When I first linked Jeffrey Steel on this blog, he was a former PCA minister in the theological vein of James Jordan and Peter Leithart, who had moved to Great Britain and was pursuing Holy Orders in the Church of England. Whereas he already had some leanings that were more Catholic than I was or am now, I chose to link him nonetheless, in the belief that his blog had information and discussion that was of value to the Universal Church.
Those who have followed his blog have no doubt noticed that he has gradually moved more and more Catholic over the past few years. Sadly, he has announced today that he is withdrawing from the Church of England and his ministry, and he and his family will be joining the Roman Catholic Church in the near future. This is no surprise, but it is sad nonetheless. In one sense, I understand the draw to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. But I also see plenty of theological problems in both groups, and that is what has kept me from following a similar path.
A few years back, when I was contemplating joining the Anglican Church, I had a conversation with a man who was Archbishop and Metropolitan in a particular continuing Anglican group. I told him I didn't agree with the notion of the Apostolic Succession of Bishops, and asked if I could join his church anyway. He told me no, of course. That was the answer I had suspected, I told him, but I had studied the issue and had just not been convinced that Apostolic Succession was true. "But Kerry," he said, "who are you to question that?" For me, therein lies the debate, and the reason I can't join such a group. Anglo-catholics show up, and tell me I should exercise implicit faith in their leadership. Roman Catholics show up, and tell me I should exercise implicit faith in their leadership. The same is true of the various Eastern Orthodox groups, some of which won't even acknowledge one another as legitimate. For that matter, it's true of innumerable cults, such as the Mormons. And why, apart from the testimony of Scripture, should I recognize one over the other? There is no Scripture to support them, so there is no reason, and therefore they have no argument.
I am keeping the link to Jeffrey Steel's blog up for now, though I may change my mind in the future. While I am a Protestant in the Anglican Church, I'm not one who believes there is no value in Catholic thought and practice. I trust, though, that readers of this blog will use their discernment when checking out the sites I link.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Old Posts: A Meditation on Friendship
This is an old post from a couple of years ago. I think I only ever posted it on Myspace.
Anything really worth having takes work. This is especially true with relationships, and so it is often considered such with regard to marriage. But it is also true with regard to friendships. "Friendships come and go," people say. But why it has to be this way, I don't know. In fact, I would question whether or not it does. In our country, marriage has mostly ceased to be a commitment and has become a commodity. It seems like every other week I am hearing about somebody getting a divorce, even people who I would have never expected to. And our philosophy about friendship seems no different. Certainly, the two aren't parallel. There are no covenant bonds in friendship, though it is worth noting that in the two supreme examples of friendship in Scripture, that of Abraham and God, and David and Jonathan, there were, in fact, explicit covenant bonds. What that should mean for our friendships today, I do not know.
Ours is a selfish society. This results in divorce, but it also results in a failure to maintain deep, long-term friendships. Even finding a true friend seems nearly impossible. But then maintaining that friendship, nurturing it even through difficult times, and sustaining it over many years, is something of a pipe dream. Nobody seems to consider that this might not only be the result, but also a major cause, of our shallowness. A failure of friendship contributes to a feeling of unrootedness, a sense that we don't really belong anywhere or to anyone. We long for an identity, something outside of ourselves to tell us who we are and who we should strive to be. Much of this is, of course, due to the failure of the family in our society. But families who fail to give sacrificially of themselves by reaching outside to those without families eventually find themselves ingrown and dying.
Friendship requires a type of intimacy, a sharing of life. Jesus addressed this in his words to his disciples at the Last Supper:
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another. (John 15:12-17)
This section of Jesus' words are structured as a chiasm, which is a literary structure containing symmetrical thoughts while moving progressively in a logical fashion. Here is the diagram I would suggest for this section:
A – the command to love one another
B – to love is to lay down your life for your friends
C – you are my friends if you do what I command you
D – servants don't know what their master is doing
D' – friends share in what friends are doing
C' – you didn't choose me, I chose you
B' – you should go and bear fruit that will abide
A' – the command to love one another
In a chiasm, the center section is the focal point or the central meaning of the passage. Here, it is the transition of the disciples from being merely servants to being friends. This is contained in the parallel D and D'. And the intimacy we see is not merely a sharing of feelings or interests, but a sharing of vocation. Jesus came to live and to die. The disciples sharing of this was not merely in imitation, but they were called to participate in the vocation of Jesus. It was through them that the work of the Father would be continued, and even the work of Jesus Himself.
It is interesting to note the change from servanthood, or slavery, to friendship. Such reflects the teaching of Paul with regard to the transition from the Old Covenant to the New. We see this in Galatians 3 & 4, where Paul tells how those living under the Old Covenant were children and therefore no different that slaves. And yet those who are in Christ are in the New Covenant. They are Christ's, they are children of God, and they are Abraham's offspring (Gal. 3:26, 29).
When we add to this James's discussion of Abraham's obedience (James 2:21-24), we see that as Abraham obeyed God, so should we, if we are truly his children (see also John 8:39-41). And, as James tells us, Abraham was called the friend of God (James 2:23). So just as Abraham was God's friend, so all that are in Abraham are not merely servants, but friends of God.
And yet, this does not eliminate all notions of authority, obedience, or accountability. "You are my friends if you do what I command you," Jesus tells them. We have a hard time conceiving that it is possible that those under authority might actually be friends with those in authority over them. And yet Jesus says this is not only possible, but it is necessary for those who would participate in his ministry. This should bring to question the modern approach to ministry, which is shaped on a business model rather than a Biblical model. Pastors are to be servants, walking and living among those they serve, rather than CEO's who show up in the offices and factories every once in a while to pretend they really care about the people who work for them.
One aspect of the passage that I have left out of my diagram involves Jesus' relationship with his Father, yet this is a key aspect of what he is saying. The work to which the disciples are called is the work of the Father. This is the work which Jesus came to do. The disciples were, in being adopted into the family, also being brought into the family business. And in being brought into the family business, they would have communion with the Father as Jesus does.
The whole passage is bracketed with the command to sacrificial love. It is only true love if one lays down his life. It involves finding one's place in the God-ordained structure of a community or family and being obedient in that vocation. And it involves the sharing of life, that is, of truth and experiences.
Kind of hard to do if one spends most of his spare time drunk in a bar. Or glued to a recliner in front of the TV or the internet. Or, for that matter, if one shuts out all those "difficult" people in preference of those nice, cozy relationships that take no work and therefore never grow. Jesus spent three years discipling twelve men. All had their faults. None of them fully understood his work, even up until the point he left them. And all of them abandoned him in his darkest hour. He gave himself when he got nothing in return, knowing that the harvest never comes in the same season in which you sow.
The perfection we long for isn't meant to exist in this world. We live and we die, and we spend much time in between wondering whether we are actually doing anybody any good. But God is the gardener, and He assures us that when we die and fall into the ground as He has commanded us (John 12:24-26), He will cause to spring up from our death fruit that will abide.
And this is as true in friendships as anywhere else. This doesn't answer all the questions, of course. By the nature of friendship, it takes the effort of two people, and if only one is willing to do the work necessary, it seems to stand that the friendship won't get very far. Yet this remains, that God calls us to serve one another sacrificially, obeying His calling and sharing our lives with one another. If even the whole world abandons us, we may still serve the world, knowing that God is our friend, and He will never abandon us, but will stick closer than a brother (Proverbs 18:24).
Anything really worth having takes work. This is especially true with relationships, and so it is often considered such with regard to marriage. But it is also true with regard to friendships. "Friendships come and go," people say. But why it has to be this way, I don't know. In fact, I would question whether or not it does. In our country, marriage has mostly ceased to be a commitment and has become a commodity. It seems like every other week I am hearing about somebody getting a divorce, even people who I would have never expected to. And our philosophy about friendship seems no different. Certainly, the two aren't parallel. There are no covenant bonds in friendship, though it is worth noting that in the two supreme examples of friendship in Scripture, that of Abraham and God, and David and Jonathan, there were, in fact, explicit covenant bonds. What that should mean for our friendships today, I do not know.
Ours is a selfish society. This results in divorce, but it also results in a failure to maintain deep, long-term friendships. Even finding a true friend seems nearly impossible. But then maintaining that friendship, nurturing it even through difficult times, and sustaining it over many years, is something of a pipe dream. Nobody seems to consider that this might not only be the result, but also a major cause, of our shallowness. A failure of friendship contributes to a feeling of unrootedness, a sense that we don't really belong anywhere or to anyone. We long for an identity, something outside of ourselves to tell us who we are and who we should strive to be. Much of this is, of course, due to the failure of the family in our society. But families who fail to give sacrificially of themselves by reaching outside to those without families eventually find themselves ingrown and dying.
Friendship requires a type of intimacy, a sharing of life. Jesus addressed this in his words to his disciples at the Last Supper:
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another. (John 15:12-17)
This section of Jesus' words are structured as a chiasm, which is a literary structure containing symmetrical thoughts while moving progressively in a logical fashion. Here is the diagram I would suggest for this section:
A – the command to love one another
B – to love is to lay down your life for your friends
C – you are my friends if you do what I command you
D – servants don't know what their master is doing
D' – friends share in what friends are doing
C' – you didn't choose me, I chose you
B' – you should go and bear fruit that will abide
A' – the command to love one another
In a chiasm, the center section is the focal point or the central meaning of the passage. Here, it is the transition of the disciples from being merely servants to being friends. This is contained in the parallel D and D'. And the intimacy we see is not merely a sharing of feelings or interests, but a sharing of vocation. Jesus came to live and to die. The disciples sharing of this was not merely in imitation, but they were called to participate in the vocation of Jesus. It was through them that the work of the Father would be continued, and even the work of Jesus Himself.
It is interesting to note the change from servanthood, or slavery, to friendship. Such reflects the teaching of Paul with regard to the transition from the Old Covenant to the New. We see this in Galatians 3 & 4, where Paul tells how those living under the Old Covenant were children and therefore no different that slaves. And yet those who are in Christ are in the New Covenant. They are Christ's, they are children of God, and they are Abraham's offspring (Gal. 3:26, 29).
When we add to this James's discussion of Abraham's obedience (James 2:21-24), we see that as Abraham obeyed God, so should we, if we are truly his children (see also John 8:39-41). And, as James tells us, Abraham was called the friend of God (James 2:23). So just as Abraham was God's friend, so all that are in Abraham are not merely servants, but friends of God.
And yet, this does not eliminate all notions of authority, obedience, or accountability. "You are my friends if you do what I command you," Jesus tells them. We have a hard time conceiving that it is possible that those under authority might actually be friends with those in authority over them. And yet Jesus says this is not only possible, but it is necessary for those who would participate in his ministry. This should bring to question the modern approach to ministry, which is shaped on a business model rather than a Biblical model. Pastors are to be servants, walking and living among those they serve, rather than CEO's who show up in the offices and factories every once in a while to pretend they really care about the people who work for them.
One aspect of the passage that I have left out of my diagram involves Jesus' relationship with his Father, yet this is a key aspect of what he is saying. The work to which the disciples are called is the work of the Father. This is the work which Jesus came to do. The disciples were, in being adopted into the family, also being brought into the family business. And in being brought into the family business, they would have communion with the Father as Jesus does.
The whole passage is bracketed with the command to sacrificial love. It is only true love if one lays down his life. It involves finding one's place in the God-ordained structure of a community or family and being obedient in that vocation. And it involves the sharing of life, that is, of truth and experiences.
Kind of hard to do if one spends most of his spare time drunk in a bar. Or glued to a recliner in front of the TV or the internet. Or, for that matter, if one shuts out all those "difficult" people in preference of those nice, cozy relationships that take no work and therefore never grow. Jesus spent three years discipling twelve men. All had their faults. None of them fully understood his work, even up until the point he left them. And all of them abandoned him in his darkest hour. He gave himself when he got nothing in return, knowing that the harvest never comes in the same season in which you sow.
The perfection we long for isn't meant to exist in this world. We live and we die, and we spend much time in between wondering whether we are actually doing anybody any good. But God is the gardener, and He assures us that when we die and fall into the ground as He has commanded us (John 12:24-26), He will cause to spring up from our death fruit that will abide.
And this is as true in friendships as anywhere else. This doesn't answer all the questions, of course. By the nature of friendship, it takes the effort of two people, and if only one is willing to do the work necessary, it seems to stand that the friendship won't get very far. Yet this remains, that God calls us to serve one another sacrificially, obeying His calling and sharing our lives with one another. If even the whole world abandons us, we may still serve the world, knowing that God is our friend, and He will never abandon us, but will stick closer than a brother (Proverbs 18:24).
Monday, June 01, 2009
Total Eclipse of the Heart: Literal Video Version
A friend of mine linked this on Facebook. It's too funny to be missed.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Radicalism and the Free Market Reconsidered
The following was written specifically for Facebook, but rather than attempting to edit it for this blog, I thought I would just publish it as is. Comments, as always, are welcome.
One of the things I've found interesting since joining Facebook and reconnecting with old friends and acquaintances is the different political directions that people I've known have gone. But at the risk of sounding demeaning, I don't usually find them all that shocking. Those who were raised in Conservative churches and families and then went the direction of the Democratic party don't surprise me. I guess when you know someone, you know them.
I'm sure there are a lot of reasons that stand behind such a shift. Some people go away to college at state universities, the professors of which are usually of a Socialist or Communist inclination, and, being young, and impressionable, and hearing political theory delineated in an intellectual fashion, often for the first time in their lives, they find themselves quickly swayed the way of the Left.
Then there are those who, quite frankly, view certain celebrities as demiurges, and who can disagree with such a manifestation of the Divine? There is no doubt that Barack Obama wouldn't have won the election without Oprah Winfrey, though what qualifies her as a reliable political counselor I have yet to figure out.
There are certainly alot of other reasons for the conversion of many from the Right to the Left (weren't the sheep on the right, and the goats on the left? But I digress.). But whatever the reason for the following of this path , their path is the result of poorly thought out positioning, rather than a careful search into political theory and history.
Now I would like to think that those individuals who have made this shift would still be reading at this point, and would be willing to receive criticism with an open mind (isn't it the Left that is always calling out for open mindedness?). Since I have made many criticisms of the Obama administration already, I would expect that some of these individuals have blocked my comments and therefore won't notice I have written this. Yet hope springs eternal. Whether or not I am preaching merely to the choir remains to be seen.
One criticism of Conservatism that I often hear raised is that which has to do with so-called "Capitalist greed". The assumption is that Capitalism inevitably exists as an institutionalism of greed. Since greed tears societies and communities apart, and since Capitalism can't exist without greed, ergo, Capitalism must go.
I do think that the Right (if I may use it in a broad way) is partially responsible for this misunderstanding of Capitalism. Sometimes this mistake is an honest one, based on what they themselves have been taught Capitalism means. Yet I think it can be reasonably argued that Capitalism doesn't necessarily cause or exist dependently upon greed.
Perhaps it would be better if we used the term "Free Market Economy". The term "Capitalism" has been often used as synonymous with "Free Market Economy", but this hasn't always been the case. Along with sometimes being a loaded term which carries implications of sanctified greed at the expense of others, "Capitalism" has sometimes been used to refer to an approach often taken in the U. S., in which civil government privileges the wealthy. It can be argued, and has been argued, that these approaches are different from what has been intended by "Free Market Economy".
Without getting into a lengthy discussion of the Socialist option, I think it needs to be said that there is clear opposition to it in Scripture. If nothing else, one has to understand that Socialism violates two of the Ten Commandments: You Shall Not Steal, and You Shall Not Covet. Both imply private individual ownership over which the State has no authority. I am forbidden to take that which God has given me no right to take from another individual, and I am sinning to want to take it from them, even if this is for a supposedly good cause.
But rather than me saying more, here are a couple of sources from others worth checking out.
First, there is this article:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0193b.asp
In it, the author discusses the historical difference between Capitalism and the Free Market.
Secondly, there is this video:
http://www.booktv.org/watch.aspx?ProgramId=PC-10489
The lecturer, Jay Richards, discusses myths commonly associated with Capitalism. In the lecture, he manages to mention Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, Hillaire Belloc, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Rod Dreher. It's not one to miss.
These certainly aren't enough, I wouldn't expect, to cause a Leftist running down the saw dust trail in repentance from any economic fallacies they may hold. But I hope they will cause the reader to see that there is a different approach to economics and the civil government than what they have considered.
I have so often seen people be thoughtlessly reactionary to their Conservative roots, that while I have my own criticisms of the Right, I have a hard time taking those reactionaries very seriously. So this is what you might think of as a brief invitation away from a reactionary approach. If we are going to be responsible citizens in the place God has put us, then one must be led by careful thought, not by a spirit of populist fervor, whether that fervor be on the Left or the Right.
One of the things I've found interesting since joining Facebook and reconnecting with old friends and acquaintances is the different political directions that people I've known have gone. But at the risk of sounding demeaning, I don't usually find them all that shocking. Those who were raised in Conservative churches and families and then went the direction of the Democratic party don't surprise me. I guess when you know someone, you know them.
I'm sure there are a lot of reasons that stand behind such a shift. Some people go away to college at state universities, the professors of which are usually of a Socialist or Communist inclination, and, being young, and impressionable, and hearing political theory delineated in an intellectual fashion, often for the first time in their lives, they find themselves quickly swayed the way of the Left.
Then there are those who, quite frankly, view certain celebrities as demiurges, and who can disagree with such a manifestation of the Divine? There is no doubt that Barack Obama wouldn't have won the election without Oprah Winfrey, though what qualifies her as a reliable political counselor I have yet to figure out.
There are certainly alot of other reasons for the conversion of many from the Right to the Left (weren't the sheep on the right, and the goats on the left? But I digress.). But whatever the reason for the following of this path , their path is the result of poorly thought out positioning, rather than a careful search into political theory and history.
Now I would like to think that those individuals who have made this shift would still be reading at this point, and would be willing to receive criticism with an open mind (isn't it the Left that is always calling out for open mindedness?). Since I have made many criticisms of the Obama administration already, I would expect that some of these individuals have blocked my comments and therefore won't notice I have written this. Yet hope springs eternal. Whether or not I am preaching merely to the choir remains to be seen.
One criticism of Conservatism that I often hear raised is that which has to do with so-called "Capitalist greed". The assumption is that Capitalism inevitably exists as an institutionalism of greed. Since greed tears societies and communities apart, and since Capitalism can't exist without greed, ergo, Capitalism must go.
I do think that the Right (if I may use it in a broad way) is partially responsible for this misunderstanding of Capitalism. Sometimes this mistake is an honest one, based on what they themselves have been taught Capitalism means. Yet I think it can be reasonably argued that Capitalism doesn't necessarily cause or exist dependently upon greed.
Perhaps it would be better if we used the term "Free Market Economy". The term "Capitalism" has been often used as synonymous with "Free Market Economy", but this hasn't always been the case. Along with sometimes being a loaded term which carries implications of sanctified greed at the expense of others, "Capitalism" has sometimes been used to refer to an approach often taken in the U. S., in which civil government privileges the wealthy. It can be argued, and has been argued, that these approaches are different from what has been intended by "Free Market Economy".
Without getting into a lengthy discussion of the Socialist option, I think it needs to be said that there is clear opposition to it in Scripture. If nothing else, one has to understand that Socialism violates two of the Ten Commandments: You Shall Not Steal, and You Shall Not Covet. Both imply private individual ownership over which the State has no authority. I am forbidden to take that which God has given me no right to take from another individual, and I am sinning to want to take it from them, even if this is for a supposedly good cause.
But rather than me saying more, here are a couple of sources from others worth checking out.
First, there is this article:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0193b.asp
In it, the author discusses the historical difference between Capitalism and the Free Market.
Secondly, there is this video:
http://www.booktv.org/watch.aspx?ProgramId=PC-10489
The lecturer, Jay Richards, discusses myths commonly associated with Capitalism. In the lecture, he manages to mention Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, Hillaire Belloc, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Rod Dreher. It's not one to miss.
These certainly aren't enough, I wouldn't expect, to cause a Leftist running down the saw dust trail in repentance from any economic fallacies they may hold. But I hope they will cause the reader to see that there is a different approach to economics and the civil government than what they have considered.
I have so often seen people be thoughtlessly reactionary to their Conservative roots, that while I have my own criticisms of the Right, I have a hard time taking those reactionaries very seriously. So this is what you might think of as a brief invitation away from a reactionary approach. If we are going to be responsible citizens in the place God has put us, then one must be led by careful thought, not by a spirit of populist fervor, whether that fervor be on the Left or the Right.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
What's an out-of-work Hobbit to do?
The economic crisis has reached the Shire, and a Hobbit must take work wherever he can:
http://www.yogabbagabba.com/#/elijah_wood
http://www.yogabbagabba.com/#/elijah_wood
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Obama Iconography
In former times, the general public in the United States would have recognized this as blasphemy, and the person responsible would have been held accountable. Those days appear long gone. Lord, have mercy upon us.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96138
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96138
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
A note on some recent magazines
Magazines as a media form seem to be dying a slow death, sped up somewhat by the recent economic downturn. Nonetheless, I remain a magazine addict, and have a hard time believing that I will ever be satisfied with the internet as a substitute. In light of my clinging to hope beyond hope, here are a couple of recent issues of magazines worth checking out.
First, the latest issue of Christianity Today features an article about the ever provocative Douglas Wilson. Pastor Wilson himself commented on it on his own blog, and was reasonably pleased with the article. I thought the article was fairly good, though the author seemed to accent the controversies that have surrounded Doug a bit much. One can hardly blame her. People love train wrecks, and where they can't find one, they are usually glad to manufacture one for their own amusement. And this does sell magazines, after all.
Secondly, the latest issue of First Things is devoted entirely to the life of Father Richard John Neuhaus. I haven't spent much time examining it yet, but it looks to be quite good.
Lastly, the latest issue of National Geographic contains an article on the state of religion in Russia, particularly highlighting the Russian Orthodox Church and its historic relationship with the national government. What makes it most interesting is that it was written by Serge Schmemann, the son of the late Father Alexander Schmemann. Fr. Schmemann was a priest in the Orthodox Church in America, and president of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary in New York. Serge weaves references to his father's work into the article, making it especially interesting for those who have appreciated Fr. Schmemann.
First, the latest issue of Christianity Today features an article about the ever provocative Douglas Wilson. Pastor Wilson himself commented on it on his own blog, and was reasonably pleased with the article. I thought the article was fairly good, though the author seemed to accent the controversies that have surrounded Doug a bit much. One can hardly blame her. People love train wrecks, and where they can't find one, they are usually glad to manufacture one for their own amusement. And this does sell magazines, after all.
Secondly, the latest issue of First Things is devoted entirely to the life of Father Richard John Neuhaus. I haven't spent much time examining it yet, but it looks to be quite good.
Lastly, the latest issue of National Geographic contains an article on the state of religion in Russia, particularly highlighting the Russian Orthodox Church and its historic relationship with the national government. What makes it most interesting is that it was written by Serge Schmemann, the son of the late Father Alexander Schmemann. Fr. Schmemann was a priest in the Orthodox Church in America, and president of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary in New York. Serge weaves references to his father's work into the article, making it especially interesting for those who have appreciated Fr. Schmemann.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Flannery O'Connor
Flannery O'Connor's birthday was March 25th, and it passed me by without my noticing it. This is fairly inexcusable, considering she was possibly the greatest writer America has ever produced. HT to the Avenue Blog for the reminder: http://auburnavenue.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/happy-birthday-flannery/
Here are a couple of great quotes from O'Connor:
“Everywhere I go I’m asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don’t stifle enough of them. There’s many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.”
On hearing that her friends, Sally and Robert Fitzgerald, were expecting their fifth child:
"I hope this one will be a girl & have a fierce Old Testament name and cut off a lot of heads."
"My mamma and I have interesting literary discussions like the following which took place over some Modern Library books that I had just ordered:
SHE: 'Mobby Dick. I've always heard about that.'
ME: 'Mow-by Dick.'
SHE: 'MOW-by Dick. The Idiot. You would get something called The Idiot. What's it about?'
Me: 'An idiot.'"
"The Manicheans separated spirit and matter. To them all material things were evil. They sought pure spirit and tried to approach the infinite directly without any mediation of matter. This is also pretty much the modern spirit, and for the sensibility infected with it, fiction is hard if not impossible to write because fiction is so very much an incarnational art."
"People have a habit of saying, 'What is the theme of your story?' and they expect you to give them a statement: 'The theme of my story is the economic pressure of the machine on the middle class' - or some such absurdity. And when they've got a statement like that, they go off happy and feel it is no longer necessary to read the story... Some people have the notion that you read the story and then climb out of it into the meaning, but for the fiction writer himself the whole story is the meaning, because it is an experience, not an abstraction."
"I was once, five or six years ago, taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy and her husband, Mr. Broadwater... She departed the Church at the age of 15 and is a Big Intellectual. We went at eight and at one, I hadn't opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say...Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them. Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater said when she was a child and received the host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the most portable person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it. That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable."
Here are a couple of great quotes from O'Connor:
“Everywhere I go I’m asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don’t stifle enough of them. There’s many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.”
On hearing that her friends, Sally and Robert Fitzgerald, were expecting their fifth child:
"I hope this one will be a girl & have a fierce Old Testament name and cut off a lot of heads."
"My mamma and I have interesting literary discussions like the following which took place over some Modern Library books that I had just ordered:
SHE: 'Mobby Dick. I've always heard about that.'
ME: 'Mow-by Dick.'
SHE: 'MOW-by Dick. The Idiot. You would get something called The Idiot. What's it about?'
Me: 'An idiot.'"
"The Manicheans separated spirit and matter. To them all material things were evil. They sought pure spirit and tried to approach the infinite directly without any mediation of matter. This is also pretty much the modern spirit, and for the sensibility infected with it, fiction is hard if not impossible to write because fiction is so very much an incarnational art."
"People have a habit of saying, 'What is the theme of your story?' and they expect you to give them a statement: 'The theme of my story is the economic pressure of the machine on the middle class' - or some such absurdity. And when they've got a statement like that, they go off happy and feel it is no longer necessary to read the story... Some people have the notion that you read the story and then climb out of it into the meaning, but for the fiction writer himself the whole story is the meaning, because it is an experience, not an abstraction."
"I was once, five or six years ago, taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy and her husband, Mr. Broadwater... She departed the Church at the age of 15 and is a Big Intellectual. We went at eight and at one, I hadn't opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say...Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them. Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater said when she was a child and received the host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the most portable person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it. That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable."
Monday, March 30, 2009
Fireproof - Art, or Propaganda?
Here are some great thoughts from Doug Wilson on the latest Evangelical fad movie, Fireproof:
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6434
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6434
Friday, March 27, 2009
British minister beaten by Muslims
Who says Islam isn't a peaceful religion?
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newsdetail.php?newscode=9769
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newsdetail.php?newscode=9769
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Prodigal Father
Here's a fantastic sermon on the Prodigal Father, given by Gene Helsel at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Check it out if you get the chance:
http://www.canonpress.org/shop/custom.asp?recid=26
http://www.canonpress.org/shop/custom.asp?recid=26
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Once...
...there was a pub in County Clare where the locals took their evening beverages. One particular night, a gentleman walks in who was unfamiliar to the rest of the patrons. Saddling up to the bar, he says to the bartender, "I'd like three beers." Wondering in his own mind, but not questioning the man, the bartender fills his request. The gentleman drinks the three beers, and leaves the bar.
The next night, the gentleman does the same. Pulling up to the bar, he requests his three beers, and after having drunk them, he leaves.
The third night comes, and the man once more comes in and requests his three beers. By this point, the bartender's curiosity is getting the best of him, so he asks the fellow, "say, bud, why is it that each evening you request exactly three beers?" The gentleman was glad to answer. "I have two brothers, you see. And we made a pact with one another that wherever we went and had a beer, we would also have a beer for each of our other two brothers, in honor of one another. So that's why, each time I order a beer for myself, I order two more as well."
The bartender thought this was one of the noblest things he had ever heard, and he began to tell it to those he knew. Soon word of the gentleman and his two brothers spread throughout the countryside.
Then one day, as the bartender was serving drinks, the gentleman came up to the bar and said, "bartender, give me two beers." With a heavy heart, the bartender brought the man two beers, and by the next day word had spread that one of the gentleman's brothers had died.
The next evening, when the gentleman came into the pub, the bartender, hesitant to bring the subject up, said, "I am sure sorry to hear about the death of your brother."
"My brother isn't dead! What made you think he was dead?" the man replied.
"Well, you've only been ordering two beers the past couple of nights," said the bartender.
"Oh, that," the gentleman said. "Actually, I've only been ordering two beers because I've given up drinking for Lent."
The next night, the gentleman does the same. Pulling up to the bar, he requests his three beers, and after having drunk them, he leaves.
The third night comes, and the man once more comes in and requests his three beers. By this point, the bartender's curiosity is getting the best of him, so he asks the fellow, "say, bud, why is it that each evening you request exactly three beers?" The gentleman was glad to answer. "I have two brothers, you see. And we made a pact with one another that wherever we went and had a beer, we would also have a beer for each of our other two brothers, in honor of one another. So that's why, each time I order a beer for myself, I order two more as well."
The bartender thought this was one of the noblest things he had ever heard, and he began to tell it to those he knew. Soon word of the gentleman and his two brothers spread throughout the countryside.
Then one day, as the bartender was serving drinks, the gentleman came up to the bar and said, "bartender, give me two beers." With a heavy heart, the bartender brought the man two beers, and by the next day word had spread that one of the gentleman's brothers had died.
The next evening, when the gentleman came into the pub, the bartender, hesitant to bring the subject up, said, "I am sure sorry to hear about the death of your brother."
"My brother isn't dead! What made you think he was dead?" the man replied.
"Well, you've only been ordering two beers the past couple of nights," said the bartender.
"Oh, that," the gentleman said. "Actually, I've only been ordering two beers because I've given up drinking for Lent."
The Movement of the Spheres
Greg Wilbur quotes David Yearsley on the relationship between musical counterpoint and the motion of the heavenly bodies. Is this what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote Ainulindale?
He can create money out of thin air
In The Christian Almanac, George Grant and Greg Wilbur take the position that the movie version takes Baum's original intent and turns it on it's head. Unfortunately, I don't have the book at my disposal at the moment, so any interested may want to check it out. Nonetheless, this BBC article is a good introduction to the question of whether the Wizard of Oz was intended to be a political allegory:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7933175.stmMonday, March 16, 2009
In lieu...
... of anything from me on music at the moment, here's an interesting post from Doug Wilson on a recent experience he had:
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6391
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6391
Saturday, March 14, 2009
A lesson from the life of Bernie Madoff
When choosing a crime to commit, take your last name into consideration first.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Getting the Ooshy-gooshies: Music, pt. 2
Let's rehearse, in a nutshell, the history of the recent worship wars. Until the late 1960's, music in the American church was pretty consistent across the board, no matter what denomination one was in. (There were some variations between traditions, some greater than others, but they weren't as great as the gap between what are now considered "traditional" and "contemporary" forms of worship.) But with the cultural revolution of the sixties came the beginnings of a revolution in church music. And now, there is scarcely a denomination that hasn't since been affected by the shift in music.
So has the change been for the good? It's a simple question that one might think would yield a simple answer, but I don't think it does.
Often when people address the question of whether or not a certain type of Christian music is good, the rationale that people will give is something along the lines of this: "It must be good, because the Lord blessed me through it." But just because the Lord uses something for good in a person's life, that doesn't mean that we should regularly seek that thing out. God once spoke through a donkey (Numbers 22), but that doesn't mean then that we should make a regular practice of ordaining jackasses to the ministry (though some denominations do this fairly frequently). Equally so, God uses all sorts of things to bless his children, whether or not those things are good in themselves (Romans 8:28).
This sort of thinking is what is called "pragmatism". Pragmatism says that a thing is justified by its effectiveness. If it works, then do it. But pragmatism excludes all other moral claims. The easiest way for me to get money may be to knock over a convenience store. But God says it is sin, and therefore it's wrong.
Also, when talking to people about worship music, I frequently find there is little rational thought behind why they like the kind of worship music they like. "It gets me pumped up," or some variation thereof, isn't a good argument for why a certain type of music is appropriate for worship. Based on that argument, maybe we should replace the bread and wine (or, I suppose for most, grape juice) with giant candy bars and Red Bull. This isn't to say there shouldn't be an emotional response to music in worship, or that worship music shouldn't be pleasing to the emotions. But when that is one's main focus in assessing worship music, then there is a need for them to do a little deeper thinking on the subject. This would also suggest an erroneous way of viewing the world in general that goes deeper than the question of music.
This isn't a problem confined to the younger generation of Christians, either. Part of the problem in the worship wars has been that the older generation hasn't been able to intelligently articulate why they think the music they were accustomed to worshiping with is superior. And in some cases, the music they were accustomed to wasn't superior. That's where we'll pick up next time.
So has the change been for the good? It's a simple question that one might think would yield a simple answer, but I don't think it does.
Often when people address the question of whether or not a certain type of Christian music is good, the rationale that people will give is something along the lines of this: "It must be good, because the Lord blessed me through it." But just because the Lord uses something for good in a person's life, that doesn't mean that we should regularly seek that thing out. God once spoke through a donkey (Numbers 22), but that doesn't mean then that we should make a regular practice of ordaining jackasses to the ministry (though some denominations do this fairly frequently). Equally so, God uses all sorts of things to bless his children, whether or not those things are good in themselves (Romans 8:28).
This sort of thinking is what is called "pragmatism". Pragmatism says that a thing is justified by its effectiveness. If it works, then do it. But pragmatism excludes all other moral claims. The easiest way for me to get money may be to knock over a convenience store. But God says it is sin, and therefore it's wrong.
Also, when talking to people about worship music, I frequently find there is little rational thought behind why they like the kind of worship music they like. "It gets me pumped up," or some variation thereof, isn't a good argument for why a certain type of music is appropriate for worship. Based on that argument, maybe we should replace the bread and wine (or, I suppose for most, grape juice) with giant candy bars and Red Bull. This isn't to say there shouldn't be an emotional response to music in worship, or that worship music shouldn't be pleasing to the emotions. But when that is one's main focus in assessing worship music, then there is a need for them to do a little deeper thinking on the subject. This would also suggest an erroneous way of viewing the world in general that goes deeper than the question of music.
This isn't a problem confined to the younger generation of Christians, either. Part of the problem in the worship wars has been that the older generation hasn't been able to intelligently articulate why they think the music they were accustomed to worshiping with is superior. And in some cases, the music they were accustomed to wasn't superior. That's where we'll pick up next time.
Friday, March 06, 2009
A Man's Library
Douglas Phillips, on why a father's library is an important part of any Christian home:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/education/a_mans_library.aspx
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/education/a_mans_library.aspx
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Does anybody else find it ironic...
...that President Obama is giving a speech about a lean economy on Fat Tuesday?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Well, well, well...
Tonight I decided randomly to go to Westover Church here in Greensboro for their singles group called The Well. I used to attend somewhat regularly, but it's been over a year since I've been. I'm glad I went.
I asked a single friend a few years back, "why is it that all they ever talk about in singles groups is relationships and the end times?" The friend thought for a second and replied, "hey, that is all we ever talk about!" So I couldn't help but laugh to myself when I showed up tonight to find out they were beginning a four week series on relationships.
Former singles pastor Chris Lewis (now pastor of discipleship) gave the message tonight. One passage he discussed was the conversation that Jesus had with the woman at the well, recorded in John 4. That sparked a few thoughts in my own mind, which follow, and had little to do with what Chris actually said. (Sorry Chris, I actually was listening.)
I believe it was Doug Wilson who pointed out in one of his lectures that, throughout Scripture, whenever a man and woman meet at a well, then a wedding is soon to follow. Men and women would tend to meet there, and therefore it wasn't unusual that their meeting then led to their getting married. The well was sort of like the soda shop, or the water fountain, or maybe today, the Starbucks. Or maybe like the bar, though people who meet in bars don't usually get married, they just use one another until they tire of one another. But in Scripture, beyond the mere sociological aspect, wells carry a specific typological significance. Since wells have water, they tie in to the various typological meanings of water in Scripture. Water is connected to the Holy Spirit; to death, burial, and resurrection; to regeneration; and through the Exodus and the Jordan, it is connected to entering the Promised Land. All these things overlap in the John 4 passage. But in the least, we should note the connection between this passage and other passages where men and women meet at wells. So it is reasonable that the disciples would be shocked that Jesus would be talking to this woman. Would he have anything to do with a woman who had lived such a promiscuous life? But this is exactly how God had been throughout the Old Covenant. Yahweh's wife, Israel, had played the harlot over and over and over again, and He had repeatedly taken her back. This woman, though a Samaritan, symbolized unfaithful Israel. In fact, in being a Samaritan, she was an example of an unlawful intermarriage between the people of God and the pagans.
So was Jesus looking to marry this woman? Well, yes and no. This woman also symbolized the church, in that she wasn't fully Jewish. Were she to become one of the faithful, and therefore one of the church, then yes, Jesus was going to "marry" her, just as He would marry all who became part of the church. In fact, Jesus notes that the woman had had five husbands, and the man she was with at the time wasn't her husband. So a little basic math reveals that she had been with six men. Then who was to be the seventh, that is, who was to be her Sabbath rest? Jesus was.
But on the other hand, he wasn't going to marry her. Jeff Meyers once noted in a lecture that Jesus has several encounters with women through out the Gospel of John. It seems reminiscent of Adam's act of naming the animals (Genesis 2) and not finding among them a suitable helper. Jesus meets many women, but only the Church is fit to be his mate.
The conversation between Jesus and the woman turns to the subject of the proper place of worship, and the debate is over which mountain is the correct one. But Jesus tells her that neither is right. He says that true worshipers will worship in Spirit and in truth. We might be tempted to take that to mean in a non-physical way, or that location doesn't matter. But that isn't the case. True worship is directed heavenward, where the New Jerusalem is, the heavenly Mount Zion. This connects the passage to Revelation 21, where the New Jerusalem is portrayed as a Bride, adorned for her husband, coming down out of heaven. Jesus will marry the Church, which is His Bride, which is the New Jerusalem.
And all of this happened at the Well.
I asked a single friend a few years back, "why is it that all they ever talk about in singles groups is relationships and the end times?" The friend thought for a second and replied, "hey, that is all we ever talk about!" So I couldn't help but laugh to myself when I showed up tonight to find out they were beginning a four week series on relationships.
Former singles pastor Chris Lewis (now pastor of discipleship) gave the message tonight. One passage he discussed was the conversation that Jesus had with the woman at the well, recorded in John 4. That sparked a few thoughts in my own mind, which follow, and had little to do with what Chris actually said. (Sorry Chris, I actually was listening.)
I believe it was Doug Wilson who pointed out in one of his lectures that, throughout Scripture, whenever a man and woman meet at a well, then a wedding is soon to follow. Men and women would tend to meet there, and therefore it wasn't unusual that their meeting then led to their getting married. The well was sort of like the soda shop, or the water fountain, or maybe today, the Starbucks. Or maybe like the bar, though people who meet in bars don't usually get married, they just use one another until they tire of one another. But in Scripture, beyond the mere sociological aspect, wells carry a specific typological significance. Since wells have water, they tie in to the various typological meanings of water in Scripture. Water is connected to the Holy Spirit; to death, burial, and resurrection; to regeneration; and through the Exodus and the Jordan, it is connected to entering the Promised Land. All these things overlap in the John 4 passage. But in the least, we should note the connection between this passage and other passages where men and women meet at wells. So it is reasonable that the disciples would be shocked that Jesus would be talking to this woman. Would he have anything to do with a woman who had lived such a promiscuous life? But this is exactly how God had been throughout the Old Covenant. Yahweh's wife, Israel, had played the harlot over and over and over again, and He had repeatedly taken her back. This woman, though a Samaritan, symbolized unfaithful Israel. In fact, in being a Samaritan, she was an example of an unlawful intermarriage between the people of God and the pagans.
So was Jesus looking to marry this woman? Well, yes and no. This woman also symbolized the church, in that she wasn't fully Jewish. Were she to become one of the faithful, and therefore one of the church, then yes, Jesus was going to "marry" her, just as He would marry all who became part of the church. In fact, Jesus notes that the woman had had five husbands, and the man she was with at the time wasn't her husband. So a little basic math reveals that she had been with six men. Then who was to be the seventh, that is, who was to be her Sabbath rest? Jesus was.
But on the other hand, he wasn't going to marry her. Jeff Meyers once noted in a lecture that Jesus has several encounters with women through out the Gospel of John. It seems reminiscent of Adam's act of naming the animals (Genesis 2) and not finding among them a suitable helper. Jesus meets many women, but only the Church is fit to be his mate.
The conversation between Jesus and the woman turns to the subject of the proper place of worship, and the debate is over which mountain is the correct one. But Jesus tells her that neither is right. He says that true worshipers will worship in Spirit and in truth. We might be tempted to take that to mean in a non-physical way, or that location doesn't matter. But that isn't the case. True worship is directed heavenward, where the New Jerusalem is, the heavenly Mount Zion. This connects the passage to Revelation 21, where the New Jerusalem is portrayed as a Bride, adorned for her husband, coming down out of heaven. Jesus will marry the Church, which is His Bride, which is the New Jerusalem.
And all of this happened at the Well.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Why Johnny Can't Preach
I just got an email from the Westminster Seminary bookstore that featured this book, which looks like it would be very interesting:
Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers
Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Christ the Ark
This morning's Old Testament reading from the Book of Common Prayer came from Genesis 8, which tells of the latter portion of the time that Noah, his family, and all the animals spent on the ark. What strikes me as interesting is the care that God gave in describing to us the sequence of events that took place leading up to and during the flood. Four chapters of Genesis are devoted to the story of Noah (ch. 6-9), which suggests that we do the story a disservice when we reduce it down to a tale about a big boat full of cuddly animals.
The passage is rife with typological symbolism. The tabernacle typology fills the passage, and seems to be the main imagery here. Just as Yahweh went into great detail in His prescriptions for the tabernacle, and then later the temple, He also here goes into great detail in His instructions to Noah. The measurements are detailed, as are the materials that the ark is to be made out of. Rooms are to be made in the ark (6:14), which are later echoed in the two rooms in the tabernacle, and even moreso in the various chambers of the temple (1 Kings 6:3-5). We might say, in other words, that, from the perspective of the flood, the ark prefigured the tabernacle and the temple. But from the perspective of the tabernacle and the temple, they were designed in part to resemble and hearken back to the ark. They were each, in themselves, arks, means of salvation from the judgment of God for sin.
Yahweh commands Noah to take seven pairs of each clean animal, which pointed forward to the Mosaic law and the animals prescribed in the Levitical offerings. And after the flood, we are told that Noah offered burnt offerings to Yahweh, a specific type of offering in the Levitical system (Lev. 1). As the ark pointed forward to the tabernacle and temple, so Noah functioned here as priest and pointed forward to the Levitical priesthood.
There are the details given regarding the days and months during the flood. The number seven makes several appearances in the story, pointing back to the Creation as well as forward to the foundation of the Levitical calendar, the Sabbath (Lev. 23:3). It also seems to be no coincidence that the ark came to rest on the 17th day of the 7th month, which date would later have been during the Feast of Booths (Lev. 23:33-36).
Leaving the matter of the Old Covenant liturgical system somewhat, we also see a parallel between the flood and the baptism of Jesus. Peter shows us the connection between the flood and the baptism of Christians (1 Peter 3:18-22), but when the details are considered, the connection with Christ's baptism (Mt. 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk. 3:21-22) becomes apparent. Christ went into water, just as the ark did. We have reference to the opening of the heavens (Gen. 7:11), just as in the stories of Jesus' baptism. And there are the reports of the Holy Spirit being as a dove (even in the bodily form of a dove, as Luke records, vs. 22), which is a link to Noah's sending out of the dove from the ark (Gen. 8:8-12).
And so the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple, were all types of Christ. Or, in other words, Christ was the fullness of all that the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple, were mere shadows.
The passage is rife with typological symbolism. The tabernacle typology fills the passage, and seems to be the main imagery here. Just as Yahweh went into great detail in His prescriptions for the tabernacle, and then later the temple, He also here goes into great detail in His instructions to Noah. The measurements are detailed, as are the materials that the ark is to be made out of. Rooms are to be made in the ark (6:14), which are later echoed in the two rooms in the tabernacle, and even moreso in the various chambers of the temple (1 Kings 6:3-5). We might say, in other words, that, from the perspective of the flood, the ark prefigured the tabernacle and the temple. But from the perspective of the tabernacle and the temple, they were designed in part to resemble and hearken back to the ark. They were each, in themselves, arks, means of salvation from the judgment of God for sin.
Yahweh commands Noah to take seven pairs of each clean animal, which pointed forward to the Mosaic law and the animals prescribed in the Levitical offerings. And after the flood, we are told that Noah offered burnt offerings to Yahweh, a specific type of offering in the Levitical system (Lev. 1). As the ark pointed forward to the tabernacle and temple, so Noah functioned here as priest and pointed forward to the Levitical priesthood.
There are the details given regarding the days and months during the flood. The number seven makes several appearances in the story, pointing back to the Creation as well as forward to the foundation of the Levitical calendar, the Sabbath (Lev. 23:3). It also seems to be no coincidence that the ark came to rest on the 17th day of the 7th month, which date would later have been during the Feast of Booths (Lev. 23:33-36).
Leaving the matter of the Old Covenant liturgical system somewhat, we also see a parallel between the flood and the baptism of Jesus. Peter shows us the connection between the flood and the baptism of Christians (1 Peter 3:18-22), but when the details are considered, the connection with Christ's baptism (Mt. 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk. 3:21-22) becomes apparent. Christ went into water, just as the ark did. We have reference to the opening of the heavens (Gen. 7:11), just as in the stories of Jesus' baptism. And there are the reports of the Holy Spirit being as a dove (even in the bodily form of a dove, as Luke records, vs. 22), which is a link to Noah's sending out of the dove from the ark (Gen. 8:8-12).
And so the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple, were all types of Christ. Or, in other words, Christ was the fullness of all that the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple, were mere shadows.
And now, for something completely different... a little pre-show music.
I decided a week or so ago that I would write some pieces about music and post them on my Facebook page. I'll be posting them here as well. They will rarely make Facebook references, but I don't really care to take the time to edit them for this blog. So here is the first one, as written for Facebook, and I trust the reader will be able to consider it without being to distracted by comments referring to the original intended context.
I think the one thing that comes up most often when I talk to people about worship is music. Obviously, music is an important part of worship, so it's natural that people would want to talk about it. Whether or not it's as important as most Christians think it is, however, is a whole other question.
The "worship wars" are gradually becoming old news, it seems to me. As the older generation of Christians are passing on, so is the music they were accustomed to hearing in church. And as the younger generation has grown up and is taking the reins of leadership, the default position now in most Evangelical churches seems to be contemporary worship. Generally, though, what is meant by "contemporary worship" is simply "worship with contemporary music". This isn't to say that there aren't other things that have changed in worship in recent decades. But let's be honest. People don't generally find themselves in the middle of huge church splits over whether or not to have a skit before the sermon on Sunday morning. Usually, the fights that take place over worship in the local church center around music. Of course, when the shift in music takes place, other things usually come with it. You don't find churches with worship bands where the seats are full of women in dresses and men in three-piece suits, after all.
Then there is the whole question of music outside of corporate worship. As a Christian, is music that falls under the heading "Christian" the only type of music I should listen to? Is all "secular" music bad? I'm always intrigued by the different answers to these questions that are bandied about in Evangelical circles.
When I signed up on Facebook a couple of months ago, I didn't really anticipate reconnecting with so many people from earlier in my life. As I've interacted with old friends through email and online, music usually comes up, since I'm a musician of sorts. For what it's worth, I must confess that I don't play guitar much anymore. I'd rather listen to others play these days. And the photo with the headstock of my guitar? I was just trying to get an artsy picture for my profile.
Nonetheless, people who haven't seen me in years still think of me, I guess, as a musician. For those who have only known me recently, it used to be that my guitar and I were practically joined at the hip. Much of my identity was wrapped up in it. These days, I'd rather be reading. The world is full of things to learn, and I want to learn all I can, hopefully for my own good, for the good of others, and, especially, for God's glory. I find the masses, however, aren't as interested in knowledge. For most people, armchair polymath apparently holds less mystique than guitarist. If you play a song people like, they love you. If you tell them some sort of insight you gained from Scripture, or from reflecting on the world around you, they generally seem, shall we say, less than impressed. Alas.
But I still consider myself a musician. I've been a sort of musical jack of all trades, master of none. I sang in choirs and choruses in school and church from elementary school on up through high school, and even one semester in college. I played in a garage band in high school. I sang with a southern gospel group briefly. I led singing in youth group, and daily worship for a ministry I served at for a couple of years. I've sung solo in churches and in coffee shops. I've dabbled in everything from barber shop to Bach to the Beatles. So, though I may not be classically trained, in light of my experience I believe I have some views on the topic of music that are worth sharing.
So my plans at this point are to post occasional thoughts on music, both inside and outside the church, and this is the introductory post. As always, I welcome any interaction on what I'm writing.
I think the one thing that comes up most often when I talk to people about worship is music. Obviously, music is an important part of worship, so it's natural that people would want to talk about it. Whether or not it's as important as most Christians think it is, however, is a whole other question.
The "worship wars" are gradually becoming old news, it seems to me. As the older generation of Christians are passing on, so is the music they were accustomed to hearing in church. And as the younger generation has grown up and is taking the reins of leadership, the default position now in most Evangelical churches seems to be contemporary worship. Generally, though, what is meant by "contemporary worship" is simply "worship with contemporary music". This isn't to say that there aren't other things that have changed in worship in recent decades. But let's be honest. People don't generally find themselves in the middle of huge church splits over whether or not to have a skit before the sermon on Sunday morning. Usually, the fights that take place over worship in the local church center around music. Of course, when the shift in music takes place, other things usually come with it. You don't find churches with worship bands where the seats are full of women in dresses and men in three-piece suits, after all.
Then there is the whole question of music outside of corporate worship. As a Christian, is music that falls under the heading "Christian" the only type of music I should listen to? Is all "secular" music bad? I'm always intrigued by the different answers to these questions that are bandied about in Evangelical circles.
When I signed up on Facebook a couple of months ago, I didn't really anticipate reconnecting with so many people from earlier in my life. As I've interacted with old friends through email and online, music usually comes up, since I'm a musician of sorts. For what it's worth, I must confess that I don't play guitar much anymore. I'd rather listen to others play these days. And the photo with the headstock of my guitar? I was just trying to get an artsy picture for my profile.
Nonetheless, people who haven't seen me in years still think of me, I guess, as a musician. For those who have only known me recently, it used to be that my guitar and I were practically joined at the hip. Much of my identity was wrapped up in it. These days, I'd rather be reading. The world is full of things to learn, and I want to learn all I can, hopefully for my own good, for the good of others, and, especially, for God's glory. I find the masses, however, aren't as interested in knowledge. For most people, armchair polymath apparently holds less mystique than guitarist. If you play a song people like, they love you. If you tell them some sort of insight you gained from Scripture, or from reflecting on the world around you, they generally seem, shall we say, less than impressed. Alas.
But I still consider myself a musician. I've been a sort of musical jack of all trades, master of none. I sang in choirs and choruses in school and church from elementary school on up through high school, and even one semester in college. I played in a garage band in high school. I sang with a southern gospel group briefly. I led singing in youth group, and daily worship for a ministry I served at for a couple of years. I've sung solo in churches and in coffee shops. I've dabbled in everything from barber shop to Bach to the Beatles. So, though I may not be classically trained, in light of my experience I believe I have some views on the topic of music that are worth sharing.
So my plans at this point are to post occasional thoughts on music, both inside and outside the church, and this is the introductory post. As always, I welcome any interaction on what I'm writing.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Irony with a vengeance
Many of you will be familiar with Ben Stein. He is probably best known for his appearance as the dead-pan teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, or maybe for his now defunct game show "Win Ben Stein's Money". He happens to be an all-around brilliant guy, being also an economist, as well as a political commentator and speech writer. His most recent fame, however, has come from his movie "Expelled", which was released last year and which highlighted the bias of the scientific community against anything but Evolutionary theory.
Well, his exposé of Darwinianism has come to be a personal reality for him. Originally asked to give the commencement address at the University of Vermont this Spring, a huge backlash erupted, based off of his criticisms of Evolution. As a result, Stein has declined the invitation to speak.
On the Big Hollywood website, Andrew Leigh notes the irony in this. The whole point of "Expelled" was to show the unwillingness within academia to be open to theories of origins other than Evolution. Now, the thesis of the movie has been confirmed. Plus, the Darwinists have shown that they are as hypocritical as they often accuse Christians of being. So who's closed minded now?
Relevant links:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090203/NEWS02/902030316
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090203/NEWS02/90203038&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/aleigh/2009/02/04/ben-steins-commencement-day-off/
HT: Gary DeMar
Well, his exposé of Darwinianism has come to be a personal reality for him. Originally asked to give the commencement address at the University of Vermont this Spring, a huge backlash erupted, based off of his criticisms of Evolution. As a result, Stein has declined the invitation to speak.
On the Big Hollywood website, Andrew Leigh notes the irony in this. The whole point of "Expelled" was to show the unwillingness within academia to be open to theories of origins other than Evolution. Now, the thesis of the movie has been confirmed. Plus, the Darwinists have shown that they are as hypocritical as they often accuse Christians of being. So who's closed minded now?
Relevant links:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090203/NEWS02/902030316
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090203/NEWS02/90203038&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/aleigh/2009/02/04/ben-steins-commencement-day-off/
HT: Gary DeMar
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Monday, February 09, 2009
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Monday, February 02, 2009
The Modern State, a False God
(W)ithout a sound faith, men will trust almost anything and anyone rather than God. Having denied God, men will then proceed to deify themselves, their own creations (including the state) and almost anything other than the living God (Rom. 1:18-23). Chief among these man-made idols or gods is the state. As St. Augustine pointed out, in The City of God, when men forsake God, and when a civil order becomes godless, it is soon no more than a larger band of thieves, a super-mafia, whose victims are the citizens. This evil situation is compounded by the fact that the people insist on trusting this false god, the idol state. The more it oppresses them, the more they turn on state-created scapegoats, and each of them in turn becomes a scapegoat. But this is not all: to relieve themselves of a state-created oppression, they vote still greater powers to the state, crying in effect, "O Baal, hear us" and save us (I Kings 18:26).
As we view the modern state, it is important to recognize one central fact: the major enemy of the humanistic state is its own people. The U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. have their differences, and they may go to war, but both have been in continuous war against their own peoples from 1918 to the present. Savage as the treatment by the U.S.S.R. of Germany was, after World War II, it never equalled its savagery towards its own peoples. The U.S.A. has been generous to its enemies, and to all the world, except its own people. In the name of the public welfare, it has robbed, abused, and mistreated its own citizenry, and it is waging war against all segments of society, behind a facade of subsidies, and, with President Carter, began a war against Christianity as well.
People should have been forewarned. Early in the modern era, city planners, as soon as they came into existence, began to think of straight streets, not for the convenience of the public, but for the control of the people. An angry populace could be handled more easily by cannons shooting down straight streets, and rebellious peoples could be easily subdued by a cavalry charge up and down a straight street.
The first principle of the modern state is to protect itself against its own people, and to control them. Its second and lesser principle is to protect itself against foreign enemies. Foreign enemies are a periodic problem; the people are a state's permanent problem.
Thus, to entrust the state to control our lives, our families, our education, religion, and economics is to ask for our destruction.
The goal of state-controlled economics is the increase of statist powers, and the control of money is basic to that goal. To trust the state with money is to ensure, virtually always in history, the debauchery of money.
--Rousas John Rushdooney, The Roots of Inflation, pp. 41-42 (1982)
As we view the modern state, it is important to recognize one central fact: the major enemy of the humanistic state is its own people. The U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. have their differences, and they may go to war, but both have been in continuous war against their own peoples from 1918 to the present. Savage as the treatment by the U.S.S.R. of Germany was, after World War II, it never equalled its savagery towards its own peoples. The U.S.A. has been generous to its enemies, and to all the world, except its own people. In the name of the public welfare, it has robbed, abused, and mistreated its own citizenry, and it is waging war against all segments of society, behind a facade of subsidies, and, with President Carter, began a war against Christianity as well.
People should have been forewarned. Early in the modern era, city planners, as soon as they came into existence, began to think of straight streets, not for the convenience of the public, but for the control of the people. An angry populace could be handled more easily by cannons shooting down straight streets, and rebellious peoples could be easily subdued by a cavalry charge up and down a straight street.
The first principle of the modern state is to protect itself against its own people, and to control them. Its second and lesser principle is to protect itself against foreign enemies. Foreign enemies are a periodic problem; the people are a state's permanent problem.
Thus, to entrust the state to control our lives, our families, our education, religion, and economics is to ask for our destruction.
The goal of state-controlled economics is the increase of statist powers, and the control of money is basic to that goal. To trust the state with money is to ensure, virtually always in history, the debauchery of money.
--Rousas John Rushdooney, The Roots of Inflation, pp. 41-42 (1982)
Sunday, February 01, 2009
New Links
I just added a couple of new links. Two of them are to pages by my friend William Chad Newsom. He is the author of Polycarp: Crown of Fire and Talking of Dragons, both of which are published by Christian Focus. A third link is to a page called Net Right Nation. It is a news site that serves as a portal to numerous Conservative blogs. I just found them the other day, and discovered they had linked me. I always try to return the favour if I can, so you'll find them in the side bar as well. That goes for other sites as well. If you have a site and have linked me, let me know. Unless I have a good reason not to (promotion of any sort of false doctrine or rank immorality would serve as examples of "good reasons"), I'll add a link to your page.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
I just learned that Fr. Richard John Neuhaus died this past January 8. He was a convert to Roman Catholicism from Lutheranism. He was the author of numerous books, a political activist, an EWTN commentator, and editor of First Things Journal.
There were many things on which I differed with Fr. Neuhaus, his Romanism being the first to come to mind, and his defense of the neoconservative approach to politics being another. Nonetheless, I appreciated his work, particularly his regular commentary called "The Public Square". His occasions on EWTN, which usually involved a special event in the life of the church, as he was flanked by commentator Raymond Arroyo, were also quite enjoyable. He was a well read and intelligent man, and will be missed.
There were many things on which I differed with Fr. Neuhaus, his Romanism being the first to come to mind, and his defense of the neoconservative approach to politics being another. Nonetheless, I appreciated his work, particularly his regular commentary called "The Public Square". His occasions on EWTN, which usually involved a special event in the life of the church, as he was flanked by commentator Raymond Arroyo, were also quite enjoyable. He was a well read and intelligent man, and will be missed.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
If We Had Only Listened
Economies throughout the world are collapsing. And Ron Paul said it would happen, but no one listened. Even now, almost no one in Washington wants to do what it will take to fix it.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
New Pastor of Coral Ridge
This piece of news almost slipped past me. Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, which was founded by the late D. James Kennedy (known for his radio and TV ministries, political involvement, and the creation of the Evangelism Explosion training program), has finally chosen a new pastor. Interestingly enough, they have chosen one of Billy Graham's grandsons. His name is William Graham Tullian Tchividjian. The "Tullian" part comes from the early church father Tertullian, apparently. Here are a couple of articles about the choice of Pastor Tchividjian:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-coralridge0118,0,7957788.story
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/broward/story/861948.html
The most important aspect of this, of course, is that Tchividjian has a tan to rival that of his predecessor, Dr. Kennedy. I say this facetiously, of course, but it highlights a couple of concerns it raises in my own mind. The articles note that Coral Ridge considered about 150 potential pastors in their search, but also that they approached Tchividjian on three different occasions. Apparently they wanted this guy pretty bad. But why? I listened to one of his sermons today to get an idea of his teaching. The content was pretty good. And he preached for over forty minutes, so at least he doesn't preach sermonettes like so many contemporary ministers. But the shape of his preaching was very contemporary. His choice of words and his vocal inflections were all very contemporary.
This might seem a rather ridiculous observation on the face of it. But aesthetics matter, and everybody lives like they do, whether or not they realize it.
Prior to now, Coral Ridge's approach to ministry was very 20th century. Their corporate worship (at least, what they showed of it on TV week by week) was a mixture of tradition liturgical worship and American Revivalism. There were liturgical elements, like the procession of the choir, the traditional hymnody, the organ, and the robes that the choir and Dr. Kennedy wore. And yet a measure of the aesthetics of it, such as the slick production of the service, were of the Revivalistic tradition. While I believe that there is a need for liturgical change in every generation, some forms are somehow less bound to particular time periods, and carry more of a sense of transcendence about them. Liturgical robes, for instance, have been used in the church for most of the church's history, and this isn't simply because the church doesn't like change. Some art forms serve the worship of God better, which is simply to say that Relativism doesn't exist in the realm of art any more than it exists in the realm of morals. And, as R. C. Sproul says, all forms are art forms. This includes the shape of the songs we sing and the clothes we wear, not to mention the way we speak.
While Coral Ridge's worship needed some fixing, it was better than what goes on in most contemporary churches today. Tchividjian's approach, as of that of his current church, is more contemporary, however. If taking Tchividjian on as pastor means a further move away from traditional liturgy towards a contemporary worship approach, then things don't bode well for Coral Ridge. We can talk about being counter cultural all we want, and even criticize the culture on specific issues. But if the shape of the worship of the local church isn't counter cultural in some sense, then all of are criticisms will be in vain.
But this raises another issue. Dr. Kennedy often mixed church and politics in an improper way. His sermons in which he tried to prove that certain historical American figures, such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, were faithful Christians (at times dubious, especially regarding the latter figure) were inappropriate for the pulpit of the Christian church. Nonetheless, his speaking out on certain political issues, such as abortion, not to mention his political activism outside of the pulpit, were generally something to be admired and emulated. Tchividjian, on the other hand, wants to pull away from the "culture war" approach that Kennedy took. In one of the articles I linked above, the reporter states that Tchividjian "would not answer questions on current political issues, such as same-sex marriage." If he is simply steering away from a blind allegiance to Americanism, and seeking instead for local reformation, particularly by focusing on community within the church and the way that stretches out to the community around the church, then that's great. But as a Christian, one can't not speak out against the wicked decisions of the government over them. When God says something is evil, I don't then have the option to say, "no, I won't talk about that." When the opportunity arises, I must speak. I can understand how people can get worn out by the culture wars. But perhaps this weariness is just a sign that we need to reassess how we address the culture. It isn't a sign that we need to start acting like our differences don't matter. Considering the direction our country is going, this isn't the time to start getting sheepish about things.
Then there is the issue of the merger of the two churches. In order for Tchividjian to take the position, he wants his church to merge with Coral Ridge. But while Coral Ridge is in the PCA, Tchividjian's church, New City Church, is in the EPC, which is the PCA's slightly more liberal cousin. The EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church) holds tenuously to the Westminster Standards, allowing for departures from it even in regards to the Doctrines of Grace. It also allows for the ordination of women. The PCA isn't in the best shape itself, but Coral Ridge would be worse off going into the EPC. On the other hand, unless Tchividjian is willing to publicly renounce the EPC's stance on women's ordination, I don't think he should be let into the PCA. As of yet, it has not been announced which denomination the merged church would be in.
And then there's the celebrityism. He's the grandson of Billy Graham, and has "William Graham" as part of his own name. The news reports haven't hesitated to use his full name to highlight this, though he actually goes by the name "Tullian Tchividjian". But what is the likelihood of Coral Ridge choosing a no-name for the pastorate?
So, basically, Coral Ridge is choosing the grandson of a Christian celebrity, with soap star good looks, who is hip and surfs and listens to cool music, and who doesn't want to address contemporary moral issues when asked about them. As one of the articles above states, "Gasps, then applause, greeted Tchividjian's name as Dr. Dan Westphal, head of Coral Ridge's search committee, announced it during the morning service." Gasps? I hope Tchividjian is a godly man and a good pastor. But all of the above factors combined make me think that the motives behind choosing him should be suspect at the very least.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-coralridge0118,0,7957788.story
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/broward/story/861948.html
The most important aspect of this, of course, is that Tchividjian has a tan to rival that of his predecessor, Dr. Kennedy. I say this facetiously, of course, but it highlights a couple of concerns it raises in my own mind. The articles note that Coral Ridge considered about 150 potential pastors in their search, but also that they approached Tchividjian on three different occasions. Apparently they wanted this guy pretty bad. But why? I listened to one of his sermons today to get an idea of his teaching. The content was pretty good. And he preached for over forty minutes, so at least he doesn't preach sermonettes like so many contemporary ministers. But the shape of his preaching was very contemporary. His choice of words and his vocal inflections were all very contemporary.
This might seem a rather ridiculous observation on the face of it. But aesthetics matter, and everybody lives like they do, whether or not they realize it.
Prior to now, Coral Ridge's approach to ministry was very 20th century. Their corporate worship (at least, what they showed of it on TV week by week) was a mixture of tradition liturgical worship and American Revivalism. There were liturgical elements, like the procession of the choir, the traditional hymnody, the organ, and the robes that the choir and Dr. Kennedy wore. And yet a measure of the aesthetics of it, such as the slick production of the service, were of the Revivalistic tradition. While I believe that there is a need for liturgical change in every generation, some forms are somehow less bound to particular time periods, and carry more of a sense of transcendence about them. Liturgical robes, for instance, have been used in the church for most of the church's history, and this isn't simply because the church doesn't like change. Some art forms serve the worship of God better, which is simply to say that Relativism doesn't exist in the realm of art any more than it exists in the realm of morals. And, as R. C. Sproul says, all forms are art forms. This includes the shape of the songs we sing and the clothes we wear, not to mention the way we speak.
While Coral Ridge's worship needed some fixing, it was better than what goes on in most contemporary churches today. Tchividjian's approach, as of that of his current church, is more contemporary, however. If taking Tchividjian on as pastor means a further move away from traditional liturgy towards a contemporary worship approach, then things don't bode well for Coral Ridge. We can talk about being counter cultural all we want, and even criticize the culture on specific issues. But if the shape of the worship of the local church isn't counter cultural in some sense, then all of are criticisms will be in vain.
But this raises another issue. Dr. Kennedy often mixed church and politics in an improper way. His sermons in which he tried to prove that certain historical American figures, such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, were faithful Christians (at times dubious, especially regarding the latter figure) were inappropriate for the pulpit of the Christian church. Nonetheless, his speaking out on certain political issues, such as abortion, not to mention his political activism outside of the pulpit, were generally something to be admired and emulated. Tchividjian, on the other hand, wants to pull away from the "culture war" approach that Kennedy took. In one of the articles I linked above, the reporter states that Tchividjian "would not answer questions on current political issues, such as same-sex marriage." If he is simply steering away from a blind allegiance to Americanism, and seeking instead for local reformation, particularly by focusing on community within the church and the way that stretches out to the community around the church, then that's great. But as a Christian, one can't not speak out against the wicked decisions of the government over them. When God says something is evil, I don't then have the option to say, "no, I won't talk about that." When the opportunity arises, I must speak. I can understand how people can get worn out by the culture wars. But perhaps this weariness is just a sign that we need to reassess how we address the culture. It isn't a sign that we need to start acting like our differences don't matter. Considering the direction our country is going, this isn't the time to start getting sheepish about things.
Then there is the issue of the merger of the two churches. In order for Tchividjian to take the position, he wants his church to merge with Coral Ridge. But while Coral Ridge is in the PCA, Tchividjian's church, New City Church, is in the EPC, which is the PCA's slightly more liberal cousin. The EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church) holds tenuously to the Westminster Standards, allowing for departures from it even in regards to the Doctrines of Grace. It also allows for the ordination of women. The PCA isn't in the best shape itself, but Coral Ridge would be worse off going into the EPC. On the other hand, unless Tchividjian is willing to publicly renounce the EPC's stance on women's ordination, I don't think he should be let into the PCA. As of yet, it has not been announced which denomination the merged church would be in.
And then there's the celebrityism. He's the grandson of Billy Graham, and has "William Graham" as part of his own name. The news reports haven't hesitated to use his full name to highlight this, though he actually goes by the name "Tullian Tchividjian". But what is the likelihood of Coral Ridge choosing a no-name for the pastorate?
So, basically, Coral Ridge is choosing the grandson of a Christian celebrity, with soap star good looks, who is hip and surfs and listens to cool music, and who doesn't want to address contemporary moral issues when asked about them. As one of the articles above states, "Gasps, then applause, greeted Tchividjian's name as Dr. Dan Westphal, head of Coral Ridge's search committee, announced it during the morning service." Gasps? I hope Tchividjian is a godly man and a good pastor. But all of the above factors combined make me think that the motives behind choosing him should be suspect at the very least.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
What Lincoln Really Thought About Slavery
Today's event at the Lincoln memorial is more than a little ironic, in light of the following quote, which I wish was more well-known than it is:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
I lifted the quote from here: http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html
Lincoln could have cared less about freeing slaves. The War Between the States was about States' Rights versus Centralism, not slavery.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
I lifted the quote from here: http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html
Lincoln could have cared less about freeing slaves. The War Between the States was about States' Rights versus Centralism, not slavery.
Beck Beckoned By Fox
I just learned that Glenn Beck has officially moved from CNN to Fox News, and I must admit my feelings are a bit mixed. Glenn Beck was about the only conservative television commentator to give Ron Paul, the only major candidate worthy of election this last cycle, a reasonable hearing. Meanwhile, Fox News commentators ridiculed him at times, while at other times shutting him out completely. They supported the other Republican candidates, all fairly incompetent, and none of whom had a chance, in a nation obsessed with smooth speech and celebrity good-looks, against that great Socialist bearer of empty rhetoric, our new president Barack Obama (whom Doug Wilson has aptly dubbed "the Shining One", no doubt based on the Messianic aura that surrounds him).
I haven't made any attempt to find out why Beck made the change. But there was something nice about finding a conservative commentator on CNN. And now that he's on Fox, I can't help but wonder if he will be allowed the freedom to speak against the neo-cons that he had on CNN. Based on Fox's track record, I have my doubts.
I haven't made any attempt to find out why Beck made the change. But there was something nice about finding a conservative commentator on CNN. And now that he's on Fox, I can't help but wonder if he will be allowed the freedom to speak against the neo-cons that he had on CNN. Based on Fox's track record, I have my doubts.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Inauguration Inflation
Fox news notes that the tradition of the Presidential Inaugural Ball began with the inauguration of James Madison in 1809. The tickets for the Ball were $4. Today, they go into the hundreds of dollars. And remind me again why we elected Obama to the presidency? The cost of things isn't going up; the value of the dollar is going down. And Obama won't be doing what's necessary to fix this.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Historical Deconstruction Silliness
Greensboro's favourite Mormon science fiction writer, Orson Scott Card, tells of one of the latest manifestations of historical ignorance:
Just in case you had any doubt about the ignorance of "educated" Americans, I'd like to quote a line to you from a review in the Publishers Weekly of Dec. 8, 2008.
PW is the news-and-reviews magazine of the publishing and bookselling trade – reviews in PW are quite influential in helping booksellers decide which books to order and stock in their stores.
So I'm reading a review of the historical mystery The Bellini Card by Jason Goodwin, and the reviewer refers to "a portrait of Mehmet the Conqueror (who reclaimed Constantinople from the Christians in 1453), painted by the legendary artist Gentile Bellini."
What matters here is the parenthetical phrase, in which the reviewer actually makes the appalling claim that the Muslim conquest of Constantinople in 1453 somehow represented a reclaiming – which implies that Constantinople had once been Muslim and was being retrieved from Christian rule.
Here are the facts – which once were known to every college graduate, if not to every schoolchild: Constantinople was never Muslim until the Turks flat-out conquered it in a naked act of aggression in 1453.
Read the rest here:
http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-i-2009-01-08-190020.112113_PC_History_Ambiguous_Fiction_Best_Books.html
Just in case you had any doubt about the ignorance of "educated" Americans, I'd like to quote a line to you from a review in the Publishers Weekly of Dec. 8, 2008.
PW is the news-and-reviews magazine of the publishing and bookselling trade – reviews in PW are quite influential in helping booksellers decide which books to order and stock in their stores.
So I'm reading a review of the historical mystery The Bellini Card by Jason Goodwin, and the reviewer refers to "a portrait of Mehmet the Conqueror (who reclaimed Constantinople from the Christians in 1453), painted by the legendary artist Gentile Bellini."
What matters here is the parenthetical phrase, in which the reviewer actually makes the appalling claim that the Muslim conquest of Constantinople in 1453 somehow represented a reclaiming – which implies that Constantinople had once been Muslim and was being retrieved from Christian rule.
Here are the facts – which once were known to every college graduate, if not to every schoolchild: Constantinople was never Muslim until the Turks flat-out conquered it in a naked act of aggression in 1453.
Read the rest here:
http://greensboro.rhinotim
Sunday, January 11, 2009
L. A. Story
Out of the numerous gifts I received for Christmas, one friend gave me a copy of the Steve Martin film "L. A. Story". I had actually just remembered it a couple of months ago, and subsequently added it to my Amazon wish list.
Sometimes you think back with fondness on a movie that you enjoyed at an earlier point in your life, but upon watching it again, realize that your enjoyment was determined by and confined by the point you were at in your life when you saw it. One can grow out of a movie, just like one grows out of other things.
I found this wasn't the case for me with L. A. Story. It was released in 1991, and so the clothes and music are dated. But if one can get past this, the film is brilliant. It is essentially a comedic love story set in Los Angeles, but it is far deeper than most films that would fit into that category. The first thing I noticed in re-watching the film was the many quotes and allusions to Shakespeare. I am fairly unread in Shakespeare, but I'm knowledgeable enough to pick up on some of the allusions. After watching the film again, I skimmed through the IMDB discussion board about the film and learned that it is essentially based off of A Midsummer Night's Dream, though there are references to several other Shakespeare plays present.
The film is full of absurd moments, intended in part to highlight the eccentricities of L. A. life. And it is also full of details that only emerge upon repeated watchings, which make it a much richer film.
There are aspects that one should beware of. There is some profanity, a moment of brief nudity, and a couple of sexual scenes, though not graphic. So it's a film for adults. But if one is okay with these, the film is well worth the watching.
Sometimes you think back with fondness on a movie that you enjoyed at an earlier point in your life, but upon watching it again, realize that your enjoyment was determined by and confined by the point you were at in your life when you saw it. One can grow out of a movie, just like one grows out of other things.
I found this wasn't the case for me with L. A. Story. It was released in 1991, and so the clothes and music are dated. But if one can get past this, the film is brilliant. It is essentially a comedic love story set in Los Angeles, but it is far deeper than most films that would fit into that category. The first thing I noticed in re-watching the film was the many quotes and allusions to Shakespeare. I am fairly unread in Shakespeare, but I'm knowledgeable enough to pick up on some of the allusions. After watching the film again, I skimmed through the IMDB discussion board about the film and learned that it is essentially based off of A Midsummer Night's Dream, though there are references to several other Shakespeare plays present.
The film is full of absurd moments, intended in part to highlight the eccentricities of L. A. life. And it is also full of details that only emerge upon repeated watchings, which make it a much richer film.
There are aspects that one should beware of. There is some profanity, a moment of brief nudity, and a couple of sexual scenes, though not graphic. So it's a film for adults. But if one is okay with these, the film is well worth the watching.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
The Anniversary of My Father's Death
Today is Epiphany, as I mentioned before, though the day is almost over. It didn't occur to me until a year or two ago, however, that Epiphany, January 6th, is also the anniversary of my father's death. Having grown up without the church calendar, I always thought of it as the anniversary of my father's death rather than Epiphany. He died on January 6, 1985, which happened also to be Sunday, the Christian Sabbath. To add even further to significance of the dates of his life, I might note that he was born on St. Valentine's Day.
I sure there are plenty of fortune tellers and mystics that would love to read things into the convergence of these dates. I note them simply as a matter of curiosity. Nonetheless, they are a God-ordained curiosity, and an illustration of how strangely, from our perspective, God works at times.
And were it not past eleven o'clock, I'm sure I would have more to say about that. But I can't seem to muster any more energy by which to do so.
I sure there are plenty of fortune tellers and mystics that would love to read things into the convergence of these dates. I note them simply as a matter of curiosity. Nonetheless, they are a God-ordained curiosity, and an illustration of how strangely, from our perspective, God works at times.
And were it not past eleven o'clock, I'm sure I would have more to say about that. But I can't seem to muster any more energy by which to do so.
The Hornes on AFV?
So I was just flipping around on the TV and passed by America's Funniest Home Video when, lo and behold, there was a picture of Mark & Jennifer Horne with their little ones on the screen. I think maybe they won some contest or something - they cut to a commercial just as I passed the show. Anyway, I've seen their pictures online before, but I didn't expect I'd see them on my TV screen any time soon:
http://www.hornes.org/mark/
http://www.hornes.org/jennsblog/
http://www.hornes.org/mark/
http://www.hornes.org/jennsblog/
Saturday, January 03, 2009
It's Still Christmas
It is now January 3, and most people are glad to be able to forget the busyness of Christmas, and to get on with life, whatever "getting on with life" may mean. But contrary to popular conception, we're still in the Christmas season. According to the traditional Western Church calendar, this is the Tenth Day of Christmas (you know, with those Lords a-Leaping). Christmas officially ends with January 6th, which is Epiphany, the celebration of the visitation of the Wise Men to Jesus.
There are, in our time and place, two ways of ordering time. One is the secular calendar. It begins its calendar year on January 1st, and is a blending of sacred and secular holidays, all of which exist to serve the interests of the State. Then there is the traditional Church calendar. It begins with Advent, the season preceding Christmas.
It is commonly thought that Christmas season is the time after Thanksgiving, leading up to Christmas Day, and ending with December 25. Accordingly, it is common for radio and TV stations broadcasting special Christmas programming to cease doing so the day after Christmas. But this approach to the season has been dictated by the marketing gurus of our society. Their interests intersect our own only insofar as they can benefit monetarily off of us.
Sadly, the church calendar has at times been used in a similar way. Rather than educating the laity in Scripture's teaching on Christian devotion, sub-Biblical devotional practices often arose, sometimes merely as a way to keep the people in line. It's much easier to control people when they are ignorant, after all. Some teachings contrary to Scripture, such as the notion of the canonization of certain individuals as saints, supererogatory works and the treasury of merits, linked closely with a faulty notion of salvation, were tied in to the idea of days devoted to certain saints. Observance of certain days were required for salvation, and observance of other days served as an aid for a quicker escape from Purgatory.
Let me state clearly that I oppose all such notions. As a son of the Reformation, the observance of the church calendar is something I consider to be optional. But I also believe throwing the baby out with the bath water is out of order here, too. There are certain benefits to observing a church calendar that I think should be preserved. And it is perfectly possible to observe the calendar on some level without resulting in the false teachings of the medieval church. It is even possible to observe days dedicated to certain godly men and women of church history without holding to the false notions of salvation linked to them. We celebrate birthdays, not only of those who are living, but also of those who are dead (such as Presidents' Day). Why is it not even more appropriate to celebrate the history of those saints who have died before us?
One of the key questions in my mind has to do with what defines us as individuals. Am I, first and foremost, a servant of the State? Or am I, above all else, a child of God, and therefore united to all saints, in both heaven and earth? To the Christian, this should be an easy question. Why, then, do we allow the Civil calendar to be the primary way our consciousness is shaped regarding time? Nations rise and fall, but the kingdom of our God and of his Christ will last forever. And our enjoyment of this kingdom begins now, for realm over which Jesus reigns includes both heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18).
Another key question is this: why do we let those who market their wares to us dictate our lives? Now, it's true that we need things to survive. And there's nothing wrong with desiring something we don't have, so long as it doesn't become an idol and so lead to covetousness. But our approach to the Christmas season has come to be largely determined by material possessions, such that Christ birth becomes an appendage to the season. Buying gifts for others is a good Christmas practice, and a demonstration of Christ's love. But we have become enslaved by greedy corporations, and this is something I think we need to examine more carefully.
And both these masters - the State and Corporate America - cooperate with one another in order to benefit off of us. As sales increase, so do the tax revenues that pour into the pockets of the State. And as the Government is benefited, so it makes decisions that benefit the executives of Corporate America. If recent events in our economic crisis hasn't made that obvious, then we haven't been paying attention.
So one of the best ways we can counter those that would seek to enslave us, I would suggest, is to observe the Church calendar. In so doing, we proclaim that Christ has authority over all things. He owns me, both body and soul, and that includes my time.
Lastly, one other practical outworking of observing the Church calendar, it would seem to me, would be as a means of creating, for lack of a better term, "psychological well-being". I think of this particularly with regard to the sort of "post-Christmas depression" that many struggle with. We are creatures bound by time, and as such are defined in our identity in part by the succession of time and the meaning of those days which we inhabit. When one observes a truncated calendar, such as is done in secular America, it isn't surprising when a person finds himself looking for purpose after investing so much time and emotion in a holiday. But if all of time is sacred, and this fact is manifested in regular church calendar, then one may find comfort in the practical celebration of this reality. And one may practically celebrate this reality, I would suggest, in the observance of the Church calendar.
There are, in our time and place, two ways of ordering time. One is the secular calendar. It begins its calendar year on January 1st, and is a blending of sacred and secular holidays, all of which exist to serve the interests of the State. Then there is the traditional Church calendar. It begins with Advent, the season preceding Christmas.
It is commonly thought that Christmas season is the time after Thanksgiving, leading up to Christmas Day, and ending with December 25. Accordingly, it is common for radio and TV stations broadcasting special Christmas programming to cease doing so the day after Christmas. But this approach to the season has been dictated by the marketing gurus of our society. Their interests intersect our own only insofar as they can benefit monetarily off of us.
Sadly, the church calendar has at times been used in a similar way. Rather than educating the laity in Scripture's teaching on Christian devotion, sub-Biblical devotional practices often arose, sometimes merely as a way to keep the people in line. It's much easier to control people when they are ignorant, after all. Some teachings contrary to Scripture, such as the notion of the canonization of certain individuals as saints, supererogatory works and the treasury of merits, linked closely with a faulty notion of salvation, were tied in to the idea of days devoted to certain saints. Observance of certain days were required for salvation, and observance of other days served as an aid for a quicker escape from Purgatory.
Let me state clearly that I oppose all such notions. As a son of the Reformation, the observance of the church calendar is something I consider to be optional. But I also believe throwing the baby out with the bath water is out of order here, too. There are certain benefits to observing a church calendar that I think should be preserved. And it is perfectly possible to observe the calendar on some level without resulting in the false teachings of the medieval church. It is even possible to observe days dedicated to certain godly men and women of church history without holding to the false notions of salvation linked to them. We celebrate birthdays, not only of those who are living, but also of those who are dead (such as Presidents' Day). Why is it not even more appropriate to celebrate the history of those saints who have died before us?
One of the key questions in my mind has to do with what defines us as individuals. Am I, first and foremost, a servant of the State? Or am I, above all else, a child of God, and therefore united to all saints, in both heaven and earth? To the Christian, this should be an easy question. Why, then, do we allow the Civil calendar to be the primary way our consciousness is shaped regarding time? Nations rise and fall, but the kingdom of our God and of his Christ will last forever. And our enjoyment of this kingdom begins now, for realm over which Jesus reigns includes both heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18).
Another key question is this: why do we let those who market their wares to us dictate our lives? Now, it's true that we need things to survive. And there's nothing wrong with desiring something we don't have, so long as it doesn't become an idol and so lead to covetousness. But our approach to the Christmas season has come to be largely determined by material possessions, such that Christ birth becomes an appendage to the season. Buying gifts for others is a good Christmas practice, and a demonstration of Christ's love. But we have become enslaved by greedy corporations, and this is something I think we need to examine more carefully.
And both these masters - the State and Corporate America - cooperate with one another in order to benefit off of us. As sales increase, so do the tax revenues that pour into the pockets of the State. And as the Government is benefited, so it makes decisions that benefit the executives of Corporate America. If recent events in our economic crisis hasn't made that obvious, then we haven't been paying attention.
So one of the best ways we can counter those that would seek to enslave us, I would suggest, is to observe the Church calendar. In so doing, we proclaim that Christ has authority over all things. He owns me, both body and soul, and that includes my time.
Lastly, one other practical outworking of observing the Church calendar, it would seem to me, would be as a means of creating, for lack of a better term, "psychological well-being". I think of this particularly with regard to the sort of "post-Christmas depression" that many struggle with. We are creatures bound by time, and as such are defined in our identity in part by the succession of time and the meaning of those days which we inhabit. When one observes a truncated calendar, such as is done in secular America, it isn't surprising when a person finds himself looking for purpose after investing so much time and emotion in a holiday. But if all of time is sacred, and this fact is manifested in regular church calendar, then one may find comfort in the practical celebration of this reality. And one may practically celebrate this reality, I would suggest, in the observance of the Church calendar.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Obama Plans to Meet With Presidents
According to news reports, Barack Obama, in his plan to visit with congressional leaders in Washington in the next few days, is also planning to meet with George W. Bush and the three living former presidents. Rumor has it that an intern suggested also bringing in the remains of Peyton Randolph for the meeting, but neither the current president, the incumbent, nor the former presidents knew who Peyton Randolph was.
Monday, December 22, 2008
God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen - Annie Moses Band
A jazzy rendition of the song. A version appears on their recent Christmas cd, also featuring a dvd, both of which feature a better sound mix. This is a practically the same arrangement, however. The violin - viola trade-off toward the end of the song is amazing.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Lo, How a Rose E'er Blooming
I was checking out different choral performances of Christmas hymns on Youtube when I ran across this. Quite a different take on the hymn, but pretty cool nonetheless.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
The Manger and the Cross
How proper it is that Christmas should follow Advent. For him who looks toward the future, the manger is situated on Golgotha, and the cross has already been raised in Bethlehem.
-- Dag Hammarskjold
The whole life of Christ was a continual Passion; others die martyrs but Christ was born a martyr. He found a Golgotha (where he was crucified) even in Bethlehem, where he was born; for to his tenderness then the straws were almost as sharp as the thorns after, and the manger as uneasy at first as his cross at last. His birth and his death were but one continual act, and his Christmas day and his Good Friday are but the evening and morning of one and the same day.
-- John Donne
-- Dag Hammarskjold
The whole life of Christ was a continual Passion; others die martyrs but Christ was born a martyr. He found a Golgotha (where he was crucified) even in Bethlehem, where he was born; for to his tenderness then the straws were almost as sharp as the thorns after, and the manger as uneasy at first as his cross at last. His birth and his death were but one continual act, and his Christmas day and his Good Friday are but the evening and morning of one and the same day.
-- John Donne
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Eleven
Her growing stomach struck me as grotesque.
Some other seed than mine engendered this:
Some stolen love, some alien, wretched bliss
Raped all integrity, all trust suppressed.
To consummate my pledge, by honor pressed,
Would violate that honor, transform kiss
To custom, love to duty, prove remiss
In truth, and make of joy a jest.
Exhausted by despair's fatigue, I slept
The torment of the God-forsaken dead.
I tossed and turned, or when I woke, I wept,
Until an angel stilled my fears, and said:
"Abandon doubt, and take this quiet boast:
The child she bears is by the Holy Ghost."
Some other seed than mine engendered this:
Some stolen love, some alien, wretched bliss
Raped all integrity, all trust suppressed.
To consummate my pledge, by honor pressed,
Would violate that honor, transform kiss
To custom, love to duty, prove remiss
In truth, and make of joy a jest.
Exhausted by despair's fatigue, I slept
The torment of the God-forsaken dead.
I tossed and turned, or when I woke, I wept,
Until an angel stilled my fears, and said:
"Abandon doubt, and take this quiet boast:
The child she bears is by the Holy Ghost."
-- D. A. Carson, Sonnet Eleven, Holy Sonnets of the Twentieth Century
Friday, December 05, 2008
Thursday, December 04, 2008
American Multiculturalism At Its Finest
My Greek Orthodox neighbors have a Moravian star over their front stoop.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Porky Pig sings Blue Christmas
We were listening to Christmas music on the radio today at work and I was reminded of the following. They used to play it on the top 40 radio stations around here when I was a teenager. It had me in stitches every time I heard it back then, so I Googled it and found the following on Youtube. I like the montage this person did, especially the appearance of the blue kazoo at the beginning of the kazoo solo.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
WMAG
I was listening to one of our local radio stations, WMAG, during lunch today, because they have been playing all Christmas music. (Those of you familiar with the station, fear not - I don't normally listen to it.) I was surprised to hear the announcer, in between songs, read the passage in Luke 2 that describes the appearance of the angels to the shepherds. It may be Christmas, but I wouldn't have expected a secular station to openly read Scripture on air.
Throughout the year, when this station isn't playing Christmas music, they're playing what they call "pop-rock" - though there's nothing "rock" about it. The contrast in style is itself noticeable. For instance, when I was a teenager and listened to the station (way back in the 80's), it wasn't uncommon to hear Johnny Mathis's song "Chances Are". Now I hear them playing Johnny Mathis's Christmas songs, but they wouldn't play him the rest of the year. Why the change, I wonder? It certainly isn't because there has been lots of better music made since then. Something about Christmas makes the difference in the popular imagination.
I like the fact that I can listen to Christmas music at work and hear styles that are normally ignored by secular radio the rest of the year. Not only does this include jazz styles, but also classical choral and hymn styles. It's because our Christmas practice is rooted in history, and therefore carries with it the musical styles that gave shape to our celebration. And our Christmas practice is rooted in history because Christianity isn't a religion comprised mainly of abstract concepts, but it is an historical religion. History is key to understanding God's working in the world. Of course, I doubt the average nominal Christian or pagan running a radio station could articulate that. Nonetheless, the change in music is a welcome change, and it sure beats the garbage that secular radio plays most of the time.
Perhaps the biggest contrast, however, is in the lyrics. I like Christmas time, in part, because secular stations by default find themselves proclaiming the Gospel. The rest of the year, however, they proclaim a delight in those things that stand opposed to the Law of God, most specifically in their promotion of adultery and sexual immorality. They don't seem to notice the contradiction, no doubt because they are holding to an American religion that contains elements of Christianity, but believes that God doesn't really take His own Law that seriously. Whatever way the Church goes, so goes the broader culture, and that includes the cheesiest of radio stations. So long as the churches in our community preach a watered down "gospel", so long will the Gospel be misinterpreted by those outside the Church.
And so we continue to have reason for concern. Nonetheless, the Gospel is being preached, however imperfectly. So often we complain, and rightly so, about the state of our nation or communities. But at this time of year, I find myself encouraged. We are in a bad way. But we still live in a place and time when the Gospel can be proclaimed publicly. In fact, we still have a national celebration in honor of the Saviour of the world taking on flesh and blood, no matter how many people celebrate for the wrong reason. With Paul, we can rejoice that, no matter the motivation, Christ is still proclaimed (Philippians 1:18).
Throughout the year, when this station isn't playing Christmas music, they're playing what they call "pop-rock" - though there's nothing "rock" about it. The contrast in style is itself noticeable. For instance, when I was a teenager and listened to the station (way back in the 80's), it wasn't uncommon to hear Johnny Mathis's song "Chances Are". Now I hear them playing Johnny Mathis's Christmas songs, but they wouldn't play him the rest of the year. Why the change, I wonder? It certainly isn't because there has been lots of better music made since then. Something about Christmas makes the difference in the popular imagination.
I like the fact that I can listen to Christmas music at work and hear styles that are normally ignored by secular radio the rest of the year. Not only does this include jazz styles, but also classical choral and hymn styles. It's because our Christmas practice is rooted in history, and therefore carries with it the musical styles that gave shape to our celebration. And our Christmas practice is rooted in history because Christianity isn't a religion comprised mainly of abstract concepts, but it is an historical religion. History is key to understanding God's working in the world. Of course, I doubt the average nominal Christian or pagan running a radio station could articulate that. Nonetheless, the change in music is a welcome change, and it sure beats the garbage that secular radio plays most of the time.
Perhaps the biggest contrast, however, is in the lyrics. I like Christmas time, in part, because secular stations by default find themselves proclaiming the Gospel. The rest of the year, however, they proclaim a delight in those things that stand opposed to the Law of God, most specifically in their promotion of adultery and sexual immorality. They don't seem to notice the contradiction, no doubt because they are holding to an American religion that contains elements of Christianity, but believes that God doesn't really take His own Law that seriously. Whatever way the Church goes, so goes the broader culture, and that includes the cheesiest of radio stations. So long as the churches in our community preach a watered down "gospel", so long will the Gospel be misinterpreted by those outside the Church.
And so we continue to have reason for concern. Nonetheless, the Gospel is being preached, however imperfectly. So often we complain, and rightly so, about the state of our nation or communities. But at this time of year, I find myself encouraged. We are in a bad way. But we still live in a place and time when the Gospel can be proclaimed publicly. In fact, we still have a national celebration in honor of the Saviour of the world taking on flesh and blood, no matter how many people celebrate for the wrong reason. With Paul, we can rejoice that, no matter the motivation, Christ is still proclaimed (Philippians 1:18).
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Isaac Watts
It is the end of the day. But as of right now, it is still November 25, 2008, which means it is still the 260th anniversary of the death of English minister and hymn writer Isaac Watts. Here is one of my favourite hymns by him.
HOW SWEET AND AWEFUL IS THIS PLACE
How sweet and aweful is this place
With Christ within the doors,
While everlasting love displays
The choicest of her stores!
Here every bowel of our God
With soft compassion rolls;
Here peace and pardon bought with blood
Is food for dying souls.
While all our hearts and all our songs
Join to admire the feast,
Each of us cry, with thankful tongues,
“Lord, why was I a guest?
“Why was I made to hear Thy voice,
And enter while there’s room,
When thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?”
’Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly drew us in;
Else we had still refused to taste,
And perished in our sin.
Pity the nations, O our God!
Constrain the earth to come;
Send Thy victorious Word abroad,
And bring the strangers home.
We long to see Thy churches full,
That all the chosen race
May with one voice, and heart and soul,
Sing Thy redeeming grace.
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/h/s/hsweetaw.htm
HOW SWEET AND AWEFUL IS THIS PLACE
How sweet and aweful is this place
With Christ within the doors,
While everlasting love displays
The choicest of her stores!
Here every bowel of our God
With soft compassion rolls;
Here peace and pardon bought with blood
Is food for dying souls.
While all our hearts and all our songs
Join to admire the feast,
Each of us cry, with thankful tongues,
“Lord, why was I a guest?
“Why was I made to hear Thy voice,
And enter while there’s room,
When thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?”
’Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly drew us in;
Else we had still refused to taste,
And perished in our sin.
Pity the nations, O our God!
Constrain the earth to come;
Send Thy victorious Word abroad,
And bring the strangers home.
We long to see Thy churches full,
That all the chosen race
May with one voice, and heart and soul,
Sing Thy redeeming grace.
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/h/s/hsweetaw.htm
Sunday, November 23, 2008
More Church Crime
I mentioned on here a couple of weeks ago about attending a Lutheran church with my friends, and their van being broken into while at the church that day. Sadly, it appears that the crime at the church hasn't stopped with that. In the two weeks since, an individual has gone into the men's bathroom on a couple of occasions and scribbled profanity all over the walls of the stall, some of which was political in nature. Then, this morning someone snuck into the church and stole some items. That person was followed and subsequently arrested. The person who committed the vandalism is still on the loose.
I can't figure out why this church would be the target of so much crime. It isn't a church that takes a public political stand. In fact, traditional Lutherans are known to make a very strong distinction between church and state. I've attended this particular congregation on and off for many years. In fact, I consider it sort of a second church home. The pastors there have always made very explicit, especially in their sermons, that they believe the church is completely separate from the civil government. I know the head pastor personally, and consider him a good friend. But he is so good at keeping his political views to himself that I couldn't tell you who he voted for. I couldn't tell you what political party he's registered with, or where he stands on any issue. There are members of the congregation from various political parties, and one could find both Obama supporters and McCain supporters there.
So, while I don't know the nature of the political graffiti in the bathroom, the fact that there was any is bizarre to me. And whatever the reason for all of this, this church needs our prayers. In fact, all of Greensboro needs prayer. As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, these things are just reminders of the sad spiritual condition of our city.
I can't figure out why this church would be the target of so much crime. It isn't a church that takes a public political stand. In fact, traditional Lutherans are known to make a very strong distinction between church and state. I've attended this particular congregation on and off for many years. In fact, I consider it sort of a second church home. The pastors there have always made very explicit, especially in their sermons, that they believe the church is completely separate from the civil government. I know the head pastor personally, and consider him a good friend. But he is so good at keeping his political views to himself that I couldn't tell you who he voted for. I couldn't tell you what political party he's registered with, or where he stands on any issue. There are members of the congregation from various political parties, and one could find both Obama supporters and McCain supporters there.
So, while I don't know the nature of the political graffiti in the bathroom, the fact that there was any is bizarre to me. And whatever the reason for all of this, this church needs our prayers. In fact, all of Greensboro needs prayer. As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, these things are just reminders of the sad spiritual condition of our city.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Reformed Have a Strange Sense of Brevity
In the great tradition of Reformed theology, P & R Publishing has released a new work by J. van Genderen and W. H. Velema called Concise Reformed Dogmatics. How concise is it? Just over 900 pages.
Did I mention it's supposed to be concise?
http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/6004/nm/Concise_Reformed_Dogmatics_Hardcover_
Did I mention it's supposed to be concise?
http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/6004/nm/Concise_Reformed_Dogmatics_Hardcover_
Andrew Peterson, etc.
I just learned this past weekend that Andrew Peterson will be doing a Christmas concert at Westover Church on December 16. Lord willing, I'll be attending. I've seen him twice before, but it's been a few years, so I'm looking forward to it. That said, thinking of Andrew Peterson reminds me of a story.
A few years back we had a couple of Contemporary Christian radio stations in the area. I was riding in my car one day and listening to one of them when Andrew's song "Nothing To Say" came on. Here are the lyrics:
Hey, Jamie would you mind driving down this road awhile
Arizona's waiting on these eyes
Rich is on the radio, and I think we ought to take it slow
Arizona's caught me by surprise
Hey, Jamie, have you heard, 'A picture paints a thousand words'
But the photographs don't tell it all
I see the eagle swim the canyon sea, creation yawns in front of me
Oh Lord, I never felt so small
And I don't believe that I believed in You as deeply as today
I reckon what I'm saying is there's nothing more, nothing more to say
And the mountains sing Your glory, hallelujah
The canyons echo sweet amazing grace
My spirit sails, the mighty gales are bellowing Your name
And I've gotten nothing to say
No, I've got nothing to say
Hey, Jamie, do you see I'm broken by this majesty
So much glory in so little time
So turn off the radio, let's listen to the songs we know
All praise to Him who reigns on high
And I don't believe that I believed in You as deeply as today
I reckon what I'm saying is there's nothing more, nothing more to say
And the mountains sing Your glory, hallelujah
The canyons echo sweet amazing grace
My spirit sails, the mighty gales are bellowingYour name
And I've gotten nothing to say
No, I've got nothing to say
Glory, glory hallelujah
Glory, glory hallelujah
Glory, glory hallelujah
hallelujah
And the mountains sing Your glory, hallelujah
The canyons echo sweet amazing grace
My spirit sails, the mighty gales are bellowing Your name
And I've gotten nothing to say
No, I've got nothing to say
Hey Jamie would you mind driving down this road awhile
Arizona's caught me by surprise
It's a beautiful song of rejoicing in God's creation. But the lyrics weren't there in the radio version in full. Someone, in process of preparing the track for play on air, had edited out a couple of lines:
So turn off the radio, let's listen to the songs we know
All praise to Him who reigns on high
Having the CD, and having listened to the song many times, I recognized the change immediately. Could it have been a one time thing? No, I heard this station play the song many times after this, and it was the same version each time. The two lines had been cut from the original version of the song.
And why? It was obvious. They didn't want anyone to get the idea to "turn off the radio". Not if it was to glory in God's creation, or for any other reason. CCM radio stations are businesses. And if you aren't listening, they can't sell commercial time slots. Worship, shmorship. Time is money.
Socialism is unbiblical. And yet there are places where certain approaches to Capitalism clash with Christianity, and this is one of those places. If Christ is not the center, then Capitalism just descends into another form of idolatry. And Christian marketing has, in many ways, become a haven of idolatry.
I am reminded of the choice, made about five years ago, on the part of the higher ups of Family Christian Stores, to start opening their stores on Sundays. Now, the days of Sabbath observance are long gone in our country, and so it was only natural that if Christians weren't going to observe the Lord's Day, then the businesses that cater to them would soon follow suit. But what got to me the most was the sale flyer I received from Family Christian around that time. In the place where the hours of the stores were listed, there was a bold announcement: "Now open in between services!"
"Who do they think they are fooling," I thought to myself. But it was soon clear to me. They were fooling darn near everyone. We worship Christian celebrities - they are above blemish in our eyes. Our worship music sounds, not like rock (if it did it would be better), but like the music made for TV commercials. And our church buildings look like office buildings.
We worship the Culture of Commerce. It should be no surprise to us that God has allowed us to get into such an economic mess.
But, in this mess, maybe it is the best time to take Andrew Peterson's advice. Maybe we should turn our eyes back to the wonders of creation and, through it, to the God of Creation. Maybe God has slowed us down in order that we may return to Him, the Author of all blessings. Maybe, just as Israel was sent into captivity due to their violation of the Sabbath, and in order that their hearts may return to Yahweh, He has done the same to us that we may return from our captivity.
We may call it a crisis, and it is, in some sense. But God calls it an opportunity, and so we should treat it as such.
A few years back we had a couple of Contemporary Christian radio stations in the area. I was riding in my car one day and listening to one of them when Andrew's song "Nothing To Say" came on. Here are the lyrics:
Hey, Jamie would you mind driving down this road awhile
Arizona's waiting on these eyes
Rich is on the radio, and I think we ought to take it slow
Arizona's caught me by surprise
Hey, Jamie, have you heard, 'A picture paints a thousand words'
But the photographs don't tell it all
I see the eagle swim the canyon sea, creation yawns in front of me
Oh Lord, I never felt so small
And I don't believe that I believed in You as deeply as today
I reckon what I'm saying is there's nothing more, nothing more to say
And the mountains sing Your glory, hallelujah
The canyons echo sweet amazing grace
My spirit sails, the mighty gales are bellowing Your name
And I've gotten nothing to say
No, I've got nothing to say
Hey, Jamie, do you see I'm broken by this majesty
So much glory in so little time
So turn off the radio, let's listen to the songs we know
All praise to Him who reigns on high
And I don't believe that I believed in You as deeply as today
I reckon what I'm saying is there's nothing more, nothing more to say
And the mountains sing Your glory, hallelujah
The canyons echo sweet amazing grace
My spirit sails, the mighty gales are bellowingYour name
And I've gotten nothing to say
No, I've got nothing to say
Glory, glory hallelujah
Glory, glory hallelujah
Glory, glory hallelujah
hallelujah
And the mountains sing Your glory, hallelujah
The canyons echo sweet amazing grace
My spirit sails, the mighty gales are bellowing Your name
And I've gotten nothing to say
No, I've got nothing to say
Hey Jamie would you mind driving down this road awhile
Arizona's caught me by surprise
It's a beautiful song of rejoicing in God's creation. But the lyrics weren't there in the radio version in full. Someone, in process of preparing the track for play on air, had edited out a couple of lines:
So turn off the radio, let's listen to the songs we know
All praise to Him who reigns on high
Having the CD, and having listened to the song many times, I recognized the change immediately. Could it have been a one time thing? No, I heard this station play the song many times after this, and it was the same version each time. The two lines had been cut from the original version of the song.
And why? It was obvious. They didn't want anyone to get the idea to "turn off the radio". Not if it was to glory in God's creation, or for any other reason. CCM radio stations are businesses. And if you aren't listening, they can't sell commercial time slots. Worship, shmorship. Time is money.
Socialism is unbiblical. And yet there are places where certain approaches to Capitalism clash with Christianity, and this is one of those places. If Christ is not the center, then Capitalism just descends into another form of idolatry. And Christian marketing has, in many ways, become a haven of idolatry.
I am reminded of the choice, made about five years ago, on the part of the higher ups of Family Christian Stores, to start opening their stores on Sundays. Now, the days of Sabbath observance are long gone in our country, and so it was only natural that if Christians weren't going to observe the Lord's Day, then the businesses that cater to them would soon follow suit. But what got to me the most was the sale flyer I received from Family Christian around that time. In the place where the hours of the stores were listed, there was a bold announcement: "Now open in between services!"
"Who do they think they are fooling," I thought to myself. But it was soon clear to me. They were fooling darn near everyone. We worship Christian celebrities - they are above blemish in our eyes. Our worship music sounds, not like rock (if it did it would be better), but like the music made for TV commercials. And our church buildings look like office buildings.
We worship the Culture of Commerce. It should be no surprise to us that God has allowed us to get into such an economic mess.
But, in this mess, maybe it is the best time to take Andrew Peterson's advice. Maybe we should turn our eyes back to the wonders of creation and, through it, to the God of Creation. Maybe God has slowed us down in order that we may return to Him, the Author of all blessings. Maybe, just as Israel was sent into captivity due to their violation of the Sabbath, and in order that their hearts may return to Yahweh, He has done the same to us that we may return from our captivity.
We may call it a crisis, and it is, in some sense. But God calls it an opportunity, and so we should treat it as such.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Yahweh is Above the State
In his commentary on the Book of Judges, James Jordan discusses the accusations made by many modern commentators against Jael for her actions in deceiving and killing Sisera. Her behaviour, apparently, offends modern sensibilities, and therefore must have been wrong. Alas, Scripture usually cares little for modern sensibilities, and often seems to go out of its way to offend us.
Jael's actions, in fact, were fully justified. But shouldn't she have submitted to the ruling authorities, no matter who they were or what they had done? Some Christians seem to think this is the way we should relate to the government today. But Scripture nowhere teaches this, and in fact teaches the contrary. Knowing exactly when to resist the governing authorities is a difficult thing. But based on cases such as Jael, Ehud, and Daniel, it is clear that we are not only allowed to disobey the government at times. Scripture requires it.
Jordan, writing his commentary twenty years ago, makes some comments that are as relevant today as then:
“As the war of humanistic Satanism against Christianity grows more and more severe in our day, especially in the attacks on Christian schools, serious Christians need to consider ways to deceive the enemy. Vigilante-style lynchings, assassinations, and murders are not permitted in the Bible; killing, such as Ehud’s and Jael’s, is permissible in time of war, but not in vigilante form. On the other hand, deception and lying are authorized in Scripture any time God’s kingdom is under attack. The Protestant Reformers travelled throughout Europe under false names and with faked papers. They were not the first or the last Christian preachers to deceive tyrants, either. If we have to deceive and lie to bureaucrats in order to keep our churches and schools running, we must do so freely and with relish, enjoying the opportunity to fight for the Lord.”
For those who voted for he-who-shall-not-be-named, and think that this is far-fetched, an honest re-examination of the Socialistic governments throughout the world, both past and present, should clear up any confusion. Or maybe a re-watching of The Sound of Music will suffice. Nonetheless, we have been heading this way for some time - in fact, both major political parties have been - and we are stuck for another four years. Hopefully we will learn our lesson this time, though I have my doubts. Meanwhile, those who recognize the totalitarian agenda of the State will have to consider what to do as the Nanny State claims more of their lives and the lives of their children.
Jael's actions, in fact, were fully justified. But shouldn't she have submitted to the ruling authorities, no matter who they were or what they had done? Some Christians seem to think this is the way we should relate to the government today. But Scripture nowhere teaches this, and in fact teaches the contrary. Knowing exactly when to resist the governing authorities is a difficult thing. But based on cases such as Jael, Ehud, and Daniel, it is clear that we are not only allowed to disobey the government at times. Scripture requires it.
Jordan, writing his commentary twenty years ago, makes some comments that are as relevant today as then:
“As the war of humanistic Satanism against Christianity grows more and more severe in our day, especially in the attacks on Christian schools, serious Christians need to consider ways to deceive the enemy. Vigilante-style lynchings, assassinations, and murders are not permitted in the Bible; killing, such as Ehud’s and Jael’s, is permissible in time of war, but not in vigilante form. On the other hand, deception and lying are authorized in Scripture any time God’s kingdom is under attack. The Protestant Reformers travelled throughout Europe under false names and with faked papers. They were not the first or the last Christian preachers to deceive tyrants, either. If we have to deceive and lie to bureaucrats in order to keep our churches and schools running, we must do so freely and with relish, enjoying the opportunity to fight for the Lord.”
For those who voted for he-who-shall-not-be-named, and think that this is far-fetched, an honest re-examination of the Socialistic governments throughout the world, both past and present, should clear up any confusion. Or maybe a re-watching of The Sound of Music will suffice. Nonetheless, we have been heading this way for some time - in fact, both major political parties have been - and we are stuck for another four years. Hopefully we will learn our lesson this time, though I have my doubts. Meanwhile, those who recognize the totalitarian agenda of the State will have to consider what to do as the Nanny State claims more of their lives and the lives of their children.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Dangers of Meteorology
I have posted the following on here a couple of times before, but here it is again, if you haven't read it.
We have come once again to that time of year when all wise weathermen hide in their TV stations and decline to show their faces in public until the first breath of Spring. It is their part in a local annual tradition known as Meteorologist Bashing. Here in Guilford County, North Carolina, it is the primary way in which we release our frustration over not living in a place that has more snow. It works like this. At some point when the weather begins to get colder, local meteorologists uniformly announce the possibility of something resembling what people in more northern parts of the country call "snow". Subsequent to this announcement, when it does not snow, the general populace, both in public and in private, begin pronouncing curses upon the heads of these metorologists, in disappointment over the reality that they are not, in fact, either deities or fortune tellers, and therefore unable to perfectly predict the weather. Ritual stonings to appease the snow gods, no doubt, would be a regular part of this celebration, were the locals able to lay their hands upon the meteorologists. I am pretty certain, however, that the meteorologists actually move to Florida for the winter, from which they broadcast until about March, when they move back to Guilford County until the following November, when the whole cycle begins again. It’s an unusual sort of tradition, but there it is.
Insofar as the meteorologists dared to utter the word “flurries” tonight with regard to tomorrow’s forecast, and in honor of this tradition, I felt this would be a good time to post the following fake newspaper report, which I wrote a couple of years ago.
*********************************************
LOCAL WEATHERMAN MENTIONS “SNOW” IN FORECAST, NEARLY BEATEN TO DEATH WITH FISHING POLE
GREENSBORO, NC (AR NEWSWIRE) Skip Schlopfenheimer, weatherman for local news affiliate WUSS, nearly died after being beaten hundreds of times with a fishing pole, police reported Sunday evening. The suspect, Joe Bob Wilson of Randleman, allegedly attacked Schlopfenheimer in the parking lot of WUSS Sunday afternoon. Wilson, who was caught in the act, has pled “no contest” to the charge.
“I was just crossing the parking lot, when he pulled in front of me in his pickup. He pulled his fishing rod off of the gun rack, jumped out of the truck, and started cursing at me and flogging me,” said Schlopfenheimer.
“Damn weatherman had it coming,” said Wilson. “I speak for all the people ‘round here. We’re sick of these people making promises. Skippy’s a pansy anyhows. He needed a good whipping.”
“I only mentioned “snow” once,” said Schlopfenheimer. “It was a slip. I swear it was.”
Police report that Schlopfenheimer would be dead, if his co-worker Sandy Hoffman hadn’t pulled into the parking lot a few minutes later. “Sandy’s a strong woman. She held Wilson down on the icy asphalt until we could get there.”
“All I heard when I got out of my SUV was, ‘Snow, huh, WUSS boy? Does this feel like snow to you?’”, reported Hoffman. “I knew immediately what was happening. I’ve been expecting something like this to happen for years now. Other weathermen have been smart enough to move away, to Phoenix or Chicago or something. Somewhere where the weather’s more predictable. Not Skip, though.”
Police say they have impounded Wilson’s truck, which had a snow shovel and a brand new sled in the back. The receipt was found in the glove box. “We think we know now why he was so upset,” said police.
“I would have spent that money on ice melt if I knew we were going to get this crap,” said Wilson.
After recovering, Schlopfenheimer is planning on taking a vacation, he says. “I’ll probably go to Hawaii. Volcanos are much safer than a Piedmont native’s temper.”
We have come once again to that time of year when all wise weathermen hide in their TV stations and decline to show their faces in public until the first breath of Spring. It is their part in a local annual tradition known as Meteorologist Bashing. Here in Guilford County, North Carolina, it is the primary way in which we release our frustration over not living in a place that has more snow. It works like this. At some point when the weather begins to get colder, local meteorologists uniformly announce the possibility of something resembling what people in more northern parts of the country call "snow". Subsequent to this announcement, when it does not snow, the general populace, both in public and in private, begin pronouncing curses upon the heads of these metorologists, in disappointment over the reality that they are not, in fact, either deities or fortune tellers, and therefore unable to perfectly predict the weather. Ritual stonings to appease the snow gods, no doubt, would be a regular part of this celebration, were the locals able to lay their hands upon the meteorologists. I am pretty certain, however, that the meteorologists actually move to Florida for the winter, from which they broadcast until about March, when they move back to Guilford County until the following November, when the whole cycle begins again. It’s an unusual sort of tradition, but there it is.
Insofar as the meteorologists dared to utter the word “flurries” tonight with regard to tomorrow’s forecast, and in honor of this tradition, I felt this would be a good time to post the following fake newspaper report, which I wrote a couple of years ago.
*********************************************
LOCAL WEATHERMAN MENTIONS “SNOW” IN FORECAST, NEARLY BEATEN TO DEATH WITH FISHING POLE
GREENSBORO, NC (AR NEWSWIRE) Skip Schlopfenheimer, weatherman for local news affiliate WUSS, nearly died after being beaten hundreds of times with a fishing pole, police reported Sunday evening. The suspect, Joe Bob Wilson of Randleman, allegedly attacked Schlopfenheimer in the parking lot of WUSS Sunday afternoon. Wilson, who was caught in the act, has pled “no contest” to the charge.
“I was just crossing the parking lot, when he pulled in front of me in his pickup. He pulled his fishing rod off of the gun rack, jumped out of the truck, and started cursing at me and flogging me,” said Schlopfenheimer.
“Damn weatherman had it coming,” said Wilson. “I speak for all the people ‘round here. We’re sick of these people making promises. Skippy’s a pansy anyhows. He needed a good whipping.”
“I only mentioned “snow” once,” said Schlopfenheimer. “It was a slip. I swear it was.”
Police report that Schlopfenheimer would be dead, if his co-worker Sandy Hoffman hadn’t pulled into the parking lot a few minutes later. “Sandy’s a strong woman. She held Wilson down on the icy asphalt until we could get there.”
“All I heard when I got out of my SUV was, ‘Snow, huh, WUSS boy? Does this feel like snow to you?’”, reported Hoffman. “I knew immediately what was happening. I’ve been expecting something like this to happen for years now. Other weathermen have been smart enough to move away, to Phoenix or Chicago or something. Somewhere where the weather’s more predictable. Not Skip, though.”
Police say they have impounded Wilson’s truck, which had a snow shovel and a brand new sled in the back. The receipt was found in the glove box. “We think we know now why he was so upset,” said police.
“I would have spent that money on ice melt if I knew we were going to get this crap,” said Wilson.
After recovering, Schlopfenheimer is planning on taking a vacation, he says. “I’ll probably go to Hawaii. Volcanos are much safer than a Piedmont native’s temper.”
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Ecclesiastical Latin Term of the Week
Baptisticus terror versuum tertiorum
-- the Baptistic fear of third verses
-- the Baptistic fear of third verses
Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens
It began as a debate on the Christianity Today website. The debate has been compiled into a book, which has led to a book tour featuring both men. And lastly, there will be a movie about the book tour released next March. Here is a link to a page on the Christianity Today website featuring the trailer to the movie, along with some other things. Apparently there are more videos over on Youtube with Wilson and Hitchens as well:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/11/a_collision_of.html
Doug Wilson is a more patient man than me. But it's amazing how kind Hitchens is. As an Englishman, he has a large measure of social grace. However, he still doesn't seem to understand that he is that way because he came from a Christian culture. By being kind, he is borrowing from Christianity. His atheism offers no reason for him to be kind to anyone.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/11/a_collision_of.html
Doug Wilson is a more patient man than me. But it's amazing how kind Hitchens is. As an Englishman, he has a large measure of social grace. However, he still doesn't seem to understand that he is that way because he came from a Christian culture. By being kind, he is borrowing from Christianity. His atheism offers no reason for him to be kind to anyone.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Some Brief Thoughts About Thanksgiving
Thanksgiving Day is a couple of weeks away, so this seems like a good time to write a brief thought about it.
I think the thing that grates on me most about the current treatment of Thanksgiving is the way many have come to calling it "Turkey Day". It's true that the Pilgrims and the American Indians ate turkey. But when the day was first instituted as a yearly national holiday by Abraham Lincoln, the point was to take a day of expressing gratitude toward God for His goodness towards us as a nation. (For those of you who know your political history, let me say that I recognize that this last statement raises all sorts of questions, particularly regarding Lincoln himself, the idea of nationhood, and the idea of nationally sanctioned holidays. Suffice it to say I feel your pain, but I won't take the time to address those things now.) Despite what we may think of the current status of our nation, God has been good to us, and He deserves nothing less than our sincere gratitude. While turkey is an important part of the day, the point of the day is to feast and celebrate before God with thanksgiving. To call the day “Turkey Day” strikes me as a bit dismissive toward God, whether or not intentionally so, and the person who is uncomfortable with calling it “Thanksgiving Day”, I would suspect, has some deeper issues causing this behavior that it would be wise for them to consider. Nobility is one issue, and those who would conduct their lives in a noble way won’t make a habit of reducing everything to a common and ignoble level, whether in speech or conduct. The other issue, it seems, would simply be one of ingratitude toward God.
Secondly, it is in vogue these days to place the blame of the ills of the whole world upon the shoulders white Europeans, particularly males, and this by extension includes the United States. One way this has manifested itself has been in the demonization of those who came to “the New World”, as they called it. Much untruth has been spread in this way, and those who have bought into whatever their Leftist university professors have taught them without question need to understand that those professors often are far more concerned with towing the party line and appearing cool to their students than they are with conveying the truth about a particular matter. No one is sinless, and that includes those who came to the New World from Europe. But many interpretations of the history conveyed these days are simply false. And while the American Indians have been sinned against on many occasions (such as in the Trail of Tears), this shouldn’t lead us to villianize the Pilgrims. So far as my reference to the American Indians as such, rather than as Native Americans, goes, I’m allowed. I’m part Cherokee. Plus, scholars all agree that there was a time when the American Indians weren’t here, and so the first generation wasn‘t native. Those who have been born here since are native, but so are those of European or other descent who have been born here. So the name “Native American” strikes me as a bit of a misnomer. This, I know, isn’t politically correct, but that isn’t my concern.
The Pilgrims were a godly people, seeking to find refuge from the religious persecution of the English monarchy. While we might not agree with all they believed, or even all they did, we have much to learn from them, and we owe them immense gratitude for fighting against tyranny, and for opening up the way to freedom of worship for us, their children.
Lastly, a quite appropriate thing to do on Thanksgiving Day, I think, is to join with one’s local church in worship before God. This should include, in particular, partaking of the Holy Eucharist, or what we call the Lord’s Supper. The word “eucharist”, in fact, means “thanksgiving”. And so even as we feast with family and friends that day, it makes sense to me that we should also feast with God in partaking of His Sacrament. Few churches have worship that day, unfortunately, but there will be a couple in our area, so I hope to attend one. Seek one out, if you can. It is a good way to set apart the day to God’s glory.
I think the thing that grates on me most about the current treatment of Thanksgiving is the way many have come to calling it "Turkey Day". It's true that the Pilgrims and the American Indians ate turkey. But when the day was first instituted as a yearly national holiday by Abraham Lincoln, the point was to take a day of expressing gratitude toward God for His goodness towards us as a nation. (For those of you who know your political history, let me say that I recognize that this last statement raises all sorts of questions, particularly regarding Lincoln himself, the idea of nationhood, and the idea of nationally sanctioned holidays. Suffice it to say I feel your pain, but I won't take the time to address those things now.) Despite what we may think of the current status of our nation, God has been good to us, and He deserves nothing less than our sincere gratitude. While turkey is an important part of the day, the point of the day is to feast and celebrate before God with thanksgiving. To call the day “Turkey Day” strikes me as a bit dismissive toward God, whether or not intentionally so, and the person who is uncomfortable with calling it “Thanksgiving Day”, I would suspect, has some deeper issues causing this behavior that it would be wise for them to consider. Nobility is one issue, and those who would conduct their lives in a noble way won’t make a habit of reducing everything to a common and ignoble level, whether in speech or conduct. The other issue, it seems, would simply be one of ingratitude toward God.
Secondly, it is in vogue these days to place the blame of the ills of the whole world upon the shoulders white Europeans, particularly males, and this by extension includes the United States. One way this has manifested itself has been in the demonization of those who came to “the New World”, as they called it. Much untruth has been spread in this way, and those who have bought into whatever their Leftist university professors have taught them without question need to understand that those professors often are far more concerned with towing the party line and appearing cool to their students than they are with conveying the truth about a particular matter. No one is sinless, and that includes those who came to the New World from Europe. But many interpretations of the history conveyed these days are simply false. And while the American Indians have been sinned against on many occasions (such as in the Trail of Tears), this shouldn’t lead us to villianize the Pilgrims. So far as my reference to the American Indians as such, rather than as Native Americans, goes, I’m allowed. I’m part Cherokee. Plus, scholars all agree that there was a time when the American Indians weren’t here, and so the first generation wasn‘t native. Those who have been born here since are native, but so are those of European or other descent who have been born here. So the name “Native American” strikes me as a bit of a misnomer. This, I know, isn’t politically correct, but that isn’t my concern.
The Pilgrims were a godly people, seeking to find refuge from the religious persecution of the English monarchy. While we might not agree with all they believed, or even all they did, we have much to learn from them, and we owe them immense gratitude for fighting against tyranny, and for opening up the way to freedom of worship for us, their children.
Lastly, a quite appropriate thing to do on Thanksgiving Day, I think, is to join with one’s local church in worship before God. This should include, in particular, partaking of the Holy Eucharist, or what we call the Lord’s Supper. The word “eucharist”, in fact, means “thanksgiving”. And so even as we feast with family and friends that day, it makes sense to me that we should also feast with God in partaking of His Sacrament. Few churches have worship that day, unfortunately, but there will be a couple in our area, so I hope to attend one. Seek one out, if you can. It is a good way to set apart the day to God’s glory.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
We Once Were Free; God Has Judged Us; We Have Returned to Egypt
"O LORD, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath, remember mercy."
--Habakkuk 3:2
--Habakkuk 3:2
Election Rhyming
A few interesting election rhymes over at Doug Wilson's blog:
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6016
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)