I was recently discussing with some friends the subject of music in the church. These particular friends came into Reformed circles through one of the few Reformed churches that is more liturgical in practice than Reformed churches have historically been. Unfortunately, through the circumstances that came about, they have found themselves in a more traditional American Reformed setting – little liturgy, little music. Providential circumstances, no doubt - but difficult nontheless. We were lamenting how little occasion the typical Reformed believer is given to sing in church. Here are a couple of my own thoughts as to why that might be.
First of all, the Calvinist tradition in the context of the 16th century Reformation is clearly the more Rationalistic tradition. The Church of England maintained a closer link to the traditional liturgy as it had been handed down. This was of necessity due to the fact that England and its leaders, both church and state, never found an overwhelming consensus in favor of the Reformation. This maintenance of a high level of liturgy, I would maintain, served as a preventative against the more Rationalistic lean of the Continental Reformed tradition. This Rationalism carried over into the British Isles through the Puritan and Scottish Calvinistic traditions and this is why it is found in Presbyterianism today. In the Lutheran tradition, reformation of music was a far more important matter. Luther himself was a musician and wrote many hymns, encouraging the restoration of congregational singing. Now it needs to be pointed out that Calvin encouraged the restoration of congregational singing as well. But the music of Geneva was limited to metrical Psalmody and the singing of Scripture passages set in meter. While I like metrical Psalms, they are too simple and predictable, and they grow boring rather quickly. This approach, I would suggest, limits the creativity that musicians can have and suppresses the writing of new music. Calvin certainly did a better job than did Zwingli, who didn’t believe any singing should take place in worship. But although Calvin wasn’t as infected with Rationalism as Zwingli was, he was infected nonetheless. This has been worsened in the Reformation tradition since.
Another reason that there is so little singing in Reformed churches, I believe, is because most Reformed ministers are so musically inept. Due to the Reformed tradition's rationalism, music as a worthy pastime is engaged in and promoted little. Almost no time is given to music in seminary education. And in my experience – however limited it might be – most ministers couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket. One can understand why they don’t care for much singing in worship.
The third reason has to do with participation in worship. In traditional Reformed churches, the minister tends to do just about everything. In some churches, there is the recitation of the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer by the congregation. Sometimes there is a confession of sin by the congregation – though in Calvin’s liturgy the congregational confession was simply a prayer prayed by the pastor alone, and this is practiced by some Reformed churches today. Then there are two or three hymns or Psalms, and that is about all the vocal participation the congregation has. The pastor, on the other hand, has the Call to Worship and the Benediction. He alone reads the Scripture text(s). He prays a fifteen minute prayer. There are a number of other ways that he might be vocal in the liturgy. And even when there is a highly structured liturgy, the pastor manages to have something “spiritual” to say in between every element of the service – a series of sermonettes apart from the main sermon, if you will. He has a whole separate sermonette in addition to the main sermon on the Sundays that Communion is observed. Then, of course, there is the sermon proper, which is usually between 45 minutes and an hour in length. The point here is that the pastor gets this huge chunk of time every worship service to praise God vocally. He’s satisfied. Why wouldn’t the congregation be? He can’t understand that there is a dissatisfaction among the congregation because they don’t get enough of an opportunity to praise God corporately and vocally, and the reason he doesn’t understand is because he has all the time to praise God aloud in worship that a man could want. Besides, in the Reformed tradition it’s really all about preaching anyway. All the other stuff is just superfluous. That’s why Reformed ministers spend all their time talking about preaching. Heck, they even preach sermon series about preaching. When was the last time you heard a Reformed minister preach a sermon series about music?
I think there is a right desire in faithful Christians to praise God vocally and corporately in worship. And I think the Reformed tradition stifles that. No wonder the Reformed and Presbyterian churches are moving rapidly toward contemporary worship forms. Even if the music is immature in its form and content, at least there is more of an opportunity for the people to talk to God themselves.
I also think that when a minister encourages vocal and physical passivity in corporate worship, he also encourages passivity in the rest of the believer’s life. We shouldn’t be surprised when the members of a congregation find themselves giving up quickly in the face of temptation if the pastor discourages a proper zeal in worship. It’s just a theory, but I think it’s true.
Maybe it’s just my experience. But it’s been rather suspicious to me that for most of the Reformed ministers I’ve known, they can only carry on one way conversations, with themselves doing all the talking. I think there’s a connection here.
I like what a Lutheran minister said to me one time – “sometimes I just get tired of hearing myself talking up there.” I wish more Reformed ministers would have such a viewpoint.
Those interested in considering further the subject of music in the Reformation traditions might consult the following resources:
Reforming Our Worship Music by Leonard R. Payton
Luther on Music: Paradigms of Praise by Carl F. Schalk
“Music and Singing in the Liturgy” by J. Gelineau SJ and “Hymnody in Christian Worship” by Alan Dunstan, both found in The Study of Liturgy, edited by Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, Edward Yarnold SJ, and Paul Bradshaw
Friday, August 18, 2006
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Commercialism rocks!
I just learned that one of our local shopping malls is planning on opening its doors at 1 a.m. the morning after Thanksgiving Day. It’s crazy enough that it’s only August and they are already announcing this to the stores they lease space to. But the worst part about it is that this means that the stores will have to be open at that hour or else be penalized. And so they are in essence forcing the stores to require employees to come in to work that early.
Welcome to the triumph of materialism.
Welcome to the triumph of materialism.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Catherine, O'Connor, and Purgatory
As regular readers of my blog know, I recently quoted from Catherine of Genoa’s Treatise on Purgatory in my series of quotes for our Book Study group. Flannery O’Connor, whose story "The Displaced Person" we have been studying, was a Roman Catholic and therefore believed in Purgatory. She also incorporated the idea in a couple of her stories, "The Displaced Person" being one of them. O’Connor mentioned Catherine’s Treatise specifically, so I read it for the purpose of gaining some insight into O’Connor and her writing.
I personally do not believe in Purgatory, inasmuch as I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever for it in Scripture. The verses cited in favor of it by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) are misinterpretations, and clearly so, in my opinion.
As if the teaching of Scripture isn’t enough, the historical question is an important one here as well. The doctrine of Purgatory is strictly a Western doctrine, having never been accepted up to the present day by the Eastern churches. Also, the doctrine of Purgatory was not officially declared by a pope prior to the Apostolic Constitution Benedictus Deus by Benedict XII in 1336 or by a synod until the Council (or Pseudo-council, as the Eastern churches would have it) of Florence in 1439. These are rather late dates for a doctrine as important as it is. Also, the doctrine has generally only been accepted by the Catholic and Anglo-Catholic Christians, being rejected by Protestantism almost wholesale. All things said, I think the odds are pretty well stacked against the doctrine of Purgatory.
This was my first venture into reading about Purgatory, so I found a couple of things about Catherine’s Treatise to be especially interesting.
First of all, I had always been taught by Protestants to view Purgatory as a sort of sadistic act of God, a punishment for the faithful, if you will. Yet Catherine presented it as an act of grace. God cannot accept sin into His presence, and so He must purify us. Also, it is an act of love for God to purify us of our sin. I think the literal notion that “God cannot accept sin into His presence” to be a Biblically and theologically problematic one. As a Protestant who believes in the necessity of sanctification, however, I can agree with some idea that purification is necessary for our salvation.
On the negative side, though, I found a couple of other things curious. For one thing, Catherine presented the relationship between the soul and God in especially romantic terms – terms which Scripture doesn’t apply to the individual Christian. God is not my romantic lover. Christ’s Bride is the Church Collective – not me as an individual. Though Catherine lived in the late 15th – early 16th centuries, her writing seems to be of the same spirit of the Medieval mystics, who tended to define the relationship between the individual and God as Catherine did.
But another thing that struck me was how individualistic Purgatory itself is conceived as being. Catherine spoke strictly in terms of the individual being purified by the fires of Purgatory, and of the soul longing to be joined to God. And so it is all about me and God. And yet I would argue that Scripture places as much if not more emphasis on the corporate. In this notion of Purgatory, there is no idea of me being purified through my interactions with other sinful people. I don’t doubt that those who believe in Purgatory would say that that happens in this world, whereas Purgatory is a different situation. And yet, the Biblical doctrine of sanctification is my being purified in the daily struggle of having to deal in a Godly fashion with other sinners like myself. That’s rather different than what Catherine taught.
So I think O’Connor was wrong in her belief in Purgatory. But as she herself said, she was a writer. While she believed in Purgatory, and incorporated it into her stories, she was no doctor of the church, and had every intention of leaving theology to the theologians. It’s too bad that the ones she left it up to got this doctrine wrong.
I personally do not believe in Purgatory, inasmuch as I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever for it in Scripture. The verses cited in favor of it by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) are misinterpretations, and clearly so, in my opinion.
As if the teaching of Scripture isn’t enough, the historical question is an important one here as well. The doctrine of Purgatory is strictly a Western doctrine, having never been accepted up to the present day by the Eastern churches. Also, the doctrine of Purgatory was not officially declared by a pope prior to the Apostolic Constitution Benedictus Deus by Benedict XII in 1336 or by a synod until the Council (or Pseudo-council, as the Eastern churches would have it) of Florence in 1439. These are rather late dates for a doctrine as important as it is. Also, the doctrine has generally only been accepted by the Catholic and Anglo-Catholic Christians, being rejected by Protestantism almost wholesale. All things said, I think the odds are pretty well stacked against the doctrine of Purgatory.
This was my first venture into reading about Purgatory, so I found a couple of things about Catherine’s Treatise to be especially interesting.
First of all, I had always been taught by Protestants to view Purgatory as a sort of sadistic act of God, a punishment for the faithful, if you will. Yet Catherine presented it as an act of grace. God cannot accept sin into His presence, and so He must purify us. Also, it is an act of love for God to purify us of our sin. I think the literal notion that “God cannot accept sin into His presence” to be a Biblically and theologically problematic one. As a Protestant who believes in the necessity of sanctification, however, I can agree with some idea that purification is necessary for our salvation.
On the negative side, though, I found a couple of other things curious. For one thing, Catherine presented the relationship between the soul and God in especially romantic terms – terms which Scripture doesn’t apply to the individual Christian. God is not my romantic lover. Christ’s Bride is the Church Collective – not me as an individual. Though Catherine lived in the late 15th – early 16th centuries, her writing seems to be of the same spirit of the Medieval mystics, who tended to define the relationship between the individual and God as Catherine did.
But another thing that struck me was how individualistic Purgatory itself is conceived as being. Catherine spoke strictly in terms of the individual being purified by the fires of Purgatory, and of the soul longing to be joined to God. And so it is all about me and God. And yet I would argue that Scripture places as much if not more emphasis on the corporate. In this notion of Purgatory, there is no idea of me being purified through my interactions with other sinful people. I don’t doubt that those who believe in Purgatory would say that that happens in this world, whereas Purgatory is a different situation. And yet, the Biblical doctrine of sanctification is my being purified in the daily struggle of having to deal in a Godly fashion with other sinners like myself. That’s rather different than what Catherine taught.
So I think O’Connor was wrong in her belief in Purgatory. But as she herself said, she was a writer. While she believed in Purgatory, and incorporated it into her stories, she was no doctor of the church, and had every intention of leaving theology to the theologians. It’s too bad that the ones she left it up to got this doctrine wrong.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Money, Money, MONEY!
Overheard in a restaurant the other day:
“If you can’t impact a person’s money, nobody wants to hear you.”
How true.
“If you can’t impact a person’s money, nobody wants to hear you.”
How true.
Emerging and Church Discipline
Steve Camp raises the question:
Why hasn't anyone within the EC ecumenical movement (including conservatives like Mark Driscoll and Dan Kimball) publicly called for the church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20) of Brian McLaren for his aberrant and heretical theological error?
You mean the Bible teaches church discipline? {Gasp.}
Why hasn't anyone within the EC ecumenical movement (including conservatives like Mark Driscoll and Dan Kimball) publicly called for the church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20) of Brian McLaren for his aberrant and heretical theological error?
You mean the Bible teaches church discipline? {Gasp.}
Hilarious...
The following is lifted from Little Miss Reformed:
Every year, English teachers from across the country can submit their collections of actual analogies and metaphors found in high school essays. These excerpts are published each year to the amusement of teachers across the country. Here are last year's winners.....
1. Her face was a perfect oval, like a circle that had its two sides gently compressed by a Thigh Master.
2. His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free.
3. He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it.
4. She grew on him like she was a colony of E. Coli, and he was
room-temperature Canadian beef.
5. She had a deep, throaty, genuine laugh, like that sound a dog makes just before it throws up.
6. Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.
7. He was as tall as a six-foot, three-inch tree.
8. The revelation that his marriage of 30 years had disintegrated because of his wife's infidelity came as a rude shock, like a surcharge at a formerly surcharge-free ATM machine.
9. The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn't.
10. McBride fell 12 stories, hitting the pavement like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup.
11. From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an eerie, surreal quality, like when you're on vacation in another city and Jeopardy comes on at 7:00 p. M. Instead of 7:30.
12. Her hair glistened in the rain like a nose hair after a sneeze.
13. The hailstones leaped from the pavement, just like maggots when you fry them in hot grease.
14. Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p. M. Traveling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 P.M. At a speed of 35 mph.
15. They lived in a typical suburban neighborhood with picket fences that resembled Nancy Kerrigan's teeth.
16. John and Mary had never met. They were like two hummingbirds who had also never met.
17. He fell for her like his heart was a mob informant, and she was the East River.
18. Even in his last years, Granddad had a mind like a steel trap, only one that had been left out so long, it had rusted shut.
19. Shots rang out, as shots are wont to do.
20. The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work.
21. The young fighter had a hungry look, the kind you get from not eating for a while.
22. He was as lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical lame duck, either, but a real duck that was actually lame, maybe from stepping on a land mine or something.
23. The ballerina rose gracefully en Pointe and extended one slender leg behind her, like a dog at a fire hydrant.
24. It was an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools.
25. He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a garbage truck backing up.
Every year, English teachers from across the country can submit their collections of actual analogies and metaphors found in high school essays. These excerpts are published each year to the amusement of teachers across the country. Here are last year's winners.....
1. Her face was a perfect oval, like a circle that had its two sides gently compressed by a Thigh Master.
2. His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free.
3. He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it.
4. She grew on him like she was a colony of E. Coli, and he was
room-temperature Canadian beef.
5. She had a deep, throaty, genuine laugh, like that sound a dog makes just before it throws up.
6. Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.
7. He was as tall as a six-foot, three-inch tree.
8. The revelation that his marriage of 30 years had disintegrated because of his wife's infidelity came as a rude shock, like a surcharge at a formerly surcharge-free ATM machine.
9. The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn't.
10. McBride fell 12 stories, hitting the pavement like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup.
11. From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an eerie, surreal quality, like when you're on vacation in another city and Jeopardy comes on at 7:00 p. M. Instead of 7:30.
12. Her hair glistened in the rain like a nose hair after a sneeze.
13. The hailstones leaped from the pavement, just like maggots when you fry them in hot grease.
14. Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p. M. Traveling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 P.M. At a speed of 35 mph.
15. They lived in a typical suburban neighborhood with picket fences that resembled Nancy Kerrigan's teeth.
16. John and Mary had never met. They were like two hummingbirds who had also never met.
17. He fell for her like his heart was a mob informant, and she was the East River.
18. Even in his last years, Granddad had a mind like a steel trap, only one that had been left out so long, it had rusted shut.
19. Shots rang out, as shots are wont to do.
20. The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work.
21. The young fighter had a hungry look, the kind you get from not eating for a while.
22. He was as lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical lame duck, either, but a real duck that was actually lame, maybe from stepping on a land mine or something.
23. The ballerina rose gracefully en Pointe and extended one slender leg behind her, like a dog at a fire hydrant.
24. It was an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools.
25. He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a garbage truck backing up.
They won't be dancing, either
As I was coming home from work this evening, I saw the following on a sign in front of a Baptist church:
HAPPY HOUR SUN AM 930 – 1030
Anyone want to guess what they won’t be serving at “Happy Hour”?
HAPPY HOUR SUN AM 930 – 1030
Anyone want to guess what they won’t be serving at “Happy Hour”?
Thursday, August 10, 2006
More on Emerging
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
- Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Sections 6 and 7
The above came to mind as I was contemplating some of the things I've heard coming from Emerging folks, particularly on the subject of certainty in knowing and understanding God's word. While I recognize the above statement to be a brief summary of the subject and not comprehensive, I would still regard it as substantially true.
I've found a couple of resources for those interested in considering the subject of the Emerging church. Here is an audio clip from John MacArthur that I found interesting. I disagree with MacArthur on many things, but nonetheless I thought his comments here were good. It's only about six minutes long.
And here is a page at Monergism.com that is dedicated to the subject of the Emerging church. So far I've only listened to John Piper's comments and the interview with Justin Taylor. Piper's comments were only a couple of minutes; the interview with Taylor was significantly longer. I would highly recommend both.
As you scroll down the Monergism page, you'll see this:
Ouch. I'll have to read that one.
The Monergism site is a fantastic site in general for those looking to study any theological topic. The links on the site are mainly from a Reformed perspective, broadly speaking.
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
- Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Sections 6 and 7
The above came to mind as I was contemplating some of the things I've heard coming from Emerging folks, particularly on the subject of certainty in knowing and understanding God's word. While I recognize the above statement to be a brief summary of the subject and not comprehensive, I would still regard it as substantially true.
I've found a couple of resources for those interested in considering the subject of the Emerging church. Here is an audio clip from John MacArthur that I found interesting. I disagree with MacArthur on many things, but nonetheless I thought his comments here were good. It's only about six minutes long.
And here is a page at Monergism.com that is dedicated to the subject of the Emerging church. So far I've only listened to John Piper's comments and the interview with Justin Taylor. Piper's comments were only a couple of minutes; the interview with Taylor was significantly longer. I would highly recommend both.
As you scroll down the Monergism page, you'll see this:
Men Are from Mars Hill by Mark Driscoll praises Jesus, blasts mega-churches, and extols Reformed theology. Interview by Jason Bailey -- "The two hot theologies today are Reformed and emerging. Reformed theology offers certainty, with a masculine God who names our sin, crushes Jesus on the Cross for it, and sends us to hell if we fail to repent. Emerging theology offers obscurity, with a neutered God who would not say an unkind word to us, did not crush Jesus for our sins, and would not send anyone to hell."
Ouch. I'll have to read that one.
The Monergism site is a fantastic site in general for those looking to study any theological topic. The links on the site are mainly from a Reformed perspective, broadly speaking.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
The “Get Over It" Tour
I’ve heard that James Blunt (famous for the song “You’re Beautiful”) and Daniel Powter (famous for the song “Bad Day”) are going on tour together. Rumor has it that the tour will be sponsored by Kleenex. Can anyone confirm these rumors?
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
The Emerging Church and Evangelical History
The Emerging Church movement is the latest trendy movement in the Evangelical church. Aside from the conversations about it that appear in the blogosphere, this is noticeable in the number of books published by leaders of the Emerging movement that appear in the religion section of the mega-bookstores.
I have spent some time reading blogs and articles by those who consider themselves part of the movement. And I own a couple of books by Emerging writers, but have yet to read them. So I’m not in a place to offer a full critique. I do have a couple of thoughts, though, and would welcome any feedback.
One thing that I found out recently that is interesting had to do with the church background of the most well known Emerging leader, Brian McLaren. He was raised Plymouth Brethren. This, of course, stood out to me because that is my own background as well. But I also find this interesting because I think that considering this fact will give some insight into the theological presuppositions that are laced throughout McLaren’s work.
The Plymouth Brethren began as an evangelical and ecumenical movement of sorts, and to some degree continues that way until today. It also should be recognized as a Biblicistic movement. While it rightly emphasized Scripture as the foundation of Christian faith and practice, it held the history of the church mostly in contempt, and paid little respect for the teaching that had come before them. The individuals who met at Trinity College in Dublin in the 1820’s and who served as the founding members of the Plymouth Brethren movement saw themselves as meeting “in the simplicity of the New Testament pattern”, breaking bread together with little or no consideration of doctrinal differences. This was to them in contradistinction to the “denominational system” that had grown throughout the history of the church due to the sinfulness of man and which had no foundation in the New Testament. This denominational system kept Christians of various churches from communing (in terms of the Lord’s Supper) with one another, and it was this that the Brethren opposed. In these practices, the Brethren saw themselves as restoring what had been lost since the days of the Apostles.
I view the Plymouth Brethren as simply a continuation of an Evangelical movement that began during the war in the 17th century between Oliver Cromwell with his supporters and Charles I. Cromwell’s army was comprised of people from varied denominational backgrounds, all standing against the king’s violation of the rights of the people in the civil realms (taking the common land from the people and giving it to the aristocrats) and in the church (reintroducing what many believed to be Roman elements into the worship of the church). It is said by historians that Cromwell’s army discovered a unity of faith and purpose that ran deeper than their divisions (which, at this time, were chiefly divisions over liturgy and church government), and which unity contributed to their eventual victory over Charles I. Coincidental with this was the Assembly of the Divines of the Church at Westminster, which was itself comprised of men of a diversity of theological persuasions. Though it isn’t usually regarded this way nowadays, the documents drawn up by the Westminster Divines were documents of compromise. Parliament, who commanded the gathering of the Divines, wanted a set of documents that would unify the churches of Great Britain, and so the Divines set out to accomplish just that.
Through many years of success as well as persecution, this attempt at unity continued into the 18th century in the Evangelical and Revival movements in the United States as well as Britain with figures such as John Newton, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and John and Charles Wesley. This Evangelical tendency is especially noticeable in Newton, whose Evangelical conventicles including a diversity of Christians, even at times including Quakers.
It was in this atmosphere that the Plymouth Brethren movement emerged, an atmosphere that had developed over two centuries. The early Brethren came from the already existing church bodies. It is generally known that John Nelson Darby came from the Church of Ireland in which he had been a clergyman. But while Darby is considered by many to be the key theologian in the early Brethren movement, he wasn’t the key figure when it comes to the development of Open Brethren principles. By the mid 19th century, the Brethren had already had their first major split. This split was primarily over the extent to which communion is open. Darby took a more closed view to communion, and is to be seen as the founder of the Closed and Exclusive branches of the Plymouth Brethren movement. The majority of the Brethren since have followed the path of George Muller and Henry Craik, ministers at Bristol who, while holding certain tenets as essential to right teaching and practice, broadened their approach when it came to communing with others at the Lord’s Table.
George Muller was raised in Prussia, and while it is said that he lived an ungodly life as a youth (coming to Christ as a young adult), he had studied for the ministry prior to his conversion, no doubt for what we would today call the Lutheran Church. Muller came to England and joined Craik in the ministry of a Congregational church, and here we find our first major connection among the Open Brethren with the churches of the Westminster Divines. Muller and Craik over time converted the Bethesda to Brethren principles.
Craik himself was a Scot who had attended St. Andrew’s University and studied under the Scottish Presbyterian minister Thomas Chalmers. He associated with a group known as “the St. Andrew’s Seven”, a group which included Thomas Chalmers and six students, who established a missionary society at St. Andrew’s of which Craik was a part. This group played a key part in what came to be known as the modern evangelical and missionary movement.
There are further connections with the Brethren in the life of another of the founders of the Brethren movement, Anthony Norris Groves. Both Craik and Robert Nesbit, who was a member of the Seven, tutored Groves’ children. Groves himself eventually went to India as a missionary.
These connections between the Plymouth Brethren and broader Protestantism continued in the other movements such as Keswick, Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, and a host of other parachurch movements. And we now find it has at least one connection in the Emerging church.
Whereas the Emerging leaders seem to think they are doing this great new thing, I find very little that is actually new. Here are a couple of things that Emerging people emphasize that I find precedence for in the history of Evangelicalism, and not least among the Plymouth Brethren:
-Experience of God exalted over systems of doctrine and government
-An openness to the questioning of historic practices and doctrine, and placing the Bible over the historic teachings of the church
-Differences over doctrine not being allowed to divide Christians in any way
-Inclusivity rather than exclusivity
-Egalitarianism and a hatred of hierarchy
-A sense of a new movement of the Spirit of God – the idea that God is doing a “new thing” – which is, again, defined by experience
Another way I tend to view the Emerging movement is as a neo-hippie movement. The hippie movement found its most prominent Christian form in the Jesus People movement, and exemplified many of the same characteristics that I listed above. There was cross-pollination of the Jesus People with other movements in the late sixties and since, out of which emerged the Contemporary worship movement. The Emerging Church, I would say, is an inheritor of all these things.
Let me mentioned a couple of other things in closing. I recognize that the Emerging Church does not ignore Church history as a whole. Part of their reception of it is simply by the nature of things – they couldn’t be Christian in any sense if they entirely rejected the historic church. In other ways, some of them have sought to incorporate certain historic practices of the church, particularly in the area of aesthetics. As good as this is, there are certain things in the teaching of the church that can’t be rejected, and all the smells and bells in the world won’t take their place.
Let me also add that I could also be accused of being a Biblicist. There are reasons why I am neither a Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox, and that is because of the view of Church authority and Tradition that is held in these communions. Scripture is the supreme authority as God’s Word, and the individuals in authority over us have as their duty to interpret and apply Scripture in the lives of those under their care. Having said that, they don’t have the right to approach the Bible as if they were the first persons to read it, and neither do those who are laypersons. I think one of the most foolish things we can think about ourselves is that we can somehow come to truth as individuals interacting with God alone. The flipside to this is that we don’t get error by ourselves either, but we develop it as a result of the influence of others. Both of these things are true, no matter how creative or new our errors or truths appear to be. We can talk about “interpreting the Bible in community” all we want, but if we don’t interact with the communion of the saints throughout the ages, then our own practices contradict our principles. This is a major point in which I would separate myself from the Emerging Church.
There is probably more that could be said here, but inasmuch as I am writing a blog entry and not a book, I will leave it at that.
I have spent some time reading blogs and articles by those who consider themselves part of the movement. And I own a couple of books by Emerging writers, but have yet to read them. So I’m not in a place to offer a full critique. I do have a couple of thoughts, though, and would welcome any feedback.
One thing that I found out recently that is interesting had to do with the church background of the most well known Emerging leader, Brian McLaren. He was raised Plymouth Brethren. This, of course, stood out to me because that is my own background as well. But I also find this interesting because I think that considering this fact will give some insight into the theological presuppositions that are laced throughout McLaren’s work.
The Plymouth Brethren began as an evangelical and ecumenical movement of sorts, and to some degree continues that way until today. It also should be recognized as a Biblicistic movement. While it rightly emphasized Scripture as the foundation of Christian faith and practice, it held the history of the church mostly in contempt, and paid little respect for the teaching that had come before them. The individuals who met at Trinity College in Dublin in the 1820’s and who served as the founding members of the Plymouth Brethren movement saw themselves as meeting “in the simplicity of the New Testament pattern”, breaking bread together with little or no consideration of doctrinal differences. This was to them in contradistinction to the “denominational system” that had grown throughout the history of the church due to the sinfulness of man and which had no foundation in the New Testament. This denominational system kept Christians of various churches from communing (in terms of the Lord’s Supper) with one another, and it was this that the Brethren opposed. In these practices, the Brethren saw themselves as restoring what had been lost since the days of the Apostles.
I view the Plymouth Brethren as simply a continuation of an Evangelical movement that began during the war in the 17th century between Oliver Cromwell with his supporters and Charles I. Cromwell’s army was comprised of people from varied denominational backgrounds, all standing against the king’s violation of the rights of the people in the civil realms (taking the common land from the people and giving it to the aristocrats) and in the church (reintroducing what many believed to be Roman elements into the worship of the church). It is said by historians that Cromwell’s army discovered a unity of faith and purpose that ran deeper than their divisions (which, at this time, were chiefly divisions over liturgy and church government), and which unity contributed to their eventual victory over Charles I. Coincidental with this was the Assembly of the Divines of the Church at Westminster, which was itself comprised of men of a diversity of theological persuasions. Though it isn’t usually regarded this way nowadays, the documents drawn up by the Westminster Divines were documents of compromise. Parliament, who commanded the gathering of the Divines, wanted a set of documents that would unify the churches of Great Britain, and so the Divines set out to accomplish just that.
Through many years of success as well as persecution, this attempt at unity continued into the 18th century in the Evangelical and Revival movements in the United States as well as Britain with figures such as John Newton, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and John and Charles Wesley. This Evangelical tendency is especially noticeable in Newton, whose Evangelical conventicles including a diversity of Christians, even at times including Quakers.
It was in this atmosphere that the Plymouth Brethren movement emerged, an atmosphere that had developed over two centuries. The early Brethren came from the already existing church bodies. It is generally known that John Nelson Darby came from the Church of Ireland in which he had been a clergyman. But while Darby is considered by many to be the key theologian in the early Brethren movement, he wasn’t the key figure when it comes to the development of Open Brethren principles. By the mid 19th century, the Brethren had already had their first major split. This split was primarily over the extent to which communion is open. Darby took a more closed view to communion, and is to be seen as the founder of the Closed and Exclusive branches of the Plymouth Brethren movement. The majority of the Brethren since have followed the path of George Muller and Henry Craik, ministers at Bristol who, while holding certain tenets as essential to right teaching and practice, broadened their approach when it came to communing with others at the Lord’s Table.
George Muller was raised in Prussia, and while it is said that he lived an ungodly life as a youth (coming to Christ as a young adult), he had studied for the ministry prior to his conversion, no doubt for what we would today call the Lutheran Church. Muller came to England and joined Craik in the ministry of a Congregational church, and here we find our first major connection among the Open Brethren with the churches of the Westminster Divines. Muller and Craik over time converted the Bethesda to Brethren principles.
Craik himself was a Scot who had attended St. Andrew’s University and studied under the Scottish Presbyterian minister Thomas Chalmers. He associated with a group known as “the St. Andrew’s Seven”, a group which included Thomas Chalmers and six students, who established a missionary society at St. Andrew’s of which Craik was a part. This group played a key part in what came to be known as the modern evangelical and missionary movement.
There are further connections with the Brethren in the life of another of the founders of the Brethren movement, Anthony Norris Groves. Both Craik and Robert Nesbit, who was a member of the Seven, tutored Groves’ children. Groves himself eventually went to India as a missionary.
These connections between the Plymouth Brethren and broader Protestantism continued in the other movements such as Keswick, Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, and a host of other parachurch movements. And we now find it has at least one connection in the Emerging church.
Whereas the Emerging leaders seem to think they are doing this great new thing, I find very little that is actually new. Here are a couple of things that Emerging people emphasize that I find precedence for in the history of Evangelicalism, and not least among the Plymouth Brethren:
-Experience of God exalted over systems of doctrine and government
-An openness to the questioning of historic practices and doctrine, and placing the Bible over the historic teachings of the church
-Differences over doctrine not being allowed to divide Christians in any way
-Inclusivity rather than exclusivity
-Egalitarianism and a hatred of hierarchy
-A sense of a new movement of the Spirit of God – the idea that God is doing a “new thing” – which is, again, defined by experience
Another way I tend to view the Emerging movement is as a neo-hippie movement. The hippie movement found its most prominent Christian form in the Jesus People movement, and exemplified many of the same characteristics that I listed above. There was cross-pollination of the Jesus People with other movements in the late sixties and since, out of which emerged the Contemporary worship movement. The Emerging Church, I would say, is an inheritor of all these things.
Let me mentioned a couple of other things in closing. I recognize that the Emerging Church does not ignore Church history as a whole. Part of their reception of it is simply by the nature of things – they couldn’t be Christian in any sense if they entirely rejected the historic church. In other ways, some of them have sought to incorporate certain historic practices of the church, particularly in the area of aesthetics. As good as this is, there are certain things in the teaching of the church that can’t be rejected, and all the smells and bells in the world won’t take their place.
Let me also add that I could also be accused of being a Biblicist. There are reasons why I am neither a Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox, and that is because of the view of Church authority and Tradition that is held in these communions. Scripture is the supreme authority as God’s Word, and the individuals in authority over us have as their duty to interpret and apply Scripture in the lives of those under their care. Having said that, they don’t have the right to approach the Bible as if they were the first persons to read it, and neither do those who are laypersons. I think one of the most foolish things we can think about ourselves is that we can somehow come to truth as individuals interacting with God alone. The flipside to this is that we don’t get error by ourselves either, but we develop it as a result of the influence of others. Both of these things are true, no matter how creative or new our errors or truths appear to be. We can talk about “interpreting the Bible in community” all we want, but if we don’t interact with the communion of the saints throughout the ages, then our own practices contradict our principles. This is a major point in which I would separate myself from the Emerging Church.
There is probably more that could be said here, but inasmuch as I am writing a blog entry and not a book, I will leave it at that.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Leon Morris (3/15/1914 - 7/24/2006)
New Testament scholar Leon Morris died this past Monday in Melbourne, Australia. He was 92 years old. He was a prolific author, Scriptural exegete, and participant in the production of the New International Version and the English Standard Version translations of the Scriptures. May our Lord raise up many to fill the place he has left.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
The Great Debate
Twenty years ago today, at the University of California at Irvine, the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen debated Dr. Gordon Stein on the existence of God. The debate was amazing, with Dr. Bahnsen winning the debate hands down. In honor of Dr. Bahnsen, let me encourage the reader to get ahold of the debate and listen to it.
Unfortunately, the debate is no longer free online. But if you want to get it, you can purchase it here or here.
Unfortunately, the debate is no longer free online. But if you want to get it, you can purchase it here or here.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Psalm 136 and CWM
Contemporary worship music (CWM) is often accused of being excessively repetitive. This is often carried out further in the actual worship setting by the Worship Leader who, being led by the “Spirit” (or, whatever mood he is in), repeats sections of the songs several times over. When criticized for this, I’ve heard CWM advocates point to Psalm 136 as a justification for their practices and songs. Psalm 136, you might remember, has the phrase “for his steadfast love endures forever” (ESV) repeating as every second line in the Psalm. But when one examines the psalm, a couple of things emerge.
For one, this isn’t a case of a worship leader repeating over and over again until he gets that “worshipful feeling”. This is a pre-composed and pre-written psalm, with no room for improvisation.
For another, if the CWM advocates would pay attention to the alternating lines, they will notice something else missing from their music. The alternating lines are a recitation of Covenant history. The Psalmist (and those singing the psalm) is recounting the works of God in Creation and in Redemption, specifically Israel’s redemption from Egypt and reception of the land God promised them. The psalm is covenantal and therefore corporate-focused. The concern is our salvation, not just my salvation. In the majority of CWM, the focus is on my individual experience of God, not my place in God’s act of saving a people. It is individualistic, and conspicuously Gnostic, focused on inward piety rather than a holistic salvation of a family of people both body and soul.
I have found that even when CWM attempts to address the work of Christ, it tends to be rather shallow in its assessment, not to mention not particularly poetic. I think it would be good for CWM songwriters to spend a little more time in looking at classical Christian poetry and hymnody (particularly pre-nineteenth century hymnody), and contrasting it with the modern aesthetic that shapes their songwriting. If they do that, and honestly begin to question their own practices, they might begin to produce works that will be beneficial to the church.
It might also be wise for CWM advocates to actually let the text of Scripture shape their thinking on these things, rather than running to the Scriptures to find a proof text to justify their practices.
For one, this isn’t a case of a worship leader repeating over and over again until he gets that “worshipful feeling”. This is a pre-composed and pre-written psalm, with no room for improvisation.
For another, if the CWM advocates would pay attention to the alternating lines, they will notice something else missing from their music. The alternating lines are a recitation of Covenant history. The Psalmist (and those singing the psalm) is recounting the works of God in Creation and in Redemption, specifically Israel’s redemption from Egypt and reception of the land God promised them. The psalm is covenantal and therefore corporate-focused. The concern is our salvation, not just my salvation. In the majority of CWM, the focus is on my individual experience of God, not my place in God’s act of saving a people. It is individualistic, and conspicuously Gnostic, focused on inward piety rather than a holistic salvation of a family of people both body and soul.
I have found that even when CWM attempts to address the work of Christ, it tends to be rather shallow in its assessment, not to mention not particularly poetic. I think it would be good for CWM songwriters to spend a little more time in looking at classical Christian poetry and hymnody (particularly pre-nineteenth century hymnody), and contrasting it with the modern aesthetic that shapes their songwriting. If they do that, and honestly begin to question their own practices, they might begin to produce works that will be beneficial to the church.
It might also be wise for CWM advocates to actually let the text of Scripture shape their thinking on these things, rather than running to the Scriptures to find a proof text to justify their practices.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Sarcasm, Part 1
“My family and I don’t really like sarcasm,” a friend said to me over lunch today. “I guess we think there is enough bad in the world as it is.” That is a paraphrase, but you get the point of his statement. It stood out in our conversation like a sore thumb, and I’m still musing on what he meant by it.
My friend is from a certain section of the Reformed tradition that is sometimes called “pietistic”. Such people often talk about themselves believing in “Experimental” (meaning “experiential”) Calvinism. Experimental Calvinism tends to focus on the more relational and experiential side of the Christian life.
I think there is much to draw from this tradition. I’m Reformed, and agree with a lot that is taught by these folks. In fact, I was basically drawn into Reformed theology by these sorts of people. Unfortunately, this tradition also has an element of sentimentalism about it that sometimes keeps it from dealing honestly with the harsher aspects of this world we live in. This sentimentalism proves a barrier to a mature Christianity, preferring to live in the nursery of sectarianism rather than being challenged to grow up and engage honestly with other Christians. I am, of course, speaking in generalities. The same people who are immature in one aspect of their faith may be very mature otherwise. And this is true of my friend. I think his pietism isn’t good, but he is in many ways far more mature than I am.
At the risk of turning this into one of those blogs where the author tells you more than you want to know about him, I will admit that I’ve thought about sarcasm a fair bit myself. I’ve wavered back and forth on the issue to some degree, though sarcasm has characterized my speech in part for years. I don’t have all the answers on the subject. But I will say that to eliminate all sarcasm is to take a position that Scripture simply stands against.
There are many passages we could look at, but let’s just take one – 1 Kings 18, Elijah’s confrontation with the prophets of Baal. Most people are familiar with the story. The prophets of Baal and all of Israel gather to Elijah on Mount Carmel at Elijah’s command. The purpose is to demonstrate which is the true God. The prophets of Baal build an altar and begin to call on Baal to send down fire upon the altar. The verse in the passage that most concerns us is verse 27. The King James Version translates the verse this way:
And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.
Now here we have a serious case of sarcasm, and that by a prophet of God. What is even more interesting is the phrase here translated “or he is pursuing”. (I don’t know Hebrew, so I have to draw off the scholars here.) The New King James translates it as “or he is busy”. But both translations obscure the real meaning. The clearer translation is in the English Standard Version, which translates the phrase as “or he is relieving himself”. In other words, Elijah is saying “maybe your God is using the bathroom” or “sitting on the toilet”, if you will.
One thing we learn in reading Scripture, and particularly narrative, is that we aren’t told everything that is said or done. God is selective in the things he reveals to us in His word, and the gaps are often apparent. At this point we have to remind ourselves that this isn’t just the human author making a choice of what to tell us, but it is also God Who inspired the writing. God could have left the whole “mocking” aspect of this event out. He could have left out the words that Elijah used, and just told us that Elijah mocked them. He even could have just left out the statement about Baal “relieving himself”.
But he doesn’t. Why? The modern American Christian, now feeling a bit queasy, has had his nice effeminate image of God set in a tailspin. I don’t know why God chose to tell us this part of the event. There might be some great theological reason behind it, but if there is, I don’t have a clue what it is. One way or the other, here is a prophet of God who, being justified in his defense of God by God’s responding to his prayer a couple of verses later, is laying out some pretty heavy sarcasm against God’s enemies.
I could have picked out other passages. One that immediately comes to mind is God laughing mockingly at the kings of the earth in Psalm 2. But when it comes down to it, to call all sarcasm sin is contrary to the clear example of Scripture.
“Well, sure, it’s okay to mock our enemies,” some might say, “but sarcastic people often even use it on their friends. You can’t find that in Scripture.”
Yes, you can find it in Scripture. But I’ll have to address that at another time.
My friend is from a certain section of the Reformed tradition that is sometimes called “pietistic”. Such people often talk about themselves believing in “Experimental” (meaning “experiential”) Calvinism. Experimental Calvinism tends to focus on the more relational and experiential side of the Christian life.
I think there is much to draw from this tradition. I’m Reformed, and agree with a lot that is taught by these folks. In fact, I was basically drawn into Reformed theology by these sorts of people. Unfortunately, this tradition also has an element of sentimentalism about it that sometimes keeps it from dealing honestly with the harsher aspects of this world we live in. This sentimentalism proves a barrier to a mature Christianity, preferring to live in the nursery of sectarianism rather than being challenged to grow up and engage honestly with other Christians. I am, of course, speaking in generalities. The same people who are immature in one aspect of their faith may be very mature otherwise. And this is true of my friend. I think his pietism isn’t good, but he is in many ways far more mature than I am.
At the risk of turning this into one of those blogs where the author tells you more than you want to know about him, I will admit that I’ve thought about sarcasm a fair bit myself. I’ve wavered back and forth on the issue to some degree, though sarcasm has characterized my speech in part for years. I don’t have all the answers on the subject. But I will say that to eliminate all sarcasm is to take a position that Scripture simply stands against.
There are many passages we could look at, but let’s just take one – 1 Kings 18, Elijah’s confrontation with the prophets of Baal. Most people are familiar with the story. The prophets of Baal and all of Israel gather to Elijah on Mount Carmel at Elijah’s command. The purpose is to demonstrate which is the true God. The prophets of Baal build an altar and begin to call on Baal to send down fire upon the altar. The verse in the passage that most concerns us is verse 27. The King James Version translates the verse this way:
And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.
Now here we have a serious case of sarcasm, and that by a prophet of God. What is even more interesting is the phrase here translated “or he is pursuing”. (I don’t know Hebrew, so I have to draw off the scholars here.) The New King James translates it as “or he is busy”. But both translations obscure the real meaning. The clearer translation is in the English Standard Version, which translates the phrase as “or he is relieving himself”. In other words, Elijah is saying “maybe your God is using the bathroom” or “sitting on the toilet”, if you will.
One thing we learn in reading Scripture, and particularly narrative, is that we aren’t told everything that is said or done. God is selective in the things he reveals to us in His word, and the gaps are often apparent. At this point we have to remind ourselves that this isn’t just the human author making a choice of what to tell us, but it is also God Who inspired the writing. God could have left the whole “mocking” aspect of this event out. He could have left out the words that Elijah used, and just told us that Elijah mocked them. He even could have just left out the statement about Baal “relieving himself”.
But he doesn’t. Why? The modern American Christian, now feeling a bit queasy, has had his nice effeminate image of God set in a tailspin. I don’t know why God chose to tell us this part of the event. There might be some great theological reason behind it, but if there is, I don’t have a clue what it is. One way or the other, here is a prophet of God who, being justified in his defense of God by God’s responding to his prayer a couple of verses later, is laying out some pretty heavy sarcasm against God’s enemies.
I could have picked out other passages. One that immediately comes to mind is God laughing mockingly at the kings of the earth in Psalm 2. But when it comes down to it, to call all sarcasm sin is contrary to the clear example of Scripture.
“Well, sure, it’s okay to mock our enemies,” some might say, “but sarcastic people often even use it on their friends. You can’t find that in Scripture.”
Yes, you can find it in Scripture. But I’ll have to address that at another time.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Happy Birthday, John Calvin
Today is (or, considering the hour, was) John Calvin's 497th birthday. Which means that three years from now will be the 500th. Anybody want to take a trip to Geneva in three years?
Friday, July 07, 2006
Book Study Quote #6
Our sixth book study quote is a prayer to St. Raphael. St. Raphael was the guardian angel of Tobias in the Apocryphal book Tobit. To learn more about Raphael, go here.
Prayer to St. Raphael, Angel of Happy Meetings
O Raphael, lead us towards those we are waiting for, those who are waiting for us! Raphael, Angel of Happy Meetings, lead us by the hand towards those we are looking for! May all our movements, all their movements, be guided by your Light and transfigured by your joy.
Angel guide of Tobias, lay the request we now address to you at the feet of Him on whose unveiled Face you are privileged to gaze. Lonely and tired, crushed by the separations and sorrows of earth, we feel the need of calling to you and of pleading for the protection of your wings, so that we may not be as strangers in the Province of Joy, all ignorant of the concerns of our country.
Remember the weak, you who are strong--you whose home lies beyond the region of thunder, in a land that is always peaceful, always serene, and bright with the resplendent glory of God. Amen.
Book Study Quote #5
For our next study quote we take a different direction, this time towards the subject of Purgatory. O’Connor specifically referred to Catherine of Genoa’s Treatise on Purgatory in her letters, so that is where our next quote is from. St. Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510) was a Roman Catholic mystic. For the complete text of the Treatise, as well as a brief biography of her, go here.
The souls who are in Purgatory cannot, as I understand, choose but be there, and this is by God's ordinance who therein has done justly. They cannot turn their thoughts back to themselves, nor can they say, "Such sins I have committed for which I deserve to be here ", nor, "I would that I had not committed them for then I would go now to Paradise", nor, "That one will leave sooner than I", nor, "I will leave sooner than he". They can have neither of themselves nor of others any memory, whether of good or evil, whence they would have greater pain than they suffer ordinarily. So happy are they to be within God's ordinance, and that He should do all which pleases Him, as it pleases Him that in their greatest pain they cannot think of themselves. They see only the working of the divine goodness, which leads man to itself mercifully, so that he no longer sees aught of the pain or good which may befall him. Nor would these souls be in pure charity if they could see that pain or good. They cannot see that they are in pain because of their sins; that sight they cannot hold in their minds because in it there would be an active imperfection, which cannot be where no actual sin can be.
Only once, as they pass from this life, do they see the cause of the Purgatory they endure; never again do they see it for in another sight of it there would be self. Being then in charity from which they cannot now depart by any actual fault, they can no longer will nor desire save with the pure will of pure charity. Being in that fire of Purgatory, they are within the divine ordinance, which is pure charity, and in nothing can they depart thence for they are deprived of the power to sin as of the power to merit.
I believe no happiness can be found worthy to be compared with that of a soul in Purgatory except that of the saints in Paradise; and day by day this happiness grows as God flows into these souls, more and more as the hindrance to His entrance is consumed. Sin's rust is the hindrance, and the fire burns the rust away so that more and more the soul opens itself up to the divine inflowing…
No tongue can tell nor explain, no mind understand, the grievousness of Purgatory. But I, though I see that there is in Purgatory as much pain as in Hell, yet see the soul which has the least stain of imperfection accepting Purgatory, as I have said, as though it were a mercy, and holding its pains of no account as compared with the least stain which hinders a soul in its love. I seem to see that the pain which souls in Purgatory endure because of whatever in them displeases God, that is what they have willfully done against His so great goodness, is greater than any other pain they feel in Purgatory. And this is because, being in grace, they see the truth and the grievousness of the hindrance which stays them from drawing near to God.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
The Windows
Here is a poem by George Herbert entitled The Windows which I ran across a couple of months ago. I’m not putting it here for any particular reason other than that I like it.
LORD, how can man preach thy eternall word ?
He is a brittle crazie glasse :
Yet in thy temple thou dost him afford
This glorious and transcendent place,
To be a window, through thy grace.
But when thou dost anneal in glasse thy storie,
Making thy life to shine within
The holy Preachers, then the light and glorie
More rev'rend grows, and more doth win ;
Which else shows watrish, bleak, and thin.
Doctrine and life, colours and light, in one
When they combine and mingle, bring
A strong regard and aw : but speech alone
Doth vanish like a flaring thing,
And in the eare, not conscience ring.
LORD, how can man preach thy eternall word ?
He is a brittle crazie glasse :
Yet in thy temple thou dost him afford
This glorious and transcendent place,
To be a window, through thy grace.
But when thou dost anneal in glasse thy storie,
Making thy life to shine within
The holy Preachers, then the light and glorie
More rev'rend grows, and more doth win ;
Which else shows watrish, bleak, and thin.
Doctrine and life, colours and light, in one
When they combine and mingle, bring
A strong regard and aw : but speech alone
Doth vanish like a flaring thing,
And in the eare, not conscience ring.
Occasional Riddle #4
The credit for the following “riddle” goes to my friend Jim Vogl:
If someone is a fan of the Cowboy Junkies, would that make him a Cowboy Junkies junky?
If someone is a fan of the Cowboy Junkies, would that make him a Cowboy Junkies junky?
Friday, June 30, 2006
Worship of the State
This coming Tuesday is Independence Day here in the United States. This, in turn, means that churchgoers this Sunday will be greeted with a myriad of patriotic symbols that don’t normally show up on Sunday morning. Many are used to the American flag being always in front of them during their worship services. But this Sunday, that flag will be saluted, or even carried down the center aisle in a procession, even in churches that don’t normally have processions. Patriotic songs will be sung where hymns usually go. Extra prayers will be said for politicians as well as for our troops deployed throughout the world. Most sermons will carry an American theme. In some churches, those sermons will be of the “let’s get God back in America again” variety, complete with the standard talk about legalized abortion and absence of prayer in schools. In some churches, the sermon will be a vague sentiment about what a great country we live in.
And in all of this, very few people will stop and ask why they are doing all those things. It is the Sunday before "The Fourth", after all, and this is what you do.
But why? Why is this assumed to be standard practice? I think the reason, as I mentioned in a previous post, is the victory of statism over society. We live in a country where the state wants to own everything, and we gladly oblige. They own our children. They tell us where and when to send our children to school, what they are to be taught, what they are to do while they are there, and what import this has upon their lives. They own our property. If they want a piece of it to build a superhighway, they tell us they are going to buy it or else take it. “Our” land, apparently, is only on loan from the government. They own our other possessions as well. They tax the money we make, then what we spend it on, and what we leave to our children when we die, if they have left us anything to leave to our children.
And we respond to all this by, every once in a while, giving them the one hour on Sunday morning that God has called His own. Now it is clear that the government wants that hour every Sunday. Whenever a church becomes incorporated in the United States, it gives over the rights to what it says and does on Sunday morning to the state, though thankfully the state has yet to assert its “right”. But the church is not an adjunct of the state. The church, as presented in Scripture, is a whole separate institution. It is instituted by God, with its own laws and its own leaders. The leaders of the state have no authority in the church.
When the Church of Jesus Christ comes together on Sunday morning, it is for one reason alone – to worship the Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It isn’t to lift up the State as the great saviour of mankind (which it is not).
I recognize that the chances that what I’m writing here will be read by someone in a church somewhere who makes decisions on what goes on on Sunday mornings is very slim. Nonetheless, to those of you who do read this, I encourage you to think through the question and consider it carefully. Pray for your congregation and its leaders. Pray that the pressures of the state will decrease against the church. Don’t be afraid to talk with your church leaders about the matter. And seek to live your own life, insofar as you legitimately can, free from the tyranny of the state.
For a further consideration of the subject of flags and the church, this article written from a Canadian Reformed perspective is well worth reading.
And in all of this, very few people will stop and ask why they are doing all those things. It is the Sunday before "The Fourth", after all, and this is what you do.
But why? Why is this assumed to be standard practice? I think the reason, as I mentioned in a previous post, is the victory of statism over society. We live in a country where the state wants to own everything, and we gladly oblige. They own our children. They tell us where and when to send our children to school, what they are to be taught, what they are to do while they are there, and what import this has upon their lives. They own our property. If they want a piece of it to build a superhighway, they tell us they are going to buy it or else take it. “Our” land, apparently, is only on loan from the government. They own our other possessions as well. They tax the money we make, then what we spend it on, and what we leave to our children when we die, if they have left us anything to leave to our children.
And we respond to all this by, every once in a while, giving them the one hour on Sunday morning that God has called His own. Now it is clear that the government wants that hour every Sunday. Whenever a church becomes incorporated in the United States, it gives over the rights to what it says and does on Sunday morning to the state, though thankfully the state has yet to assert its “right”. But the church is not an adjunct of the state. The church, as presented in Scripture, is a whole separate institution. It is instituted by God, with its own laws and its own leaders. The leaders of the state have no authority in the church.
When the Church of Jesus Christ comes together on Sunday morning, it is for one reason alone – to worship the Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It isn’t to lift up the State as the great saviour of mankind (which it is not).
I recognize that the chances that what I’m writing here will be read by someone in a church somewhere who makes decisions on what goes on on Sunday mornings is very slim. Nonetheless, to those of you who do read this, I encourage you to think through the question and consider it carefully. Pray for your congregation and its leaders. Pray that the pressures of the state will decrease against the church. Don’t be afraid to talk with your church leaders about the matter. And seek to live your own life, insofar as you legitimately can, free from the tyranny of the state.
For a further consideration of the subject of flags and the church, this article written from a Canadian Reformed perspective is well worth reading.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Talking out loud about slips of the tongue
Verbal slips. Everybody has them. We add a letter here, or subtract a letter there. Sometimes we use a word in a sentence in a way that makes no sense, showing that we really don’t know what the word means (“Inconceivable!” – for those who have ears to hear…). Sometimes we trip all over a sentence like an outstretched leg. Sometimes we get riled up and invert a phrase – like my preacher friend who, while talking to me in preacher-mode, told me of something being like “ducks off a water’s back”.
We also have verbal slips that are unique to our region and culture. Here in the South we have a practice I like to call “syllable conservation”. We try to remove all the extra syllables in a word, because speaking is hard work. If you’re really good, you can say a whole sentence with only one or two syllables.
We slip, and our friends all have a good laugh at our expense. At least, we hope they’re our friends.
Maybe I’m easily amused, but nothing gets me rolling on the floor like a good verbal slip. If done right, they can provide hours or even days of entertainment.
I thought I’d post the occasional verbal slip whenever I run across a new one. For now, here are a couple of ones from colloquial speech that I’ve found being used in regular discourse more commonly as of late. I would classify these as more strange than funny, but you can be the judge.
Talking out loud. The phrase was originally “thinking out loud”. I can’t swear to it, but I’m pretty sure I first heard the phrase “talking out loud” being used by a stand-up comedian who was imitating someone, shall we say, less-than-intelligent. Somehow this got picked up such that it is more common to hear someone say, “Oh, I’m just talking out loud”. Which is a bit bizarre to say anyway. All talking is out loud, isn’t it?
Slip of the tongue. The phrase I always heard growing up was “slip of the lip”. You know, “slip” and “lip” rhyme and all that. Then the heavy metal group Whitesnake came out with an album in the late 80’s entitled “Slip of the Tongue”, and it was all downhill from there. This was intended to be a clever play on the phrase “slip of the lip” with additional connotations. Those heavy metal guys are so funny. I hardly hear the former phrase anymore, finding rather that it has been substituted with “slip of the tongue”. It’s rather disturbing that a heavy metal group can have such influence on the English language.
Is anybody else hearing these, or am I just hanging out with the wrong people? Tell me in the comments section. Also, have you heard any other verbal slips? If you have I’d like to hear them, so feel free to put them in the comments section as well.
We also have verbal slips that are unique to our region and culture. Here in the South we have a practice I like to call “syllable conservation”. We try to remove all the extra syllables in a word, because speaking is hard work. If you’re really good, you can say a whole sentence with only one or two syllables.
We slip, and our friends all have a good laugh at our expense. At least, we hope they’re our friends.
Maybe I’m easily amused, but nothing gets me rolling on the floor like a good verbal slip. If done right, they can provide hours or even days of entertainment.
I thought I’d post the occasional verbal slip whenever I run across a new one. For now, here are a couple of ones from colloquial speech that I’ve found being used in regular discourse more commonly as of late. I would classify these as more strange than funny, but you can be the judge.
Talking out loud. The phrase was originally “thinking out loud”. I can’t swear to it, but I’m pretty sure I first heard the phrase “talking out loud” being used by a stand-up comedian who was imitating someone, shall we say, less-than-intelligent. Somehow this got picked up such that it is more common to hear someone say, “Oh, I’m just talking out loud”. Which is a bit bizarre to say anyway. All talking is out loud, isn’t it?
Slip of the tongue. The phrase I always heard growing up was “slip of the lip”. You know, “slip” and “lip” rhyme and all that. Then the heavy metal group Whitesnake came out with an album in the late 80’s entitled “Slip of the Tongue”, and it was all downhill from there. This was intended to be a clever play on the phrase “slip of the lip” with additional connotations. Those heavy metal guys are so funny. I hardly hear the former phrase anymore, finding rather that it has been substituted with “slip of the tongue”. It’s rather disturbing that a heavy metal group can have such influence on the English language.
Is anybody else hearing these, or am I just hanging out with the wrong people? Tell me in the comments section. Also, have you heard any other verbal slips? If you have I’d like to hear them, so feel free to put them in the comments section as well.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Can Evangelicals Still Recognize Sin?
In his nationally syndicated column today, Cal Thomas reported on some of the appalling things that took place at the Episcopal Church U.S.A’s General Convention last week. He reported on how the new bishop, Katherine Schori, does not believe that homosexuality is a sin. He goes on to criticize the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, as well as decisions made at the recent General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. His criticisms revolved basically around the attempts of mainline liberal denominations to be “relevant” to the culture.
I should go ahead and confess up front that this is the sort of thing that gets to me. So what you are about to read is the cranky side of me – though I hope that won’t cause you to stop reading.
Now I don’t know anything about Cal Thomas personally. I don’t know that I’ve ever read anything by him before, though I’ve heard his 60-second radio spot on a few occasions. He might spend as much time criticizing Evangelicals as he does mainliners, for all I know. And he himself might be a member in good standing at a solid church from an Evangelical or classical Reformation tradition. But Thomas represents to me a segment of Evangelical personalities who spend all their time shooting at “those liberals over there” rather than dealing with the problems in their own Evangelical churches.
What in the world makes us think that mainliners would listen to us is beyond me. I know there are true believers in the mainline churches, though my experience (for what it’s worth) suggests to me that they are few and far between. While there are, as I understand it, congregations in the mainline churches that are solid, the liberals generally run the show. People in the ECUSA began to wake up when a homosexual bishop was elected three years ago, but they were well over a hundred years too late. The mainline churches began abandoning Scripture before the turn of the twentieth century. People like Schori don’t care about Scripture, and they don’t give a flip about the true and living God, no matter what kind of illusion to the contrary they attempt to maintain. As far as the ignorance of the laity goes, there is a sense in which you can hardly blame them. Without orthodox leadership to guide them in understanding and applying Scripture, they were left to some degree helpless. Now, I say “to some degree” because I don’t think they can be completely absolved of responsibility. They had Bibles and didn’t read or study them. Their churches had libraries that were established and filled with books back when their ministers actually believed the truth, and they didn’t read those books in an attempt to know Scripture better. In some cases, they didn’t raise a fuss when a new minister came to town preaching what they knew to be heresy. For all these things they are to be blamed.
But I also don’t know why mainliners should listen to us. While Evangelicals are at least far more orthodox on paper than the mainliners, we are just as guilty as the mainliners in doing anything it takes to be “relevant” to the culture without much question about the rightness of it. Once again, this is just my experience speaking. But having been in several churches the past few years, and interacted with numerous Christians outside the church as well, this is what I have encountered:
1. A vast ignorance of the Scriptures, not a whole lot of recognition of this as a problem, nor much attempt to correct it.
2. An ignorance of systematic theology. People might memorize Bible verses, but they don’t have a clue how those verses fit into the scheme of Scripture or their lives. What verses they do memorize have moral import, which is good, but they are divorced from the dogmatic or doctrinal portions of Scripture.
3. An ignorance of church history. Statism has been very successful. People know George Washington, Martin Luther King, or John F. Kennedy, but they can’t tell you who started their denomination or church, nor do they see that it matters.
4. An ignorance of the historic liturgical and devotional practices of the church. Churches devise their own worship services based on blind adherence to tradition or blind adherence to whatever is current and hip. Likewise, if the laity spend any time in private worship, they fail to take advantage of the historic devotional practices of the church in guiding them in this.
5. And with all the focus on “practical issues” in sermons (which means lack of doctrinal content), people still manage to live at a level morally that often differs little from the pagans around them.
One example of these things shows up in Thomas’s article itself. He takes after Schori for her stance on homosexuality, but he totally ignores the clear teaching in Scripture that a woman shouldn’t have the office of a bishop to begin with (I Timothy 2-3). This could be because Evangelicals themselves are growing more and more egalitarian, and he wants to focus on a problem that everybody agrees about. But God’s Word couldn’t be clearer on a subject than it is on this one, and no amount of attempting to ignore it or explain it away is going to work.
When it comes down to it, whether it be the problems in the mainline or among the Evangelicals, we all have our own problems to deal with. I am suggesting, though, that until we Evangelicals begin to work out our own problems, all the shouting that we do at mainliners will continue to be ignored. And rightly so.
I should go ahead and confess up front that this is the sort of thing that gets to me. So what you are about to read is the cranky side of me – though I hope that won’t cause you to stop reading.
Now I don’t know anything about Cal Thomas personally. I don’t know that I’ve ever read anything by him before, though I’ve heard his 60-second radio spot on a few occasions. He might spend as much time criticizing Evangelicals as he does mainliners, for all I know. And he himself might be a member in good standing at a solid church from an Evangelical or classical Reformation tradition. But Thomas represents to me a segment of Evangelical personalities who spend all their time shooting at “those liberals over there” rather than dealing with the problems in their own Evangelical churches.
What in the world makes us think that mainliners would listen to us is beyond me. I know there are true believers in the mainline churches, though my experience (for what it’s worth) suggests to me that they are few and far between. While there are, as I understand it, congregations in the mainline churches that are solid, the liberals generally run the show. People in the ECUSA began to wake up when a homosexual bishop was elected three years ago, but they were well over a hundred years too late. The mainline churches began abandoning Scripture before the turn of the twentieth century. People like Schori don’t care about Scripture, and they don’t give a flip about the true and living God, no matter what kind of illusion to the contrary they attempt to maintain. As far as the ignorance of the laity goes, there is a sense in which you can hardly blame them. Without orthodox leadership to guide them in understanding and applying Scripture, they were left to some degree helpless. Now, I say “to some degree” because I don’t think they can be completely absolved of responsibility. They had Bibles and didn’t read or study them. Their churches had libraries that were established and filled with books back when their ministers actually believed the truth, and they didn’t read those books in an attempt to know Scripture better. In some cases, they didn’t raise a fuss when a new minister came to town preaching what they knew to be heresy. For all these things they are to be blamed.
But I also don’t know why mainliners should listen to us. While Evangelicals are at least far more orthodox on paper than the mainliners, we are just as guilty as the mainliners in doing anything it takes to be “relevant” to the culture without much question about the rightness of it. Once again, this is just my experience speaking. But having been in several churches the past few years, and interacted with numerous Christians outside the church as well, this is what I have encountered:
1. A vast ignorance of the Scriptures, not a whole lot of recognition of this as a problem, nor much attempt to correct it.
2. An ignorance of systematic theology. People might memorize Bible verses, but they don’t have a clue how those verses fit into the scheme of Scripture or their lives. What verses they do memorize have moral import, which is good, but they are divorced from the dogmatic or doctrinal portions of Scripture.
3. An ignorance of church history. Statism has been very successful. People know George Washington, Martin Luther King, or John F. Kennedy, but they can’t tell you who started their denomination or church, nor do they see that it matters.
4. An ignorance of the historic liturgical and devotional practices of the church. Churches devise their own worship services based on blind adherence to tradition or blind adherence to whatever is current and hip. Likewise, if the laity spend any time in private worship, they fail to take advantage of the historic devotional practices of the church in guiding them in this.
5. And with all the focus on “practical issues” in sermons (which means lack of doctrinal content), people still manage to live at a level morally that often differs little from the pagans around them.
One example of these things shows up in Thomas’s article itself. He takes after Schori for her stance on homosexuality, but he totally ignores the clear teaching in Scripture that a woman shouldn’t have the office of a bishop to begin with (I Timothy 2-3). This could be because Evangelicals themselves are growing more and more egalitarian, and he wants to focus on a problem that everybody agrees about. But God’s Word couldn’t be clearer on a subject than it is on this one, and no amount of attempting to ignore it or explain it away is going to work.
When it comes down to it, whether it be the problems in the mainline or among the Evangelicals, we all have our own problems to deal with. I am suggesting, though, that until we Evangelicals begin to work out our own problems, all the shouting that we do at mainliners will continue to be ignored. And rightly so.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Book Study Quote #4
Adolf Hitler was inspired in part by the philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer. Both are associated with the philosophical school known as Nihilism. O’Connor, in a letter to A. dated 28 August 55, stated that “if you live today you breathe in nihilism,” that is, she saw it as the overwhelming philosophical outlook of her time. With this in mind, we will continue with a quote from Nietzsche. Take particular note of the evolutionary theme. See if you can parallel this with any dialogue or character(s) from O’Connor’s story. The quote is from Thus Spake Zarathustra, translated by Thomas Common, revised by H. James Birx, published 1993 by Prometheus Books, pp. 35-37.
When Nietzsche speaks of the “superearthly”, he is referring to anything spiritual or heavenly. He does not believe in anything superearthly – there is no God, no soul, no heaven. When he speaks of these things ceasing to exist, he is referring to the death of the idea of them in the consciousness of mankind.
When Nietzsche speaks of the “superearthly”, he is referring to anything spiritual or heavenly. He does not believe in anything superearthly – there is no God, no soul, no heaven. When he speaks of these things ceasing to exist, he is referring to the death of the idea of them in the consciousness of mankind.
I teach you the overman. Humankind is something that is to be surpassed. What have you done to surpass humankind?
All beings until now have created something beyond themselves: and you want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass humankind?
What is the ape to our species? A laughing stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall our species be to the overman: a laughing stock, a thing of shame.
You have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes.
Even the wisest among you is only a disharmony and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I bid you become phantoms or plants?
Lo, I teach you the overman!
The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The overman shall be the meaning of the earth!
I conjure you, my brothers, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak to you of superearthly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not.
Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them!
Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and with that also those blasphemers. To blaspheme the earth is now the most dreadful sin, and to rate the heart of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth!
Once the soul looked contemptuously on the body, and then that contempt was the supreme thing: - the soul wished the body meager, ghastly, and famished. Then it thought to escape from the body and the earth.
Oh, that soul was itself meager, ghastly, and famished; and cruelty was the delight of that soul!
But you, also my brothers tell me: What does your body say about your soul? Is your soul not poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency?
Surely, a polluted stream is humankind. One must be a sea, to receive a polluted stream without becoming impure.
Lo, I teach you the overman: he is that sea; in him can your great contempt be submerged.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Book Study Quote #3
Our third quote is taken from the same edition of Mein Kampf as below. This time the quote is taken from pp. xix-xxi of the Introduction, which was written by Abraham Foxman.
Hitler’s contribution to the history of ideas can be found in his clear and forceful articulation of numerous theories already in circulation during the early twentieth century rather than in any original thoughts of his own. Many of the ideological themes of Mein Kampf were embraced to varying degrees by groups in Germany, Europe, and even the United States before Hitler wove them together to form the foundations of National Socialism…
The glue that Hitler used to hold these disparate themes together was an extreme form of race-oriented social Darwinism, but even this idea was not limited to the German fringes. The modern “science” of race had evolved with the Enlightenment, when the Aristotelian distinctions between the “cultured” and the “barbaric” races were revived, this time using terms like “civilized” and “primitive.” By positing that certain races were inherently “primitive,” white men of the Enlightenment were able to justify both their continued toleration of black slavery and their imperialist designs on places such as Africa. Differences between races were scientifically “proven” with techniques such as anthropometry (the collection and study of precise measurements of the human body); the races were then ranked on some arbitrary scale, with modern European man always holding the highest spot.
Racial theories became increasingly radical as they incorporated aspects of Darwinism, which swept the Western world in the mid- to late 1800s. Applied to race, the ideas of evolution and “survival of the fittest” turned the history of humanity, as well as the contemporary world, into a story of racial conflict. When coupled with nationalism, racial (social) Darwinism led to the development of national archetypes; thus educated people at the end of the nineteenth century could seriously claim that the distinctive cultural characteristics of the English, French, Americans, and Germans were biological. Eugenics movements with the goal of improving national or racial “stock” through selective breeding (which later became inextricably linked with the Nazi regime in popular perception) arose in England, Scandinavia, and the United States.
Book Study Quote #2
Our second quote is taken from the Translator’s Note of Mein Kampf, written by Adolf Hitler, translated by Ralph Manheim, Mariner Books 1999, pg. X. Once again, I do not endorse Hitler’s beliefs. This is simply to be considered in relation to O’Connor’s story. The application of this quote may be less than clear, but I'll explain it later. Speaking of Hitler’s writing style, Manheim says the following:
His style is without color and movement. Images are rare, and when they do appear, they tend to be purely verbal and impossible to visualize, like the ‘cornerstone for the end of German domination in the monarchy’, or forcing ‘the less strong and less healthy back into the womb of the eternal unknown.’ The mixed metaphor is almost a specialty of modern German journalism, but Hitler, with his eyes closed to the visual world, was an expert in his own right.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
The Jocularity of Dr. Eugene
Once a month I pay a visit to my chiropractor, Dr. Eugene. It is always an enjoyable visit, not in the least because the good doctor is so darn funny. [Insert joke about the doctor who keeps you in stitches here.] He was raised Russian Orthodox and has spent part of his adult life among Presbyterians. I am a Presbyterian attending an Anglican church. So between the two of us, we have a lot to joke about.
The following dialogue is cobbled together from our conversation during today’s visit. I always take a book of theology in with me to read while waiting. And he always begins the conversation with something like, “One of these days you’re going to come in here with a trashy romance novel,” or “One of these days you’re going to come in here with a John Grisham novel.” Today was no different.
Dr. Eugene: One of these days you’re going to come in here with a book by Jack [John Shelby] Spong. You know, you really should start your own church. That way, you can pick your own confession, your own vestments, your own architecture, your own doctrine…. You know, I think I’ll do that. I’ll send letters out to all my supporters…
Me: You ought to send prayer cloths out with the letters.
Dr. Eugene: I was thinking more like drinking glasses. I could sign each one individually.
Me: Just don’t send out shot glasses. Your Southern supporters wouldn’t take to that too well.
Dr. Eugene: Really? Shot glasses were what I had in mind. I could say, “One shot of spirit juice in each glass.”
Me: Enough Holy Spirit to make it through the day, huh? What you should do is market it for about a month. Once you’ve field-tested it and proved it marketable, I bet Benny Hinn would pay a boatload of money for the rights to it.
Dr. Eugene: Probably so. I could make you a Vicar. You would be Deputy Vicar of East Greensboro, or something like that. Or a Bishop. You’d get to wear a big pointy hat. You could get into movies for free. All you’d have to do is flash your bishop’s badge, and they’d let you in.
Me: I’ll be waiting for my call. Greensboro wouldn’t know what to do with a bunch of guys running around wearing vestments.
Dr. Eugene: You’d have to wear the vestments all the time, too.
Me: Even in July?
Dr. Eugene: The hat would be air-conditioned.
The following dialogue is cobbled together from our conversation during today’s visit. I always take a book of theology in with me to read while waiting. And he always begins the conversation with something like, “One of these days you’re going to come in here with a trashy romance novel,” or “One of these days you’re going to come in here with a John Grisham novel.” Today was no different.
Dr. Eugene: One of these days you’re going to come in here with a book by Jack [John Shelby] Spong. You know, you really should start your own church. That way, you can pick your own confession, your own vestments, your own architecture, your own doctrine…. You know, I think I’ll do that. I’ll send letters out to all my supporters…
Me: You ought to send prayer cloths out with the letters.
Dr. Eugene: I was thinking more like drinking glasses. I could sign each one individually.
Me: Just don’t send out shot glasses. Your Southern supporters wouldn’t take to that too well.
Dr. Eugene: Really? Shot glasses were what I had in mind. I could say, “One shot of spirit juice in each glass.”
Me: Enough Holy Spirit to make it through the day, huh? What you should do is market it for about a month. Once you’ve field-tested it and proved it marketable, I bet Benny Hinn would pay a boatload of money for the rights to it.
Dr. Eugene: Probably so. I could make you a Vicar. You would be Deputy Vicar of East Greensboro, or something like that. Or a Bishop. You’d get to wear a big pointy hat. You could get into movies for free. All you’d have to do is flash your bishop’s badge, and they’d let you in.
Me: I’ll be waiting for my call. Greensboro wouldn’t know what to do with a bunch of guys running around wearing vestments.
Dr. Eugene: You’d have to wear the vestments all the time, too.
Me: Even in July?
Dr. Eugene: The hat would be air-conditioned.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Book Study Quote #1
I have been in a book study group where we have been discussing the story The Displaced Person, written by Flannery O’Connor. Flannery O’Connor was a devout Roman Catholic writer who lived from 1925 to 1964. She mainly made her home in Georgia, and her Southerness is distinct in her writings. If you haven’t read her writings, I would highly recommend them as being well worth your time.
I thought I would put some quotes relevant to our book study here on the blog. If you aren’t in our book study, this will probably be like walking into the middle of a conversation. On the other hand, I’m putting these here because I think they have an interest that extends beyond our study. The quotes will vary – some will be from O’Connor, while others will be from sundry other sources. I don’t necessarily agree with everything I’ll be quoting, so don’t take these as examples of what I believe.
The first is from O’Connor herself, taken from one of many letters written to a person who in her Collected Works is simply called “A.” It was dated 9 August 55. The "St. Thomas" referred to is St. Thomas Aquinas; the "Summa" is his work Summa Theologica.
I thought I would put some quotes relevant to our book study here on the blog. If you aren’t in our book study, this will probably be like walking into the middle of a conversation. On the other hand, I’m putting these here because I think they have an interest that extends beyond our study. The quotes will vary – some will be from O’Connor, while others will be from sundry other sources. I don’t necessarily agree with everything I’ll be quoting, so don’t take these as examples of what I believe.
The first is from O’Connor herself, taken from one of many letters written to a person who in her Collected Works is simply called “A.” It was dated 9 August 55. The "St. Thomas" referred to is St. Thomas Aquinas; the "Summa" is his work Summa Theologica.
I don’t have the kind of mind that can carry such beyond the actual reading, i. e., total non-retention has kept my education from being a burden to me. So I couldn’t make any judgment on the Summa, except to say this: I read it for about twenty minutes every night before I go to bed. If my mother were to come in during this process and say, “Turn off that light. It’s late,” I with lifted finger and broad bland beatific expression, would reply, “On the contrary, I answer that the light, being external and limitless, cannot be turned off. Shut your eyes,” or some such thing. In any case, I feel I can personally guarantee that St. Thomas loved God because for the life of me I cannot help loving St. Thomas. His brothers didn’t want him to waste himself being a Dominican and so locked him up in a tower and introduced a prostitute into his apartment; her he ran out with a red-hot poker. It would be fashionable today to be in sympathy with the woman, but I am in sympathy with St. Thomas.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Anne Bradstreet
Today is celebrated as Fathers' Day here in the US. I don't really have a poem that is appropriate to the day. But I ran across the following a few months back and liked it, and since I can't find any other excuse to put it on here, Fathers' Day will have to do. You might think of it in the context of a wife rejoicing with her husband in the blessings God has given him, which would include not only his children, but her as well. It was written by Anne Bradstreet, and is entitled To my Dear and Loving Husband. It might seem a little strange to some for a guy to put this on his blog, but that's okay. I like it anyway.
If ever two were one, then surely we.
If ever man were lov'd by wife, then thee;
If ever wife was happy in a man,
Compare with me ye women if you can.
I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold,
Or all the riches that the East doth hold.
My love is such that rivers cannot quench,
Nor aught but love from thee, give recompense.
Thy love is such I can no way repay,
The heavens reward thee manifold, I pray.
Then while we live, in love lets so persever
That, when we live no more, we may live ever.
If ever two were one, then surely we.
If ever man were lov'd by wife, then thee;
If ever wife was happy in a man,
Compare with me ye women if you can.
I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold,
Or all the riches that the East doth hold.
My love is such that rivers cannot quench,
Nor aught but love from thee, give recompense.
Thy love is such I can no way repay,
The heavens reward thee manifold, I pray.
Then while we live, in love lets so persever
That, when we live no more, we may live ever.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
We Play Everything
One of our local radio stations has as its tag line, "We Play Everything". So I called up the DJ and asked if he wanted to play backgammon. He cursed at me and hung up the phone.
His Mansion Anniversary
It just occurred to me a couple of minutes ago that ten years ago today I arrived at His Mansion Ministries, where I served as an intern until April 1998. By God's providence, I received Stan Farmer's latest newsletter in my email today as well. Stan was one of the founders of His Mansion and still serves there. I will tell more later about His Mansion, Lord willing. Until then, here is the His Mansion Ministries website. Here also is an alumni website set up by my old work crew buddy Steve Garufi. It contains some photos from during the time I was there.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Sunday Sickness
For most of us, if we are sick on Sunday morning, we abandon any hopes of worship and curl up in front of our favorite movie. Some will watch one of the preachers on TV, and after that curl up in front of their favorite movie. I’m assuming the movie thing to be common, if you haven’t noticed. If you’re very sick, there’s little else you can do, after all.
I think it’s good for a person to strive to honor the Lord’s Day even when under the weather. Not to say that it’s wrong to watch a movie at some point – this isn’t a post on the Sabbath in general, though I might give some thoughts on that later. But it is the Sabbath we are talking about, which the Lord has given for our blessing, and we should strive to honor it.
It is easy for us to assume that everything’s a wash if we can’t “go to church”. But one’s relationship with Christ isn’t so bound with the church and her ministry that one can’t continue in fellowship with Christ when Providence prevents our joining with others in public worship. We need to recover in our lives the reality that Communion with God and the Communion of the Saints extend beyond the one hour we spend together on Sunday morning. It also extends in worship beyond whether or not we are physically in the presence of one another. This isn’t to be used as an excuse for not attending public worship, though. Our Lord set up the church, her worship, and her leaders, as being essential to our salvation, and we don’t have the freedom to disregard it according to whatever suits us. Nonetheless, there are occasions (and for some people, the better part of a lifetime) when we are hindered from participating in these things in the way that God generally intended them to be. In those situations, we need to actively pursue the worship of God in whatever other ways that we legitimately can. This is especially true on Sunday.
There are many ways of doing this, but here are just a couple of suggestions specific to Sunday. For one, there is private worship. Those of us who grew up in Fundamentalism with its insistence upon a legalistic observance of a “Daily Quiet Time” will grow a little nervous at the mention of this. But we shouldn’t allow our freedom from legalism to keep us from freely worshipping God in private. I will not let the legalists control me, nor will I let my freedom give opportunity to my fleshly tendency toward selfishness and laziness. I draw from many traditions of the church for private worship, but try to spend time familiarizing myself sufficiently with a tradition before using their resources so as not to overly complicate things. In other words, don’t be afraid to draw from different prayerbooks or service books, but don’t complicate things to the point that you’re just playing around and not worshipping. Or you can pray straight through a liturgy, like the Morning Prayer service from the Book of Common Prayer. If all this is a bit bizarre to you, then just pray, and read and meditate on the Scriptures. Pray through a Psalm or two. Pray the Lord’s Prayer. Read an entry from a good daily devotional, like C. H. Spurgeon’s Morning and Evening. There are many things you can do. I would recommend not turning it into a study time, though. Leave the Strong’s Concordance on the shelf. Worship isn’t about downloading more information into your brain, though there might be an aspect of learning to it.
Another thing you can do on a Sunday morning is to watch a worship service online. I’m sure there are others besides this, but I watch the liturgy of one of the Greek Orthodox churches online. Here is the link to the website of the Greek Orthodox Diocese of America, and here is the link directly to the page showing the different live worship services you can watch. It isn’t the same as being with other believers and worshipping with them. And the service is partially in Greek, so you won’t understand everything unless you speak Greek. But half or more of it is in English, so you can watch the liturgical action of the service and still receive the blessing that only hearing the Word (as opposed to reading) can provide. This is also a good way of exposing oneself to the Eastern Christian tradition which, while I have disagreements with elements of it, I think has much that can only help us as we reflect upon it and compare it with Scripture and our own traditions.
All of this is by way of suggestion. If you have a fever, stay in bed and try to break it, for crying out loud. Listen to a CD of hymns, maybe. Whatever you do, do what you can reasonably do. Don’t give up, but don’t beat yourself up over your circumstances, either. God alone is sovereign.
I think it’s good for a person to strive to honor the Lord’s Day even when under the weather. Not to say that it’s wrong to watch a movie at some point – this isn’t a post on the Sabbath in general, though I might give some thoughts on that later. But it is the Sabbath we are talking about, which the Lord has given for our blessing, and we should strive to honor it.
It is easy for us to assume that everything’s a wash if we can’t “go to church”. But one’s relationship with Christ isn’t so bound with the church and her ministry that one can’t continue in fellowship with Christ when Providence prevents our joining with others in public worship. We need to recover in our lives the reality that Communion with God and the Communion of the Saints extend beyond the one hour we spend together on Sunday morning. It also extends in worship beyond whether or not we are physically in the presence of one another. This isn’t to be used as an excuse for not attending public worship, though. Our Lord set up the church, her worship, and her leaders, as being essential to our salvation, and we don’t have the freedom to disregard it according to whatever suits us. Nonetheless, there are occasions (and for some people, the better part of a lifetime) when we are hindered from participating in these things in the way that God generally intended them to be. In those situations, we need to actively pursue the worship of God in whatever other ways that we legitimately can. This is especially true on Sunday.
There are many ways of doing this, but here are just a couple of suggestions specific to Sunday. For one, there is private worship. Those of us who grew up in Fundamentalism with its insistence upon a legalistic observance of a “Daily Quiet Time” will grow a little nervous at the mention of this. But we shouldn’t allow our freedom from legalism to keep us from freely worshipping God in private. I will not let the legalists control me, nor will I let my freedom give opportunity to my fleshly tendency toward selfishness and laziness. I draw from many traditions of the church for private worship, but try to spend time familiarizing myself sufficiently with a tradition before using their resources so as not to overly complicate things. In other words, don’t be afraid to draw from different prayerbooks or service books, but don’t complicate things to the point that you’re just playing around and not worshipping. Or you can pray straight through a liturgy, like the Morning Prayer service from the Book of Common Prayer. If all this is a bit bizarre to you, then just pray, and read and meditate on the Scriptures. Pray through a Psalm or two. Pray the Lord’s Prayer. Read an entry from a good daily devotional, like C. H. Spurgeon’s Morning and Evening. There are many things you can do. I would recommend not turning it into a study time, though. Leave the Strong’s Concordance on the shelf. Worship isn’t about downloading more information into your brain, though there might be an aspect of learning to it.
Another thing you can do on a Sunday morning is to watch a worship service online. I’m sure there are others besides this, but I watch the liturgy of one of the Greek Orthodox churches online. Here is the link to the website of the Greek Orthodox Diocese of America, and here is the link directly to the page showing the different live worship services you can watch. It isn’t the same as being with other believers and worshipping with them. And the service is partially in Greek, so you won’t understand everything unless you speak Greek. But half or more of it is in English, so you can watch the liturgical action of the service and still receive the blessing that only hearing the Word (as opposed to reading) can provide. This is also a good way of exposing oneself to the Eastern Christian tradition which, while I have disagreements with elements of it, I think has much that can only help us as we reflect upon it and compare it with Scripture and our own traditions.
All of this is by way of suggestion. If you have a fever, stay in bed and try to break it, for crying out loud. Listen to a CD of hymns, maybe. Whatever you do, do what you can reasonably do. Don’t give up, but don’t beat yourself up over your circumstances, either. God alone is sovereign.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
The Silence of God
The following is one of my favorite Andrew Peterson songs. I was glad to hear that Michael Card recently recorded a version of it for his latest project. You should hear the song, but if you haven't, you can at least appreciate the lyrics.
The Silence of God
It's enough to drive a man crazy; it'll break a man's faith
It's enough to make him wonder if he's ever been sane
When he's bleating for comfort from Thy staff and Thy rod
And the heaven's only answer is the silence of God
It'll shake a man's timbers when he loses his heart
When he has to remember what broke him apart
This yoke may be easy, but this burden is not
When the crying fields are frozen by the silence of God
And if a man has got to listen to the voices of the mob
Who are reeling in the throes of all the happiness they've got
When they tell you all their troubles have been nailed up to that cross
Then what about the times when even followers get lost?
'Cause we all get lost sometimes...
There's a statue of Jesus on a monastery knoll
In the hills of Kentucky, all quiet and cold
And He's kneeling in the garden, as silent as a Stone
All His friends are sleeping and He's weeping all alone
And the man of all sorrows, he never forgot
What sorrow is carried by the hearts that he bought
So when the questions dissolve into the silence of God
The aching may remain, but the breaking does not
The aching may remain, but the breaking does not
In the holy, lonesome echo of the silence of God
The Silence of God
It's enough to drive a man crazy; it'll break a man's faith
It's enough to make him wonder if he's ever been sane
When he's bleating for comfort from Thy staff and Thy rod
And the heaven's only answer is the silence of God
It'll shake a man's timbers when he loses his heart
When he has to remember what broke him apart
This yoke may be easy, but this burden is not
When the crying fields are frozen by the silence of God
And if a man has got to listen to the voices of the mob
Who are reeling in the throes of all the happiness they've got
When they tell you all their troubles have been nailed up to that cross
Then what about the times when even followers get lost?
'Cause we all get lost sometimes...
There's a statue of Jesus on a monastery knoll
In the hills of Kentucky, all quiet and cold
And He's kneeling in the garden, as silent as a Stone
All His friends are sleeping and He's weeping all alone
And the man of all sorrows, he never forgot
What sorrow is carried by the hearts that he bought
So when the questions dissolve into the silence of God
The aching may remain, but the breaking does not
The aching may remain, but the breaking does not
In the holy, lonesome echo of the silence of God
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Blog Changes
I just wanted to point out that I've added a links section to my sidebar, as well as a section of links to my favorite blogs. I will add more as I have opportunity. I hope you will find them beneficial, as I have.
Friday, June 02, 2006
The Future of America
From a recent conversation with a newly hired co-worker:
ME: So you’re going to [names local state-supported university]?
CO-WORKER: Uh-huh.
ME: What’s your major?
CO-WORKER: Communications.
ME: What year are you in?
CO-WORKER: My third year.
ME: So what are you planning on doing after you graduate?
CO-WORKER: [Shrugs shoulders.]
ME: I mean, what kind of job can you get with a communications degree?
CO-WORKER: [Deer in headlights. Shakes head.]
ME: [Changes subject.]
ME: So you’re going to [names local state-supported university]?
CO-WORKER: Uh-huh.
ME: What’s your major?
CO-WORKER: Communications.
ME: What year are you in?
CO-WORKER: My third year.
ME: So what are you planning on doing after you graduate?
CO-WORKER: [Shrugs shoulders.]
ME: I mean, what kind of job can you get with a communications degree?
CO-WORKER: [Deer in headlights. Shakes head.]
ME: [Changes subject.]
Monday, May 29, 2006
Where are you?
From the time I began attending Reformed churches, I realized the lengths that one often has to go to in order to worship with a solid congregation of believers. I was living in New Hampshire and attending a Plymouth Brethren congregation when I really began to wrestle with the key doctrines of the Reformed faith. The congregation where I was attending was lacking in a number of areas, such as depth of teaching and reverence in worship. Through an acquaintance I learned of and visited a Presbyterian congregation some forty minutes away, and soon I was attending on a regular basis. I have been in a number of different congregations and denominations since then. Every time I’ve changed churches it has been a struggle to determine where to attend next, and every time I’ve had to make some sort of sacrifice in order to find a place to worship. My current situation is no different. I am a Presbyterian by conviction, but have chosen to attend and join an Anglican congregation, believing it to be the best choice I can make at this point in my life.
Most of the time when I’ve had to find a new church, I haven’t been entirely sure once I’ve made my choice that it was in fact the best choice. Nonetheless, I have made my choices carefully and prayerfully, always desiring the guidance and the blessing of God. One thing I have often thought of doing but never have is to move close to a congregation that is more in line with what I believe the Scriptures teach regarding the ordering of a church. While I have never done this, I have found numerous people in similar situations to mine that have chosen to do just that. Some people have gone as far as to move from one coast of the U.S. to another just to find a church that conducts itself according to what they perceive as Biblical principles.
Many people, even in Reformed circles, will criticize this, saying that the normal practice of church growth is from within the community, not from people moving into a community from the outside. This may be true in some sense. But one has to ask what “normal” is in a sinful world. As I read the Scriptures, Presbyterian church government is normal. So is paedobaptism, paedocommunion, liturgical worship, weekly communion… well, you get the point. On the negative side, I don’t consider it normal for churches to bring the music of a sentimentalistic and commerce – centered culture into its worship, all along using the excuse that it will bring more people in. Sentimentalistic and commercial music create spineless and covetous people, unworthy of the cross of Christ, and that’s exactly what we are. The leaders of the churches that do this, and in so doing compromise their calls, are the ones who drive the sheep under their care to take such steps as to move or to drive long distances every Sunday.
Along with this, I see no injunction in Scripture against moving to a place where one can worship with one’s family in a community of like-minded believers. Not everyone is called to remain in his community and be a missionary there. A father’s first concern, for instance, is for the spiritual and physical well-being of his family – and in that order, I would say. I think the same can be said of an individual and his own spiritual needs. Sometimes it’s imperative for a person who is unattached to family to move for the well-being of his own soul. Such well-being doesn’t entail perfection, mind you. There are no perfect churches. But I can’t help but think that we far too often settle for far to little. I think we should regard the spiritual lethargy of our country as a testimony to that.
I have been reading J. C. Ryle’s book Holiness with a friend. We recently covered the chapters on Lot and his wife. Ryle talks of how even though Lot was a believer, he took steps of compromise that cost him his wife’s life and his daughters’ holiness. He documents Lot’s gradual movement towards and eventually into the city of Sodom. Ryle then gives some specific considerations to believers that relate Lot’s circumstances to our own. Here are a couple that are worth heeding that apply to our discussion:
(a) Remember this in choosing a dwelling-place, or residence. It is not enough that the house is comfortable, the situation good, the air fine, the neighbourhood pleasant, the rent or price small, the living cheap. There are other things yet to be considered. You must think of your immortal soul. Will the house you think of help you towards heaven or hell? Is the Gospel preached within an easy distance? Is Christ crucified within reach of your door? Is there a real man of God near, who will watch over your soul? I charge you, if you love life, not to overlook this. Beware of Lot’s choice.
(b) Remember this in choosing a calling, a place, or profession in life. It is not enough that the salary is high, the wages good, the work light, the advantages numerous, the prospects of getting on most favourable. Think of your soul, your immortal soul. Will it be fed or starved? Will it be prospered or drawn back? Will you have your Sundays free, and be able to have one day in the week for your spiritual business? I beseech you, by the mercies of God, to take heed what you do. Make no rash decision. Look at the place in every light, the light of God as well as the light of the world. Gold may be bought too dear. Beware of Lot’s choice.
Ryle died in 1900. It is very uncommon to find people who even think along these lines in our day, as it apparently was in his. Every man must decide for himself before God what he must do in making these sorts of decisions. But I think Ryle gives us wisdom, and we should heed it. I think it is also important for us to think carefully before we criticize those that take great steps to honor Christ in their Sunday worship as well as in their daily lives. If we all strove to holiness like this, imagine what great things could be accomplished for Christ and his kingdom in our families, our communities, and our country.
Most of the time when I’ve had to find a new church, I haven’t been entirely sure once I’ve made my choice that it was in fact the best choice. Nonetheless, I have made my choices carefully and prayerfully, always desiring the guidance and the blessing of God. One thing I have often thought of doing but never have is to move close to a congregation that is more in line with what I believe the Scriptures teach regarding the ordering of a church. While I have never done this, I have found numerous people in similar situations to mine that have chosen to do just that. Some people have gone as far as to move from one coast of the U.S. to another just to find a church that conducts itself according to what they perceive as Biblical principles.
Many people, even in Reformed circles, will criticize this, saying that the normal practice of church growth is from within the community, not from people moving into a community from the outside. This may be true in some sense. But one has to ask what “normal” is in a sinful world. As I read the Scriptures, Presbyterian church government is normal. So is paedobaptism, paedocommunion, liturgical worship, weekly communion… well, you get the point. On the negative side, I don’t consider it normal for churches to bring the music of a sentimentalistic and commerce – centered culture into its worship, all along using the excuse that it will bring more people in. Sentimentalistic and commercial music create spineless and covetous people, unworthy of the cross of Christ, and that’s exactly what we are. The leaders of the churches that do this, and in so doing compromise their calls, are the ones who drive the sheep under their care to take such steps as to move or to drive long distances every Sunday.
Along with this, I see no injunction in Scripture against moving to a place where one can worship with one’s family in a community of like-minded believers. Not everyone is called to remain in his community and be a missionary there. A father’s first concern, for instance, is for the spiritual and physical well-being of his family – and in that order, I would say. I think the same can be said of an individual and his own spiritual needs. Sometimes it’s imperative for a person who is unattached to family to move for the well-being of his own soul. Such well-being doesn’t entail perfection, mind you. There are no perfect churches. But I can’t help but think that we far too often settle for far to little. I think we should regard the spiritual lethargy of our country as a testimony to that.
I have been reading J. C. Ryle’s book Holiness with a friend. We recently covered the chapters on Lot and his wife. Ryle talks of how even though Lot was a believer, he took steps of compromise that cost him his wife’s life and his daughters’ holiness. He documents Lot’s gradual movement towards and eventually into the city of Sodom. Ryle then gives some specific considerations to believers that relate Lot’s circumstances to our own. Here are a couple that are worth heeding that apply to our discussion:
(a) Remember this in choosing a dwelling-place, or residence. It is not enough that the house is comfortable, the situation good, the air fine, the neighbourhood pleasant, the rent or price small, the living cheap. There are other things yet to be considered. You must think of your immortal soul. Will the house you think of help you towards heaven or hell? Is the Gospel preached within an easy distance? Is Christ crucified within reach of your door? Is there a real man of God near, who will watch over your soul? I charge you, if you love life, not to overlook this. Beware of Lot’s choice.
(b) Remember this in choosing a calling, a place, or profession in life. It is not enough that the salary is high, the wages good, the work light, the advantages numerous, the prospects of getting on most favourable. Think of your soul, your immortal soul. Will it be fed or starved? Will it be prospered or drawn back? Will you have your Sundays free, and be able to have one day in the week for your spiritual business? I beseech you, by the mercies of God, to take heed what you do. Make no rash decision. Look at the place in every light, the light of God as well as the light of the world. Gold may be bought too dear. Beware of Lot’s choice.
Ryle died in 1900. It is very uncommon to find people who even think along these lines in our day, as it apparently was in his. Every man must decide for himself before God what he must do in making these sorts of decisions. But I think Ryle gives us wisdom, and we should heed it. I think it is also important for us to think carefully before we criticize those that take great steps to honor Christ in their Sunday worship as well as in their daily lives. If we all strove to holiness like this, imagine what great things could be accomplished for Christ and his kingdom in our families, our communities, and our country.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Follow-up on Covenantal Curses
There were a couple of things I wanted to follow-up from my post below on the covenant.
I was curious to know if anyone else had taken Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:34 in the same way I had. I haven’t done any extensive looking through commentaries, but I did look to see what Matthew Henry had to say about this verse, and here is what he said:
3. Those he sends are called prophets, wise men, and scribes, Old-Testament names for New-Testament officers; to show that the ministers sent to them now should not be inferior to the prophets of the Old Testament, to Solomon the wise, or Ezra the scribe. The extraordinary ministers, who in the first ages were divinely inspired, were as the prophets commissioned immediately from heaven; the ordinary settled ministers, who were then, and continue in the church still, and will do to the end of time, are as the wise men and scribes, to guide and instruct the people in the things of God. Or, we may take the apostles and evangelists for the prophets and wise men, and the pastors and teachers for the scribes, instructed to the kingdom of heaven (ch. xiii. 52); for the office of a scribe was honourable till the men dishonoured it.
I would probably push this a little farther than Henry would, and say that one thing that is indicated here is the continuity of the ministers under the New Covenant with the ministers under the Old Covenant. And it seems to me that in Mt. 13:51-52 that Henry references that Jesus is specifically aligning the disciples (which means here, I assume, the Twelve, as the apostles were called) with the scribes or, as some translations have it, the teachers of the Law (see the NIV, for instance). What the theological significance of this is, I do not entirely know. Nonetheless, I am apparently not the only one to have thought along these lines regarding this passage.
I also wanted to clarify my statements regarding Jesus’ function in this passage. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is seen fulfilling various Old Testament types such as the New Moses, the True Israel, and the shoot that comes out of the stump of Jesse, the heir of David’s throne, the true King of Israel (Is. 11). Here in Mt. 23, Jesus is (at least, in part) filling the role of prophet. Now, Jesus is more than just a prophet (cf. Mt. 21:33-45, especially vss. 37-39), but he was a prophet nonetheless. David Chilton, in Days of Vengeance, his commentary on the Book of the Revelation, gives a helpful description on the role of the prophet in relation to the Covenant:
The Covenant is the meaning of Biblical history (Biblical history is not primarily adventure stories). The Covenant is the meaning of Biblical law (the Bible is not primarily a political treatise about how to set up a Christian Republic). And the Covenant is the meaning of Biblical prophecy as well (thus, Biblical prophecy is not “prediction” in the occult sense of Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and Jean Dixon). To a man, the prophets were God’s legal emissaries to Israel and the nations, acting as prosecuting attorneys bringing what has become known among recent scholars as the “Covenant Lawsuit”. That Biblical prophecy is not simply “prediction” is indicated, for example, by God’s statement through Jeremiah: "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will repent of the good with which I had promised to bless it." (Jer. 18:7-10)
The purpose of prophecy is not “prediction”, but evaluation of man’s ethical response to God’s Word of command and promise. This is why Jonah’s prophecy about Nineveh did not “come true”: Nineveh repented of its wickedness, and the calamity was averted. Like the other Biblical writings, the Book of Revelation is a prophecy, with a specific covenantal orientation and reference. When the covenantal context of the prophecy is ignored, the message St. John sought to communicate is lost, and Revelation becomes nothing more than a vehicle for advancing the alleged expositor’s eschatological theories. (pp. 10-11)
This is the role that Jesus was filling in Mt. 23. This also explains the connection he draws between himself and the prophets that came before him.
I was curious to know if anyone else had taken Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:34 in the same way I had. I haven’t done any extensive looking through commentaries, but I did look to see what Matthew Henry had to say about this verse, and here is what he said:
3. Those he sends are called prophets, wise men, and scribes, Old-Testament names for New-Testament officers; to show that the ministers sent to them now should not be inferior to the prophets of the Old Testament, to Solomon the wise, or Ezra the scribe. The extraordinary ministers, who in the first ages were divinely inspired, were as the prophets commissioned immediately from heaven; the ordinary settled ministers, who were then, and continue in the church still, and will do to the end of time, are as the wise men and scribes, to guide and instruct the people in the things of God. Or, we may take the apostles and evangelists for the prophets and wise men, and the pastors and teachers for the scribes, instructed to the kingdom of heaven (ch. xiii. 52); for the office of a scribe was honourable till the men dishonoured it.
I would probably push this a little farther than Henry would, and say that one thing that is indicated here is the continuity of the ministers under the New Covenant with the ministers under the Old Covenant. And it seems to me that in Mt. 13:51-52 that Henry references that Jesus is specifically aligning the disciples (which means here, I assume, the Twelve, as the apostles were called) with the scribes or, as some translations have it, the teachers of the Law (see the NIV, for instance). What the theological significance of this is, I do not entirely know. Nonetheless, I am apparently not the only one to have thought along these lines regarding this passage.
I also wanted to clarify my statements regarding Jesus’ function in this passage. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is seen fulfilling various Old Testament types such as the New Moses, the True Israel, and the shoot that comes out of the stump of Jesse, the heir of David’s throne, the true King of Israel (Is. 11). Here in Mt. 23, Jesus is (at least, in part) filling the role of prophet. Now, Jesus is more than just a prophet (cf. Mt. 21:33-45, especially vss. 37-39), but he was a prophet nonetheless. David Chilton, in Days of Vengeance, his commentary on the Book of the Revelation, gives a helpful description on the role of the prophet in relation to the Covenant:
The Covenant is the meaning of Biblical history (Biblical history is not primarily adventure stories). The Covenant is the meaning of Biblical law (the Bible is not primarily a political treatise about how to set up a Christian Republic). And the Covenant is the meaning of Biblical prophecy as well (thus, Biblical prophecy is not “prediction” in the occult sense of Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and Jean Dixon). To a man, the prophets were God’s legal emissaries to Israel and the nations, acting as prosecuting attorneys bringing what has become known among recent scholars as the “Covenant Lawsuit”. That Biblical prophecy is not simply “prediction” is indicated, for example, by God’s statement through Jeremiah: "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will repent of the good with which I had promised to bless it." (Jer. 18:7-10)
The purpose of prophecy is not “prediction”, but evaluation of man’s ethical response to God’s Word of command and promise. This is why Jonah’s prophecy about Nineveh did not “come true”: Nineveh repented of its wickedness, and the calamity was averted. Like the other Biblical writings, the Book of Revelation is a prophecy, with a specific covenantal orientation and reference. When the covenantal context of the prophecy is ignored, the message St. John sought to communicate is lost, and Revelation becomes nothing more than a vehicle for advancing the alleged expositor’s eschatological theories. (pp. 10-11)
This is the role that Jesus was filling in Mt. 23. This also explains the connection he draws between himself and the prophets that came before him.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Going to see X-Men 3?
If you're going to see X-Men 3, be sure and stay until the end of the credits. I can't tell you why. And no, my cousin wasn't the Key Grip. You'll just have to trust me on this one. There is a reason.
I'll comment on the film some time later.
I'll comment on the film some time later.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Quote of the Day
Modern Evangelicals are fond of saying that Jesus is the answer for what ails America. I believe Modern Evangelicalism is what ails America. I can’t imagine any comparable situation in church history where you had so many millions of people who professed allegiance to Jesus Christ whose presence was so utterly irrelevant culturally to what was going on around them, and I think the key goes back to worship.
- Douglas Wilson, 2003 Ligonier Ministries National Conference
- Douglas Wilson, 2003 Ligonier Ministries National Conference
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Southern Baptist Convention
Through an email from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, I just found out that the Southern Baptist Convention's Annual Meeting will be held here in Greensboro in a few weeks. Apparently, Alliance Council member Mark Dever will be speaking at some of the events surrounding the convention, one of those events being the pre-convention Pastors’ Conference. The Pastors’ Conference features several speakers that would be well known to anyone familiar with Evangelicalism. The two speakers that I was surprised to find are going to be there are Ben Witherington and Rick Warren. I might be wrong, but I didn’t think that Witherington was even a Baptist. And is Saddleback in the SBC? I suppose these things don’t necessarily determine whether or not one is asked to be a speaker. I’d like to get in to hear some of these sessions, though I might not be able to get off of work for it. The website says that there is no registration and no fees. I wonder if one has to prove pastoral status at the door. I’m not a Baptist pastor, and I’m sure my beard would confirm that for them.
We would do well to pray for this convention, and for the SBC in general. For one, we might pray for the hastening of the day when all Baptists will be Presbyterians. Until that comes to pass, we might thank God for the revival of interest in and adherence to the Doctrines of Grace by many Baptists. Though the roster of speakers at the conference might make one question whether or not this is the case, one might remember Dever and Al Mohler, as well as the many Reformed Baptist churches not affiliated with the SBC. Most Presbyterians I’ve known were former Baptists, anyway, so I guess we know what’s happening when Reformed theology begins to take root in individuals. Some other matters that we might pray for among the Baptists are the things that are needed amongst all American Christians, such as an increase in holiness of life, reverence towards God, and true love for God and neighbor. We all need growth in these things.
We would do well to pray for this convention, and for the SBC in general. For one, we might pray for the hastening of the day when all Baptists will be Presbyterians. Until that comes to pass, we might thank God for the revival of interest in and adherence to the Doctrines of Grace by many Baptists. Though the roster of speakers at the conference might make one question whether or not this is the case, one might remember Dever and Al Mohler, as well as the many Reformed Baptist churches not affiliated with the SBC. Most Presbyterians I’ve known were former Baptists, anyway, so I guess we know what’s happening when Reformed theology begins to take root in individuals. Some other matters that we might pray for among the Baptists are the things that are needed amongst all American Christians, such as an increase in holiness of life, reverence towards God, and true love for God and neighbor. We all need growth in these things.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Love Offering for Anne Rice
So I was doing a search on Amazon when I ran across the profile page of best-selling author Anne Rice. I found it especially interesting that the only item on her wishlist is a book edited by Scott Hahn.
What I still can't figure out is why she has a wishlist. Do you reckon she's having to save up to buy that book?
What I still can't figure out is why she has a wishlist. Do you reckon she's having to save up to buy that book?
It's Called "Imbalance"
Maybe somebody can help me out here.
Banner of Truth publishes some great stuff. But how can they publish two single-volume commentaries on the book of Romans, D. Martin Lloyd-Jones' fourteen volume set on Romans, and a 392 page commentary on only the first four verses of Romans chapter eight, and not a single commentary on Ruth or Esther?
I guess it's because Ruth and Esther have absolutely nothing to do with salvation or God's sovereignty...
(Sarcasm alert.)
Banner of Truth publishes some great stuff. But how can they publish two single-volume commentaries on the book of Romans, D. Martin Lloyd-Jones' fourteen volume set on Romans, and a 392 page commentary on only the first four verses of Romans chapter eight, and not a single commentary on Ruth or Esther?
I guess it's because Ruth and Esther have absolutely nothing to do with salvation or God's sovereignty...
(Sarcasm alert.)
Sunday, May 07, 2006
The Covenantal Curses
I was reading The Covenantal Gospel by Cornelis van der Waal this afternoon – or at least attempting to read. I was struggling to keep my eyes open as my body was telling me it was Sunday. So I suppose you might say I was dozing with a book in my hand - when I was snapped from my Sabbath slumbers by the following passage, taken from the section on the covenant with Levi and the priests (3.10). Van der Waal has been speaking of how the Levites were a zealous people for the covenant, which God praised them for, and then he says the following:
The opposite is mentioned in Mal. 2:8, where the priests are rebuked: “You have corrupted the covenant of Levi,” therefore “I will curse your blessings” (vs. 2). The structure of the covenant of peace appears to be the same as that of all other covenants in that its violation is threatened with a curse. This is nothing new. What happened to Shiloh in the time of Eli (Jer. 7:12, 14)? And recall how the prophets fulminated against the priesthood and threatened the destruction of the temple (Jer. 6:13; 7; 8:10; 23:11; Zeph.3:4)!
The categorical promise of the covenant with Levi (Jer. 33:17-26) does not preclude judgment. No one would believe that the enemy would enter the gates of Jerusalem, it says in Lam. 4:12, 13. “This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests, who shed in the midst of her the blood of the righteous” (compare Neh. 9:17).
In the framework of the covenant with Levi we can see the action of the priesthood against Jesus Christ correctly, as well as Christ’s threats against city and temple. It is because the LORD maintained His covenant with Levi, that Jer. 7 would be realized once more (Matt. 21:13 – Jer. 7:11; Matt. 24:2 – Jer 7:14, 15; 1 Kings 9:6-9; Micah 3:11, 12).
The covenant with Levi, too, had its conditions and threats. (pp. 39-40, emphasis in the original)
There is a lot of good stuff in here to consider. But what struck me was the statement about the prophets having threatened the destruction of the temple. I am what is usually called a partial preterist in my view of eschatology, meaning that while I believe in a future return of Christ, I hold much of Biblical prophecy to have been fulfilled in the destruction of the Jerusalem in 70 A.D. I had recognized this as part of Jesus’s prophecy in Matt. 24. But due to my ignorance of the Old Testament, I didn’t realize how this was part of the covenant curses as given by Yahweh and that the threat of the destruction of the temple was so clearly stated. The contrast of Jerusalem with the removal of the presence of Yahweh from Shiloh (Jer 7:12-14; cf. 1 Sam. 4) is amazing as well, signaling the continuity of the covenants, including the curses. It is interesting to note that the judgment brought through Shiloh involved the death of the high priest as well. I’ll leave it to the real scholars to expound on that particular point.
What else should be noted in this are Jesus’s comments about tearing down the temple. Jesus said he would tear down the temple and raise it up in three days (John 2:19), the one statement mentioned specifically by Scripture as brought out against him in his so-called trial (Matt. 26:60-61; Mark 14:58). Scripture says he was speaking of his body. It is amazing that his disciples actually made the connection to this after his resurrection, considering how dense they seemed when it came to so many of the other metaphors Jesus used. And yet this is in contrast to the average Joe unrepentant Jew who didn’t get it. When one considers Jesus’s statement along with his actions in cleansing the temple (I am assuming that he did it twice, once at the beginning of his ministry – John 2 – and once at the end of his ministry – Matt. 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Lk. 19:45-46) one wonders at how this doesn’t seem to be connected by anybody that he encounters with the curses of the covenant, especially considering how clearly stated it is in the OT. One might simply mark this up to ignorance. But one would think the teachers of the Law would know the prophecy. Then again, Jesus’s point in Matthew 23 was that those who knew the Law didn’t really know the Law, wasn’t it? Or, at least, they didn’t live it. Jesus’s list of woes in Matt. 23 was in fact a declaration of the arrival of the covenantal curses upon Israel through her leaders(cf. Deut. 27-28). Jesus concluded this declaration by referencing the prophets, drawing a connection they shouldn’t have missed. He then practically invites them to kill him and his disciples, prophesying of what they will do to them (Matt. 23:32-36). One might also suggest that Jesus is here telling of his establishing of his own leaders in the New Israel, replacing the Old Israel and her leaders and inviting the faithful into the New Israel (vss. 34, 1-12). But that’s just some speculation off the top of my head – don’t take it as orthodox truth.
The opposite is mentioned in Mal. 2:8, where the priests are rebuked: “You have corrupted the covenant of Levi,” therefore “I will curse your blessings” (vs. 2). The structure of the covenant of peace appears to be the same as that of all other covenants in that its violation is threatened with a curse. This is nothing new. What happened to Shiloh in the time of Eli (Jer. 7:12, 14)? And recall how the prophets fulminated against the priesthood and threatened the destruction of the temple (Jer. 6:13; 7; 8:10; 23:11; Zeph.3:4)!
The categorical promise of the covenant with Levi (Jer. 33:17-26) does not preclude judgment. No one would believe that the enemy would enter the gates of Jerusalem, it says in Lam. 4:12, 13. “This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests, who shed in the midst of her the blood of the righteous” (compare Neh. 9:17).
In the framework of the covenant with Levi we can see the action of the priesthood against Jesus Christ correctly, as well as Christ’s threats against city and temple. It is because the LORD maintained His covenant with Levi, that Jer. 7 would be realized once more (Matt. 21:13 – Jer. 7:11; Matt. 24:2 – Jer 7:14, 15; 1 Kings 9:6-9; Micah 3:11, 12).
The covenant with Levi, too, had its conditions and threats. (pp. 39-40, emphasis in the original)
There is a lot of good stuff in here to consider. But what struck me was the statement about the prophets having threatened the destruction of the temple. I am what is usually called a partial preterist in my view of eschatology, meaning that while I believe in a future return of Christ, I hold much of Biblical prophecy to have been fulfilled in the destruction of the Jerusalem in 70 A.D. I had recognized this as part of Jesus’s prophecy in Matt. 24. But due to my ignorance of the Old Testament, I didn’t realize how this was part of the covenant curses as given by Yahweh and that the threat of the destruction of the temple was so clearly stated. The contrast of Jerusalem with the removal of the presence of Yahweh from Shiloh (Jer 7:12-14; cf. 1 Sam. 4) is amazing as well, signaling the continuity of the covenants, including the curses. It is interesting to note that the judgment brought through Shiloh involved the death of the high priest as well. I’ll leave it to the real scholars to expound on that particular point.
What else should be noted in this are Jesus’s comments about tearing down the temple. Jesus said he would tear down the temple and raise it up in three days (John 2:19), the one statement mentioned specifically by Scripture as brought out against him in his so-called trial (Matt. 26:60-61; Mark 14:58). Scripture says he was speaking of his body. It is amazing that his disciples actually made the connection to this after his resurrection, considering how dense they seemed when it came to so many of the other metaphors Jesus used. And yet this is in contrast to the average Joe unrepentant Jew who didn’t get it. When one considers Jesus’s statement along with his actions in cleansing the temple (I am assuming that he did it twice, once at the beginning of his ministry – John 2 – and once at the end of his ministry – Matt. 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Lk. 19:45-46) one wonders at how this doesn’t seem to be connected by anybody that he encounters with the curses of the covenant, especially considering how clearly stated it is in the OT. One might simply mark this up to ignorance. But one would think the teachers of the Law would know the prophecy. Then again, Jesus’s point in Matthew 23 was that those who knew the Law didn’t really know the Law, wasn’t it? Or, at least, they didn’t live it. Jesus’s list of woes in Matt. 23 was in fact a declaration of the arrival of the covenantal curses upon Israel through her leaders(cf. Deut. 27-28). Jesus concluded this declaration by referencing the prophets, drawing a connection they shouldn’t have missed. He then practically invites them to kill him and his disciples, prophesying of what they will do to them (Matt. 23:32-36). One might also suggest that Jesus is here telling of his establishing of his own leaders in the New Israel, replacing the Old Israel and her leaders and inviting the faithful into the New Israel (vss. 34, 1-12). But that’s just some speculation off the top of my head – don’t take it as orthodox truth.
Monday, April 24, 2006
William Cowper (b. 1731 - d. 1800)
April 25th is the anniversary of the death of William Cowper. The following was written by Elizabeth Barrett Browning.
COWPER’S GRAVE
I.
It is a place where poets crowned may feel the heart's decaying;
It is a place where happy saints may weep amid their praying;
Yet let the grief and humbleness as low as silence languish:
Earth surely now may give her calm to whom she gave her anguish.
II.
O poets, from a maniac's tongue was poured the deathless singing!
O Christians, at your cross of hope a hopeless hand was clinging!
O men, this man in brotherhood your weary paths beguiling,
Groaned inly while he taught you peace, and died while ye were smiling!
III.
And now, what time ye all may read through dimming tears his story,
How discord on the music fell and darkness on the glory,
And how when, one by one, sweet sounds and wandering lights departed,
He wore no less a loving face because so broken-hearted,
IV.
He shall be strong to sanctify the poet's high vocation,
And bow the meekest Christian down in meeker adoration;
Nor ever shall he be, in praise, by wise or good forsaken,
Named softly as the household name of one whom God hath taken.
V.
With quiet sadness and no gloom I learn to think upon him,
With meekness that is gratefulness to God whose heaven hath won him,
Who suffered once the madness-cloud to His own love to blind him,
But gently led the blind along where breath and bird could find him;
VI.
And wrought within his shattered brain such quick poetic senses
As hills have language for, and stars, harmonious influences:
The pulse of dew upon the grass kept his within its number,
And silent shadows from the trees refreshed him like a slumber.
VII.
Wild timid hares were drawn from woods to share his home-caresses,
Uplooking to his human eyes with sylvan tendernesses:
The very world, by God's constraint, from falsehood's ways removing,
Its women and its men became, beside him, true and loving.
VIII.
And though, in blindness, he remained unconscious of that guiding,
And things provided came without the sweet sense of providing,
He testified this solemn truth, while phrenzy desolated,
—Nor man nor nature satisfies whom only God created.
IX.
Like a sick child that knoweth not his mother while she blesses
And drops upon his burning brow the coolness of her kisses,—
That turns his fevered eyes around—“My mother! where's my mother?”—
As if such tender words and deeds could come from any other!—
X.
The fever gone, with leaps of heart he sees her bending o'er him,
Her face all pale from watchful love, the unweary love she bore him!
Thus woke the poet from the dream his life's long fever gave him,
Beneath those deep pathetic Eyes which closed in death to save him.
XI.
Thus? oh, not thus! no type of earth can image that awaking,
Wherein he scarcely heard the chant of seraphs, round him breaking,
Or felt the new immortal throb of soul from body parted,
But felt those eyes alone, and knew—“My Saviour! not deserted!”
XII.
Deserted! Who hath dreamt that when the cross in darkness rested,
Upon the Victim's hidden face no love was manifested?
What frantic hands outstretched have e'er the atoning drops averted?
What tears have washed them from the soul, that one should be deserted?
XIII.
Deserted! God could separate from His own essence rather;
And Adam's sins have swept between the righteous Son and Father:
Yea, once, Immanuel's orphaned cry His universe hath shaken—
It went up single, echoless, “My God, I am forsaken!”
XIV.
It went up from the Holy's lips amid His lost creation,
That, of the lost, no son should use those words of desolation!
That earth's worst phrenzies, marring hope, should mar not hope's fruition,
And I, on Cowper's grave, should see his rapture in a vision.
COWPER’S GRAVE
I.
It is a place where poets crowned may feel the heart's decaying;
It is a place where happy saints may weep amid their praying;
Yet let the grief and humbleness as low as silence languish:
Earth surely now may give her calm to whom she gave her anguish.
II.
O poets, from a maniac's tongue was poured the deathless singing!
O Christians, at your cross of hope a hopeless hand was clinging!
O men, this man in brotherhood your weary paths beguiling,
Groaned inly while he taught you peace, and died while ye were smiling!
III.
And now, what time ye all may read through dimming tears his story,
How discord on the music fell and darkness on the glory,
And how when, one by one, sweet sounds and wandering lights departed,
He wore no less a loving face because so broken-hearted,
IV.
He shall be strong to sanctify the poet's high vocation,
And bow the meekest Christian down in meeker adoration;
Nor ever shall he be, in praise, by wise or good forsaken,
Named softly as the household name of one whom God hath taken.
V.
With quiet sadness and no gloom I learn to think upon him,
With meekness that is gratefulness to God whose heaven hath won him,
Who suffered once the madness-cloud to His own love to blind him,
But gently led the blind along where breath and bird could find him;
VI.
And wrought within his shattered brain such quick poetic senses
As hills have language for, and stars, harmonious influences:
The pulse of dew upon the grass kept his within its number,
And silent shadows from the trees refreshed him like a slumber.
VII.
Wild timid hares were drawn from woods to share his home-caresses,
Uplooking to his human eyes with sylvan tendernesses:
The very world, by God's constraint, from falsehood's ways removing,
Its women and its men became, beside him, true and loving.
VIII.
And though, in blindness, he remained unconscious of that guiding,
And things provided came without the sweet sense of providing,
He testified this solemn truth, while phrenzy desolated,
—Nor man nor nature satisfies whom only God created.
IX.
Like a sick child that knoweth not his mother while she blesses
And drops upon his burning brow the coolness of her kisses,—
That turns his fevered eyes around—“My mother! where's my mother?”—
As if such tender words and deeds could come from any other!—
X.
The fever gone, with leaps of heart he sees her bending o'er him,
Her face all pale from watchful love, the unweary love she bore him!
Thus woke the poet from the dream his life's long fever gave him,
Beneath those deep pathetic Eyes which closed in death to save him.
XI.
Thus? oh, not thus! no type of earth can image that awaking,
Wherein he scarcely heard the chant of seraphs, round him breaking,
Or felt the new immortal throb of soul from body parted,
But felt those eyes alone, and knew—“My Saviour! not deserted!”
XII.
Deserted! Who hath dreamt that when the cross in darkness rested,
Upon the Victim's hidden face no love was manifested?
What frantic hands outstretched have e'er the atoning drops averted?
What tears have washed them from the soul, that one should be deserted?
XIII.
Deserted! God could separate from His own essence rather;
And Adam's sins have swept between the righteous Son and Father:
Yea, once, Immanuel's orphaned cry His universe hath shaken—
It went up single, echoless, “My God, I am forsaken!”
XIV.
It went up from the Holy's lips amid His lost creation,
That, of the lost, no son should use those words of desolation!
That earth's worst phrenzies, marring hope, should mar not hope's fruition,
And I, on Cowper's grave, should see his rapture in a vision.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Music for Lent
We are now reaching the end of Lent, and though this is a little late, I thought I would give some recommendations for music to listen to during Lent and especially Holy Week. If nothing else, you could purchase them in preparation for next year.
St. Matthew Passion by Johann Sebastian Bach - J. S. Bach is the master, and every music library should include his works. As the title says, this is Bach’s work based on Matthew’s account of our Lord’s death. I wish I could recommend a particular version, but I only have a DVD of the work. You might want to visit amazon and read through some of the recommendations of various versions. Or you could just do what I normally do, and that is buy whatever version is cheapest.
Passio by Arvo Pärt - Arvo Pärt is a modern composer from Estonia. His style is a little unusual, but his works are very rewarding if you take time to orient yourself to them. This is his work based on the account of Christ’s death in the Gospel of John. This work, like much of his work, is very melancholic, often echoing the Eastern Orthodox tradition of his homeland.
The Gates of Repentance: Byzantine Hymns of Great Lent by Fr. Apostolos Hill – The title says exactly what it is: a cycle of hymns taken from the Byzantine rites of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, flowing from the beginning to the end of the “Great Lent” (as opposed to the Little Pascha or Lent, which the Western Tradition calls “Advent”). The hymns are sung in Byzantine chant style, but are unusual in that they are sung in English. This cd is only available at liturgica.com, so far as I know. They have apparently re-done the cd since I purchased it about three years ago, adding some new hymns. Once again, the work will be unusual to those not used to the Byzantine chant style, but is nonetheless very beautiful.
Music for Holy Week by the Choir of King’s College, Cambridge – Many are familiar with the choir’s Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols, performed every Christmas and broadcast on NPR and worldwide, and which many churches have taken to imitating. But they have recorded many other wonderful cd’s and dvd’s, of which this is one. There is a diversity of pieces here in English and Latin, including the familiar “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” and a well-known piece by Thomas Tallis, “If Ye Love Me”.
The Loving Kind by Cindy Morgan – This is one for you Contemporary Christian Music fans. I listen to very little CCM anymore, but among the cd’s I still pop in every once in a while, the music of Cindy Morgan is among my favorites. Her first two cd’s were too dance and R&B-ish for my tastes, but her music began improving with the third cd. I usually listen to this one at least once during Holy Week every year. This is the height of her musical achievements in my opinion, with Listen coming in a close second (she just released a new cd, which I haven’t heard). Those who listen to CCM radio might be familiar with a couple of the tunes, but the entire album is a conceptual album based on the last eight days of Christ’s life. The highlight of the cd is a duet with Wes King based on the Last Supper, with Wes playing classical guitar as well as singing.
If you are a CCM person, and have no interest in my first four recommendations, let me encourage you to take a brave step and purchase one of those first four cd’s. It might not be what you are normally drawn to, but I think it can only do us good to spend time experiencing the great classical music of the world. Put them in the cd player, turn down the lights, get a nice glass of red wine, and allow the music to lead you in meditating upon our Lord’s bitter suffering and death.
St. Matthew Passion by Johann Sebastian Bach - J. S. Bach is the master, and every music library should include his works. As the title says, this is Bach’s work based on Matthew’s account of our Lord’s death. I wish I could recommend a particular version, but I only have a DVD of the work. You might want to visit amazon and read through some of the recommendations of various versions. Or you could just do what I normally do, and that is buy whatever version is cheapest.
Passio by Arvo Pärt - Arvo Pärt is a modern composer from Estonia. His style is a little unusual, but his works are very rewarding if you take time to orient yourself to them. This is his work based on the account of Christ’s death in the Gospel of John. This work, like much of his work, is very melancholic, often echoing the Eastern Orthodox tradition of his homeland.
The Gates of Repentance: Byzantine Hymns of Great Lent by Fr. Apostolos Hill – The title says exactly what it is: a cycle of hymns taken from the Byzantine rites of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, flowing from the beginning to the end of the “Great Lent” (as opposed to the Little Pascha or Lent, which the Western Tradition calls “Advent”). The hymns are sung in Byzantine chant style, but are unusual in that they are sung in English. This cd is only available at liturgica.com, so far as I know. They have apparently re-done the cd since I purchased it about three years ago, adding some new hymns. Once again, the work will be unusual to those not used to the Byzantine chant style, but is nonetheless very beautiful.
Music for Holy Week by the Choir of King’s College, Cambridge – Many are familiar with the choir’s Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols, performed every Christmas and broadcast on NPR and worldwide, and which many churches have taken to imitating. But they have recorded many other wonderful cd’s and dvd’s, of which this is one. There is a diversity of pieces here in English and Latin, including the familiar “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” and a well-known piece by Thomas Tallis, “If Ye Love Me”.
The Loving Kind by Cindy Morgan – This is one for you Contemporary Christian Music fans. I listen to very little CCM anymore, but among the cd’s I still pop in every once in a while, the music of Cindy Morgan is among my favorites. Her first two cd’s were too dance and R&B-ish for my tastes, but her music began improving with the third cd. I usually listen to this one at least once during Holy Week every year. This is the height of her musical achievements in my opinion, with Listen coming in a close second (she just released a new cd, which I haven’t heard). Those who listen to CCM radio might be familiar with a couple of the tunes, but the entire album is a conceptual album based on the last eight days of Christ’s life. The highlight of the cd is a duet with Wes King based on the Last Supper, with Wes playing classical guitar as well as singing.
If you are a CCM person, and have no interest in my first four recommendations, let me encourage you to take a brave step and purchase one of those first four cd’s. It might not be what you are normally drawn to, but I think it can only do us good to spend time experiencing the great classical music of the world. Put them in the cd player, turn down the lights, get a nice glass of red wine, and allow the music to lead you in meditating upon our Lord’s bitter suffering and death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)