This week, I am working through John Piper’s recent nine-part seminar about the five points of Calvinism or TULIP. The introductory first part, as well as links to the rest of this series, is available here. I have watched first five parts so far and greatly appreciated extensive textural analysis Paster Piper offers. I plan to post my notes after completing the series.

In addition, I am reading What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism, the 1985 booklet by Bethlehem Baptist Church Staff. I am grateful that Paster Piper’s ministry has made these lectures and notes available to wider audience.

In my Google search about Calvin and TULIP, I came across this article, “The Triumph of Arminianism (and its dangers)” by Keith Drury, which assets that “Arminianism has triumphed in the pew, if not in the seminary”. Below is an excerpt from its introductory section.

The evangelical church today is basically Arminian in its approach. For now, Arminianism has triumphed and Calvinism is in retreat. I don’t mean that the Calvinist denominations have officially changed their doctrine. Most Calvinistic theologians have stuck with their five-points (see TULIP Calvinism Compared to Wesleyan Perspectives). But most of the ordinary people have drifted from traditional Calvinism toward the Arminian position. The average Christian today might claim to be Calvinist, but they function as a “practical Arminian.” While many Calvinist pastors still ascribe to the Calvinist shibboleths, in their practical theology, they are functioning Arminians.

My initial reaction? I said to myself that I need to do more research to verify this assertion. However, towards the end of this article, Mr. Drury writes something that does not make sense to me.

Face it, Arminianism is simply more logical. It makes sense to the person on the street. And today’s church is scrambling to make sense to unbelievers. We want to sound sensible, logical, rational, enlightened, fair. Arminianism is so much more appealing to worldly people.

Huh? Is the main point of Christian faith and theology being more logical, making more sense and appealing to people? Which verses in the Bible support this idea?

Look at these inspiring words I came across in The New York Times this morning.

The first thing we have to do is believe. If you don’t believe, you don’t have a chance. You have to believe and then everything is possible. When you start believing, it’s already happening. You just have to put the pieces together.

I risk reading too much into this but doesn’t it sound like part of a sermon about the role of faith for Christians? Perhaps inspired by the following Words?

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18)

In my head, I even hear some echoes of Pastor John Piper’s extensive sermon series about regeneration.

So, who made such an inspiring comment?? Surprise! It was Jaromír Jágr, the captain of the New York Rangers of the National Hockey League, who was talking about what Rangers need to do in its Stanley Cup playoff series against the Pittsburgh Penguins. Mr. Jágr scored the crucial first goal during last night’s fourth game which Rangers won to avoid being eliminated in a sweep. The full article is found here.

I have added a new feature to my blog. Please follow this link to see news and commentaries I have read and found interesting. In addition, the box which is marked “Matthew’s Picks” on the right side of this page contains titles of most recent items I am sharing, which should allow you to jump directly to those posts. Behind the scene, I am using Google Reader to assemble these shared items and would appreciate any feedback (technical or editorial) you may have.

I attended a meeting last evening where Professor Joan Jeffri from Columbia University’s Teachers College discussed her recently-published book entitled Respect for Art: Visual Arts Administration and Management in China and the United States. In spite of (perhaps thanks to) my lack of knowledge in visual arts, I ended up learning a lot about the fascinating world of artists, galleries, auction houses and museums in contemporary China as well as their interactions with their peers in the United States and Europe. I also came away with an appreciation for the often crucial role government policies play in shaping production, distribution and consumption of arts in both countries.

One side discussion dealt with the rapid increase in the price of Chinese art over the past few years and whether such an increase was warranted. “The auction value of Chinese contemporary art has skyrocketed, not necessarily because they are excellent and therefore deserve high prices, but because some hedge fund managers are willing to pay high prices for even some mediocre pieces,” went one casual comment. [I am paraphrasing here and not quoting verbatim.]

Which begs this age-old and one of my favorite questions: what do we mean by the word “value“?

Why? Doesn’t everyone know what value means? No! I have seen many instances of public policy discussions where the meaning of this (sometimes emotional and ideological) word is unclear at best and confused at worst.

Personally, I am a big fan of the following definition which comes from a rather dated but emphatically not outdated source.

The word value, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called “value in use”; the other, “value in exchange.” The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it. [emphasis added] (Book 1, Chapter 4)

Adam Smith published these words during that revolutionary year of 1776 in his monumental book, An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which singlehandedly laid the foundation for the economics as an academic discipline.

One criticism of “value in exchange” is that it often appears to be capricious and not grounded in fundamental factors. This concern is implicit in the quote above about the current auction value of Chinese contemporary art.

While I am highly sympathetic to this criticism (who would not be given well-known speculative episodes such as tulip mania), I also believe strongly that we should be careful in delineating normative (say, moral) concerns from positive (say, technical) questions, lest good intentions introduce unintended malfunction or distortions to the marketplace. Of course, we, as members of a capitalistic and democratic nation, should continue to debate fiercely about questions such as whether the difference between “value in use” (intrinsic value) and “value in exchange” (extrinsic value) is warranted and, if so, whether it should be tolerated. But, in my view, our political debates (necessary under the democracy) about economic issues will not improve unless we become clearer and more precise about the basic concept of this important word, value.

What do you think?

As someone who practically spent every Thursday evening watching the Cosby Show on NBC from late 1980s until its final episode in 1992, I could not resist clicking the link to the article “The audacity of Bill Cosby’s black conservatism,” written by Ta-Nehisi Coate and published in this month’s Atlantic Monthly. I found the article to be informative and well-written. We need more thoughtful expositions about racial experience, particularly in light of this year’s political, social and religious controversies related to U.S. Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Somewhat surprisingly, what I ended up appreciating the most about this article was Mr. Coate’s anchoring of Mr. Cosby’s messages into much longer historical context. In addition, I relished sidenotes to two Atlantic Monthly articles from more than a century ago (written by Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois in 1896 and 1897, respectively) which brought back some faded yet fond memories from the U.S. history classes I have taken.

Below are some illustrative passages from the article.

Excerpt 1: Cosby vs Dyson is analogous to Washington vs Du Bois a century ago

The split between Cosby and critics such as Dyson mirrors not only America’s broader conservative/liberal split but black America’s own historic intellectual divide. Cosby’s most obvious antecedent is Booker T. Washington. At the turn of the 20th century, Washington married a defense of the white South with a call for black self-reliance and became the most prominent black leader of his day. He argued that southern whites should be given time to adjust to emancipation; in the meantime, blacks should advance themselves not by voting and running for office but by working, and ultimately owning, the land.

W. E. B. Du Bois, the integrationist model for the Dysons of our day, saw Washington as an apologist for white racism and thought that his willingness to sacrifice the black vote was heretical. History ultimately rendered half of Washington’s argument moot. His famous Atlanta Compromise—in which he endorsed segregation as a temporary means of making peace with southerners—was answered by lynchings, land theft, and general racial terrorism. But Washington’s appeal to black self-sufficiency endured.

After Washington’s death, in 1915, the black conservative tradition he had fathered found a permanent and natural home in the emerging ideology of Black Nationalism. Marcus Garvey, its patron saint, turned the Atlanta Compromise on its head, implicitly endorsing segregation not as an olive branch to whites but as a statement of black supremacy. Black Nationalists scorned the Du Boisian integrationists as stooges or traitors, content to beg for help from people who hated them.

Excerpt 2: The organic black conservatism is a response to failed government policies

The rise of the organic black conservative tradition is also a response to America’s retreat from its second attempt at Reconstruction. Blacks have watched as the courts have weakened affirmative action, arguably the country’s greatest symbol of state-sponsored inclusion. They’ve seen a fraudulent war on drugs that, judging by the casualties, looks like a war on black people. They’ve seen themselves bandied about as playthings in the presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan (with his 1980 invocation of states’ rights” in Mississippi), George Bush (Willie Horton), Bill Clinton (Sister Souljah), and George W. Bush (McCain’s fabled black love-child). They’ve seen the utter failures of school busing and housing desegregation, as well as the horrors of Katrina. The result is a broad distrust of government as the primary tool for black progress.

Excerpt 3: Cosby’s rhetoric is not new

Indeed, a century ago, the black brain trust was pushing the same rhetoric that Cosby is pushing today. It was concerned that slavery had essentially destroyed the black family and was obsessed with seemingly the same issues—crime, wanton sexuality, and general moral turpitude—that Cosby claims are recent developments.

Excerpt 4: Cosby’s activism is driven by a sense of rage caused by the failure of Liberalism

Part of what drives Cosby’s activism, and reinforces his message, is the rage that lives in all African Americans, a collective feeling of disgrace that borders on self-hatred. …[truncated] Liberalism, with its pat logic and focus on structural inequities, offers no balm for this sort of raw pain. Like the people he preaches to, Cosby has grown tired of hanging his head.