers this question using the Old Testament prophet Obadiah.

Recently, a spate of books has been published that extol the virtues of atheism and excoriate the vices of religion: Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion, Sam Harris’s Letters to a Christian Nation, and now Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great.  Having perused a couple of these books myself, my conclusion is that these men are clever writers but far from clear thinkers. If the village atheist had a Ph.D. in biology, a witty pen, anger management issues, and an unfamiliarity with contemporary work in the philosophy of religion, he would write these books. If not, he would leave well enough alone.

Unfortunately, the men who review these books are often as ignorant about religion as the men who write them, and praise books that deserve to be roundly mocked. Robert T. Miller picks up the problem of ignorant reviewers reviewing ignorant writers on the First Things blog:

Here’s the latest example of a fascinating, though depressing, cultural phenomenon. A fellow who clearly knows nothing about a deep and difficult intellectual problem produces a manuscript purporting to resolve the problem definitively. Such a fellow is a crank, you might think, and will quite properly be ignored. But, no, he actually finds a publisher for his book, and a respected one at that. Even more surprisingly, the New York Times commissions a review of the book from a famous columnist, and, instead of exposing the book for the ignorant twaddle that it is, the columnist writes a glowing review. How does this happen?

Read the whole thing to find out how Michael Kinsley ended up reviewing Christopher Hitchens and making a fool of himself in the process.

Over at the PowerLine Blog, Paul Mirengoff posts this:

Michael Gerson, formerly President Bush’s speechwriter extraordinaire, is now a columnist for the Washington Post. Today, he focuses on Rudy Giuliani’s position on abortion, which Gerson describes as "a muddle."

Giuliani says he hates abortion and considers it morally wrong, but nonetheless opposes legislation to outlaw the practice because he thinks the person carrying the baby has the right to make her own choice. Gerson considers this position "incoherent" because, by saying that he hates abortion, Giuliani is "implying his support for the Catholic belief that an innocent life is being taken." And if an innocent life is being taken, then the need to ban the practice must trump the choice of the would-be mother.

Although I don’t agree with Giuliani’s position, neither do I find it inherently incoherent. One can regard the fetus in its early stages as close enough to an innocent human being for us to abhor its destruction, but not close enough for us to deny the would-be mother the freedom to terminate it.

I doubt, though, that Giuliani wishes to articulate this position — the perception of incoherence might be a better option. And Gerson is certainly correct that this issue "is likely to dog [Giuliani] in the primary process."

It is the third paragraph that intrigues me. Perhaps he is right that Giuliani’s position is not "inherently incoherent." But Mirengoff’s reasoning for reaching this conclusion is odd to say the least. " One can regard the fetus in its early stages as close enough to an innocent human being for us to abhor its destruction, but not close enough for us to deny the would-be mother the freedom to terminate it." To me, this line of reasoning is appropriate if you’re considering putting down a sick dog, but hardly appropriate when speaking of a human being.

Then again, Mirengoff only claims that the fetus is "close enough to an innocent human being." One wonders when the poor baby crosses the threshhold to merit real human protection.