A Primer on Worship and Reformation by Douglas Wilson: a Book Review

"What's wrong with America" is a common topic of both sermons and conversation among Conservatives, and has been for a number of years now. It is understood that the problem has vaguely to do with a pushing of Christianity to the periphery of American life and, as nature abhors a vacuum, other clearly non-Christian ways of thinking and living have rushed in to fill the empty space. This has left Conservatives scrambling to find any available piece of real estate, lest they find themselves completely pushed off the edge of the map. And so the battlefields of the culture war we are familiar with - abortion, homosexuality, prayer in school, etc. - have been the places we have put up our flags. Yet all the while our demeanor betrays that even we believe each of these battles is our last stand, and that we might as well concede that the battle isn't the LORD's after all, let alone ours.

In all our attempts, well meant and otherwise, to regain the culture, could it be that we have been going about it all wrong? Douglas Wilson thinks so. In his book A Primer on Worship and Reformation, Wilson sketches what he believes to be some of the chief components necessary to cleaning up the cultural mess we're in. And the subtitle, "Recovering the High Church Puritan", gives us more than a hint towards knowing where he derives those components.

Wilson spends the first two chapters discussing the circus that is Evangelicalism and how it became what it is today. Overrun by consumerism and triviality, the church has drifted far from what Scripture indicates it should be. This drift is no more noticeable elsewhere than it is in the worship of the church. But worship is not isolated from the rest of life. Rather, a person is what he worships; or, to put it another way, culture is worship externalized. And what the Evangelical church has done, by and large, is to replace the worship of the Triune God with the worship of the individual person. We want a church that reflects who we are rather than who God is, because we are comfortable with who we are. An encounter with God, who is wholly Other, can't help but put us at some dis-ease. And who wants that? Certainly not the average self-contented American, whether he be a professing Christian or otherwise.

Believing that the modern Evangelical church is a picture of the Late Medieval Roman Catholic Church, Wilson looks back to the first generation of English Puritans, who sought to bring the Church of England fully out of her Roman Catholic past, as providing the model for reformation needed in the church today. Wilson corrects the common misunderstanding that the Puritans were prudes and killjoys, and, after laying out the Biblical worldview of the Puritans that we should imitate, spends the rest of the book discussing how these things should be applied in practice.

The first of these concerns the question of evangelism. Much guilt has been heaped upon believers in the Evangelical church for several decades, all based on the belief that God has given the task of evangelism to every believer. It is true, Wilson says, that every believer should be prepared to explain his faith whenever an opportunity arises. But that is not the same thing as suggesting, as is often done in the Evangelical church, that every believer is to make sharing the gospel his primary vocation. This, in fact, is something Scripture nowhere says. Some people are gifted as evangelists. But some are called simply to work faithfully in their jobs, take care of their children, and participate in worship at their local churches on Sunday. This should provide some measure of relief to anyone who has ever felt guilty for not presenting the gospel to others on a regular basis.

The one area in which God calls all His children to participate in the building of His Kingdom is in the corporate worship of the church. But to do this, we must regain an understanding of what "corporate" means. We tend to approach both worship and Scripture with a "me and Jesus" attitude. But primary to the Christian life is the covenant, through which we are united not only to God, but to one another. We are united with Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant, and being freed from the Law, we are to come boldly and reverently, with joy and thanksgiving, to worship at the feet of King Jesus, where He sits enthroned in the Heavens. In Christ, we are united, and therefore there are no solo Christians.

We come together to hear God's Word preached in worship. By "Word", we are not to understand this to be either a pep talk, a laundry list, or a theological lecture. Theology is involved. The practical teachings of Scripture are to be given. And where Scripture encourages, preachers are to encourage. But preaching is to be carried out on Scripture's terms. Preaching must be alive. It must tear down and build up. It must be filled with Biblical language. And, as Scripture is, it must be filled with metaphor.

God not only gave us His Word, He gave us His Table as a way through which He nourishes us. When we partake of this table, we partake of Christ Himself. Therefore, this partaking should be as frequent as the preaching of the Word - that is, weekly.

A recovery of Biblical worship will mean a return to singing the Psalms. This means entire Psalms, not just the snippets one finds in Contemporary Worship Music. This also means all of the Psalms, not just the ones we more readily relate to. Singing should be passionate and loud, orderly and reverent. And it should be done by the congregation, not by a group of professionals putting on a performance.

Sunday is to be set aside as the Sabbath. It is the Lord's Day, which He has given to us for both rest and worship. But it isn't a day for fasting, rather for feasting. Carrying this out in detail will require much careful thought. But God has given the Sabbath to us as a gift, and therefore we should observe it gratefully.

Then there is the question of the children of the church. Are they actually "of the church", that is, of the covenant, or do they fit into some separate category? Wilson answers with the former. We are not to try to look into the hidden things of God to find out if we are elect. Nor are we to look to our own works to confirm that we are justified. Rather, we are to look to the perfect righteousness of Christ, promised to us in the covenant, as the means of our salvation. As this salvation is found in the covenant, it belongs to all those in the covenant, including our children. And so covenant children are neither to be treated as sinless, nor as "vipers in diapers". They are united to Christ. On this basis, we are to raise them as Christians, and to include them in the corporate worship service of the church.

At a short 76 pages, A Primer on Worship and Reformation fits the bill as the introduction is title professes it to be. There are few other books available that cover the same ground it does, let alone so skillfully, and none that I know of that do so in such little space. This will make it handy to give to friends who are just beginning to wrestle with the matters it discusses. No doubt much of its contents will be controversial to many. But in the face of Evangelicalism's regular failure to impact the culture, one can hardly justify taking Doug Wilson's book lightly.

The Secret of Living

Steve Wilkins talks about the secret to health and a long life:

http://auburnavenue.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/you-cant-do-it-alone/

"This is My Body... This is My Blood" - Five Views on the Presence of Christ in the Supper

I threw the following together for the guys I'm in Bible study with. I think it's pretty decent for a short summary, so I thought I'd put it up here.


It is commonly assumed and taught among Evangelicals that there have only been two views in the history of the church concerning whether or not Christ is actually present in what we call the Lord's Supper (also known as the Mass, the Holy Eucharist, Holy Communion, etc.). To the contrary, there have been, in fact, five major views in the history of the church.


1.) Mystical Presence - The Eastern Orthodox View

The Eastern Orthodox Church has historically held that in the Eucharist we really commune with the body and blood of Christ. The bread is His Body, and the wine is His Blood. But as the Eastern Orthodox have a tendency to appeal to mystery in many aspects of their theology, so they do here. They do not attempt to give any further explanation as to how this happens, and they reject as rationalistic much of the theologizing that has taken place about the Supper in the Western Church. The bread and wine are symbolic, but not merely symbolic, as in them we are sanctified by really receiving Christ.


2.) Transubstantiation - the Romanist View

This is the view that has been largely held by the Roman Catholic Church and all in communion with her since the doctrine was formulated by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, though the doctrine was not officially canonized until the Council of Trent in 1551. Drawing off of Aristotelian ideas of form and matter, Aquinas taught that when the priest who is officiating at Mass says the prayer of consecration over the elements of bread and wine, these elements transform literally into the body and blood of Christ. There is no change in the outward form (the "accidens") of the bread and wine - they continue to look, feel, smell, and taste like bread and wine. Yet, mysteriously, the matter (the "substance") of the bread and wine really and fully become the body and blood of Christ. This view has also been held by many Anglicans and some Lutherans.


3.) Consubstantiation - the Lutheran View

While the Reformers are often referenced for the way they brought to light doctrines of salvation that had been obscured or long neglected, they were above all things concerned about the state of corporate worship, and this included the doctrines concerning the Eucharist. The reformer who maintained a position the closest to that of Rome was Martin Luther. His view has come to be called "consubstantiation", though it is a name that Lutherans generally detest. Luther stated that in the doctrine of Transubstantiation that Rome had come to accept there were all sorts of frivolous miracles taking place during Mass, referring to the idea that the bread and wine could change matter without changing form. Instead, Luther taught that Christ was truly "in, with, and under" the elements of bread and wine in the Supper. And so when a person takes the bread and wine, Christ's body and blood really pass over the person's lips and down his throat into his stomach. He really chews Christ's body with his teeth. To support this idea, Luther taught that Christ's post-resurrection body took on certain of the aspects of His Deity, such that His post-resurrection body was ubiquitous, or spatially unbound. In other words, Christ's body was omnipresent or everywhere at the same time. And so a thousand churches could be taking of the body and blood of Christ all at the same time. In this way, Luther was able to explain his literalistic interpretation of Christ's words "this is My Body... this is My Blood".

4.) Real Presence - the Calvinistic View

Influenced largely by the Eastern Orthodox Church, John Calvin taught that when a person partakes of the bread and the wine in Holy Communion, he really partakes of the body and blood of Christ. Unlike Luther, he held that Christ's body was physically in Heaven, at the right hand of the Father, or else Christ's body couldn't be a real human body. Yet he believed that in Holy Communion, by the working of the Holy Spirit, and by faith, we are joined to Christ, both His Body and His Spirit, seated in Heaven, and truly receive Him mystically. This can be illustrated by this passage from the Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 29, section 7:

"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."

It should be pointed out that the word "spiritually", as it is used here, does not indicate that it is only Christ's Spirit that we receive, but rather that "spiritually" is the mode of our receiving Him, as opposed to the Lutheran's view that they actually eat Him. When we receive Christ in the Supper, we mystically take all of Him into our bodies, both His Body and His Blood.

5.) Real Absence - the Memorialist View

The view most commonly held in the Evangelical church today, it says that the bread and the wine (sorry - grape juice) used in Communion are merely symbolic, and a means of stirring the participants' minds up in order to meditate on the work of Christ. There is no connection to Christ's body and blood themselves. It is usually the one attributed to the third of the Magisterial Reformers, Ulrich Zwingli. Some study of Zwingli has suggested that this is inaccurate, and that he actually held a view more similar to that of Calvin. Unfortunately, conflicting thoughts in his own writing make it hard for scholars to truly determine what Zwingli's views were.

It should be noted that, whereas Evangelicals normally assume that the Memorialist view is the majority view in the history of the church, the prior four views listed and the size of the church movements they have been affiliated with demonstrate that the Memorialist view is, in fact, the minority view in the church's history. It should also be noted that whereas Memorialists generally downplay the idea that the Lord's Supper is, on their view, a means by which grace is given to the individual, nonetheless, if there are certain benefits derived from meditating upon the Supper, and they are good, then they must be salvific in nature. The real difference here between the Memorialist view and the other four views in that regard is that in the other four views the act of delivering grace to the individual is dependent on the work of God, whereas in the Memorialist view, whether or not the individual receives any benefit from the Supper is entirely dependent upon his own work - that is, whether or not he properly meditates upon Christ's work during the partaking of the Supper. And the theological term for that approach to receiving grace is Pelagianism.

There have been, of course, other major differences within the church on the Lord's Supper. Is the Supper in any sense a sacrifice? Is the Supper only to be overseen by an ordained minister? Can it be carried out in a context other than the worship service of the church? What kind of actions should take place during the administration of the Supper? Is it appropriate to bow or kneel to the elements of the Supper? How are the elements to be treated that are left over after the Supper? These are all legitimate questions. But the foundation to answering all of them begins with determining which of the above views is the Scriptural view.

Wes King Returns

Those of you who listened to Contemporary Christian music through the late eighties and early nineties like I did will be familiar with Wes King, guitarist and vocalist extraordinaire. I saw him in concert three times when I was younger, and spent some time as a guitarist studying and trying to imitate him. He is also a fairly astute Presbyterian, and has spent a fair bit of time studying with George Grant, a fact that can be heard in his music. He began to suffer from lymphoma a number of years ago, and with it being as serious a form of cancer as it is, I wondered if we'd ever hear from Wes again. I'm glad to say he sounds like he's doing well (though he isn't 100%, he says), and he has begun putting out some new music. His website can be found here, and he can also be found on Facebook.

Satan Worship In America

I don't agree with some of the doctrines that James David Manning holds to. I don't believe we're living in the last days that Scripture speaks of, and I don't believe that Barack Obama is either the Antichrist or the Beast. That said, Manning's criticisms of Obama and Alinsky are largely correct. For more on Alinsky, see Doug Wilson's comments on him:

http://www.dougwils.com/?Action=Search&searchstring=alinsky

Soviet Healthcare - Please Read

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook. It's a must read.


From: Mizie Finke (Rep. Blackwood) [mailto:Blackwoodla@ncleg.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:53 PM
To:
Subject: Rep. Blackwood Newsletter 7-30-09

Representative Curtis Blackwood

NEWSLETTER

July 30, 2009

Folks, while going over some emails in the office, I came some interesting information on the Democrats’ big health care bill, H.R. 3200, America ’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. While this is federal legislation and not state, the topic is of enough significance that I thought many of you would be interested in reading it. Please find below page references and direct quotes from the proposed bill.



Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!
Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll <>BR • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that.)
Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individual s.
Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.



The N.C. budget appears to be in its final stages; will have more state and budget news for you in the next newsletter.



Representative Curtis Blackwood is serving his fourth term in the N.C. House, representing District 68 ( Union County ). He may be reached at his Raleigh office, Room 1317 State Legislative Building , Raleigh , NC 27601 , (919) 733-2406, or via email at curtis.blackwood@ncleg.net.

Making Man in Reason's Image: The Enlightenment and the Birth of Modern Humanity by James Schmidt: an Audio Lecture Review

This is a series of audio lectures on the Endarkenment (what most people call the Enlightenment) put together by Barnes & Noble. The lecturer is Professor James Schmidt of Boston University. It is good so far as surveys go, though with a few faults. Since it has been a while since I studied the Enlightenment, for instance, I would have found it more helpful if the professor had spent a little more time discussing the details of the French Revolution. Also, the second to last lecture contains a discussion of the nature of revolution. Unfortunately, the professor tended to lean towards the perspective that confuses the philosophy of Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the American Revolution (better titled the American War for Independence) with other movements that bear the name "revolution". To his credit, he did spend some time discussing Edmund Burke's views on this, and he did his best to maintain a neutral position on the question. Nonetheless, his own views were apparent. He obviously believes that the Enlightenment was a good thing, and believes a pluralistic view of religion is a positive thing. And since one can only be so thorough in a survey, I was left with at best a surface-level view of the ideas of the Enlightenment. In spite of all this, I still found this a helpful overview, and recommendable to the discerning listener.

VeggieTales' Moe & The Big Exit - a Video Review

I've enjoyed alot of the Veggie Tales, though I don't believe the most recent ones have been as good as the older videos were. But if there's one thing that I wish they had generally stayed away from, even since their early days, I would wish they had never attempted to write versions of Bible stories. I think Moe and the Big Exit is worst rendition of a Bible story they've ever produced. Here, they've taken a somber story such as the Exodus, set it in the Old West, and made Moses and Aaron into the Lone Ranger and Tonto. But that isn't the worst of it. Veggie Tales' versions of Bible stories are inevitably sanitized, because, it seems, children can't handle things in stories such as death. Try telling that to the Brothers Grimm. Children handle gorey elements in stories better than we think, but we seldom find it out because today we unduly shield them from stories with violence in them, unlike previous generations. Veggie Tales follows this modern approach, and in this case ruins the story of the Exodus. Water turned to blood becomes water turned to tomato juice, and death is being "sent up the river". It seemed apparent that the writers struggled with the difficulties here, as hints that death was taking place were apparent at times, and the music and artwork were often crafted in such a way as to signal the seriousness of certain situations. But Veggie Tales is inherently a lighthearted, feel-good sort of cartoon, and shallowness and triviality were unavoidable. The worst of the video was in the attempt of recreating the scene of Moses at the burning bush. Here, it is a tumbleweed, with arms, no less. Once again, it was apparent that the writers recognized that they were treading on thin ice. One did not here the voice of God from the burning bush; instead, a narrator filled in the message given to "Moe" for us. Nonetheless, the "armed" tumbleweed did take on personal characteristics, making it clear that this bush represented God. It was my understanding that the Veggie Tales writers had said they would never represent God in anyway. While they might squeak by on a technicality here, by noting that the bush itself was not a manifestation of God, I think it's reasonable to say that they crossed the line on this one. The tumbleweed clearly was a personification of God, whether or not they intended it to be. And the end result was the trivialization of God. This video is a couple of years old (2007), and I haven't seen every Veggie Tales video to know if the negative traits of this one is becoming a regular aspect of them. Hopefully, criticism has been raised by others since the release of this video, and the Veggie Tales crew has rethought some of their mistakes. If not, they will soon find themselves on the trash heap of former Christian merchandising schlock, and rightfully so.

Judges: At Risk in the Promised Land, by E. John Hamlin - a Brief Book Review

E. John Hamlin's commentary on Judges, subtitled At Risk in the Promised Land, was the third of three commentaries I used for our study in the book. I consulted it the least, generally preferring James Jordan's and Daniel Block's over Hamlin's, mainly due to the fact that Hamlin's is especially brief (182 pgs.), and that much of the same territory Hamlin covered was also covered by Block or Jordan. For a shorter commentary, however, it is quite good at touching on all the important points. I didn't always agree with his conclusions, of course. Like most commentators, he believes that Jephthah actually put his daughter to death as a sacrifice, whereas I believe the argument can be effectively made that Jephthah's daughter was simply made to serve at the Tabernacle for her entire life as an offering. Hamlin also agrees with the majority of commentators who hold that the entirety of Samson's life was conducted strictly in self-serving ways. I think a better reading of the text shows that, while certain elements of selfishness may be involved, Samson generally behaved righteously through the beginning of ch. 16, when his inclination turned more definitely toward evil. And Hamlin views the actions against Benjamin by the other tribes of Israel to be unwarranted and excessive. When one looks at how the Mosaic Law instructs Israel to deal with Canaanized peoples, however, it becomes clear that the rest of Israel acted in full accordance with God's Law. A few serious disagreements to the side, Hamlin's commentary is still quite good. He brings out important historical and cultural factors pertinent to understanding Israel's interactions with the other inhabitants of the land. Hamlin was (or is, I do not know) a professor in Thailand, and this comes out at times, as he uses illustrations, or refers to things or places that would be more known to readers in eastern Asia than to us in the West. This I found refreshing, though I didn't always get the reference. And he does a great job at highlighting important Hebrew words in the text, and discusses ways that those words are used elsewhere in Scripture, though his habit of expecting words to carry the exact semantic range at the time of the writing of Judges as at other points in Israel's history, such as the time of the exile, is overreaching, I believe. This last matter can be explained, though, by what I believe to be the biggest flaw of Hamlin's commentary. In attempting to set the time of the composition of the book of Judges, Hamlin proposes that Judges was written during the reign of Jehoiakim, in the years leading up to the Babylonian captivity. This wouldn't be such a big problem if Hamlin didn't then seek at times to shape his interpretations according to the belief that his dating of the composition was absolutely correct. Knowing Hamlin's theory hung on slender evidence, I often found myself unwilling to take seriously his readings that leaned heavily upon his theory. While it may actually be that Judges was written during Jehoiakim's reign, other theories concerning the date of composition seem to me to be just as valid, and with no way of determining for sure, Hamlin would have done better to avoid such a speculative approach. All in all, would I recommend Hamlin's commentary? For those who aren't seeking an in-depth study of the book, I would. But for those willing to do some more serious spade work, a commentary such as James Jordan's is a far better choice.

Judges: A Practical and Theological Commentary, by James Jordan - A Brief Book Review

When we decided to cover Judges in Bible study, I knew James Jordan's commentary was the one I wanted to use as my primary aid in understanding the book. Jordan is often criticized for the unusual amount of attention he gives to typology, and in the sort of typologies he proposes to find in Scripture. Each person will have his own opinion on this, of course. But while I would agree that he sometimes proposes ideas about a text that are a bit far-fetched, I find that after some reflection on his suggestions I often eventually come around to his interpretation. To give one example, I find his suggestion that Samson was largely a righteous man in the earlier portion of his life to be correct, as over against any other commentator I've ever read on the subject. Jordan at least has the courage to question and re-examine traditional interpretations, to his credit, and it usually works out for the good. One other good trait of the book is the way Jordan applies the text to current social conditions. Writing in the '80's, Jordan's commentary on the totalitarian State is just as relevant today as it was twenty years ago. I supplemented this commentary with others, so anyone studying Judges won't want to use only Jordan's. But after having gone through Judges with it, I consider Jordan's commentary an invaluable tool to understanding the book.

John Cassian's Inconsistent Semi-Pelagianism

I received this quote in my email last night:

God is not only the suggester of what is good, but the maintainer and insister of it, so that sometimes He draws us towards salvation even against our will and without our knowing it. It follows then that no one can be deceived by the devil but one who has chosen to yield to him the consent of his own will. - Saint John Cassian (360-433)

I have read nothing of Cassian myself. He is credited, of course, for advancing the Semi-Pelagian view of sovereignty and free will that has carried on in some form or another down to the present day. I found this quote to be quite interesting in that light. The second sentence of that quote is clearly semi-Pelagian. But the first sentence seems to go against all that semi-Pelagianism stands for. It is clearly in the classical Augustinian stream of thought. I guess it just goes to show that the sovereignty of God in salvation, being the truth, is ultimately inescapable (to some degree) even by those who, though true believers, set themselves against it. As it has often been said, an Arminian has a tendency to sound like a Calvinist when he's on his knees.

Solar Eclipse Over Asia

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8161578.stm

God works his wonders in the heavens. And, as usual, some people enjoy it, while others respond with a multiplicity of superstitions. Follow the link, and you'll find a video of the eclipse along with the reactions of various onlookers.

Can't quite figure out...

...what went wrong on that last post. Apparently, on some browsers, it pushed all my posts to the bottom half of the page. Note to self: when you have the time, learn more about HTML.

Abandoning the Sabbath

The Isle of Lewis, the isle of my ancestors, becomes the last island in Scotland to abandon the Sabbath: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2520862.0.When_the_boat_comes_in_first_Sunday_ferry_to_Lewis.php

The New Atlantis - Text Patterns - wait - where did it go?

Amazon advertises the Kindle as if it's better than actual books. This should make one think twice before believing it. Think you own the books you "purchased" for your Kindle? Think again.

The New Atlantis » Text Patterns » wait — where did it go?

Shared via AddThis

What's So Bad About the Battle Hymn of the Republic?

Steve Wilkins gives a much needed history lesson:

http://auburnavenue.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/in-praise-of-death-and-destruction/

Confessions of a Heretic by Dave Hunt: a Book Review

Growing up in a Dispensational church, I had learned of Bible teacher Dave Hunt when I was in my late teens. He himself came from a Plymouth Brethren background, and as is characteristic of Brethren teachers, spent a fair bit of time teaching on issues of the end times, the subject which seems to draw most people to him. It was only sometime after having read a fair bit of his writing in his newsletters that I was told he had once claimed to have had Charismatic experiences, such as the Baptism of the Spirit and speaking in tongues, only later to deny that these things took place. He wrote of his experiences in a book called Confessions of a Heretic, which he had let go out of print after he determined he had falsely interpreted his experiences, and now spends a fair bit of his teaching criticizing Charismatic teachers. We're currently discussing Cessationism in Bible study, so since I had picked up Confessions of a Heretic a couple of years ago, I thought I would give it a read. In the midst of reading the book, I thought I would contact Mr. Hunt's ministry, The Berean Call, to see if he had in fact come to view his charismatic experiences as false. I was surprised to receive the response that Mr. Hunt saw no Biblical evidence to suggest that the more controversial gifts, such as prophecy and tongues, had passed away. His concern, the email said, is with those who carry out practices that claim to be the Biblical gifts, but which in fact are abuses and false expressions of the gifts. I doubt that many of those who read or listen to Mr. Hunt's teaching will know that he is, in fact, a charismatic of sorts.

The book itself tells of Hunt's experiences of many business-related miracles, particularly the near failing of a business he oversaw, in which God seemed to miraculously save the business repeatedly, in spite of bad business decisions, not to mention the illegal activity by Mr. Hunt of writing checks without funds backing them, on numerous occasions. Hunt goes on to tell of experiences of laying hands on his children when they were sick, only to find them suddenly and miraculously healed; the supposed experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace; Hunt's experience of speaking in tongues in private prayer; and many other seemingly miraculous events. All of these things led to Hunt's excommunication from the Brethren Assemblies, as anyone who knows the Brethren would expect. In the end, all the events appear to lead to the Hunts' moving to Europe, where the book closes.

So far as the style of the book is concerned, it reads like the typical Evangelical biography. It was an easy read, not particularly complex in sentence or narrative structure, and I finished it in a few days. Like the standard Evangelical biography, Hunt's book seems primarily concerned with communicating a series of events in an overly simplistic way, the point of which is to convey a message. In such writing, setting usually suffers, as it is mere window dressing, present only to convince the shopper to by the product featured in the display. This is Pragmatism in all its ugliness. Beyond this but connected to it, Hunt's book falls into a category I call "polemical narrative". Not only is Hunt seeking to tell of his experiences, he is attempting to make an argument through the story, particularly a defense of himself in each of the circumstances he tells of. In "polemical narrative", the desire to make an argument overwhelms the act of storytelling to the point that the art of storytelling becomes secondary to the "message" and therefore becomes substandard. Essentially, when a writer of narrative becomes more concerned with convincing the reader of a certain set of facts than creating a good story, you end up with a poorly written story. This, I would say, is a good way of explaining why writing by Evangelicals is often so bad, especially when they attempt to write fiction. For these reasons, I didn't find Hunt's book to be especially good writing. I stuck with the book because it was a nice break from some heavier reading I had been doing, and because of my curiosity about Hunt's Charismatic past. But the writing was barely engaging, and I often found it laborious to stick with it.

When it comes to the events discussed in the book, I must confess to mixed feelings. For some time in my life I held to the traditional Cessationist viewpoint with regard to miraculous gifts, but there have been questions in my mind about this viewpoint for a number of years, questions which have gradually produced significant doubt about it. I can't say that I am a Non-Cessationist at this point; certain of the traditional Cessationist arguments still carry weight for me. Nonetheless, I would not call myself a full-blown Cessationist. Simply put, it's a matter I'm studying and thinking my way through at present. If nothing else, the way that the debate has been carried out in recent history is something I believe needs revamping. Both Cessationists and Non-Cessationists tend to carry certain assumptions with them that owe more to a Newtonian, or even a Deistic, worldview than either side recognizes, the main assumption being that God stands outside of His Creation and aloof from it, only to occasionally stick His finger in to meddle with it. But this is contrary to Scripture, as demonstrated most clearly in the Psalms, and testified to in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 5. God upholds and governs all things in history, carrying them out according to His foreordained plan and for His own glory. When a person speaks in tongues, it isn't that God all of a sudden decided to step in and do something, whereas He hadn't been acting before. He is constantly at work, and if tongues are His doing, then He is simply at that moment acting in a way different than what we are used to. And if God doesn't ordain tongues for today, that doesn't mean He is generally inactive, for He is constantly at work in every corner of His universe.

There is also the matter of Rationalism, which Cessationism tends to fall into. The assumption, probably more implied than clearly stated, is that God never works through non-verbal means to communicate to people, or, at least, that non-verbal means are substandard to the point of being nearly worthless. But this is more than dubious. While it is clear that non-verbal means are not sufficient in themselves for communication, God regularly used non-verbal means to communicate in Biblical history. Therefore, to raise an objection against all non-verbal means of communication is not merely to raise an objection against non-verbal means, but against God as the One Who has seen fit at times to work this way. And to assume that God no longer works in non-verbal modes of communication since the completion of the canon of Scripture seems very clearly to contradict Scripture's own teaching on Creation and Providence.

I have been intrigued with those in the Reformed community who have either rejected Cessationism outright, or else offered the possibility of a sort of modified Cessationist view. Certain well-known names come to mind immediately, such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, C. J. Mahaney, and Joshua Harris. But there have been others such as Vern Poythress, James Jordan, David Chilton, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Gordon Fee. Then one encounters innumerable professions of miracles, more often from what may be called the looney Charismatic fringe, but not entirely so. I think, for instance, of the occasional claim of miracles that comes from Evangelicals on the mission field. None of these things are fully convincing in my own mind. But they should at least cause one to think carefully before pronouncing all such claims as false.

Therefore when I encounter Mr. Hunt's experiences, I'm hesitant to make a declaration about them. I wouldn't doubt Mr. Hunt's record of what actually happened. But I would doubt his interpretation of the events. While I can't claim he didn't have some sort of dramatic, post-salvation experience, to go labeling it as the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" seems to be a bit presumptuous. This is apart from the fact that Scripture seems to teach very clearly that no such "baptism" is normative in history, but rather was confined to certain circumstances in the period of transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. And if God worked miraculously in particular situations in Mr. Hunt's life, which it seems He apparently did, it makes more sense to consider it God working patiently with Mr. Hunt in the context of his immature presumptions and wrong understandings. Just because God saved the business Mr. Hunt was overseeing from bankruptcy, and that on many occasions, doesn't mean that it was right for Hunt to follow his feelings and the nebulous "what God seemed to be saying to him" in his decision making. It simply means that, as in many cases in our lives, God acts in our favor in spite of us more than we know.

So while I wouldn't claim to know exactly what was going on in every situation that Mr. Hunt tells of, I didn't find the book convincing enough to make me a Charismatic. Certainly, some of the circumstances are more easily explained than others. But it will take a Scriptural argument if I ever become completely convinced of the Non-Cessationist position, and Hunt's book, for the most part, doesn't provide that argument.

Page Does Not Know The Score

Guilford County residents, these are your tax dollars at work. As the article notes, this is also bureaucracy at work. It might not be immediately obvious, but this is an example of how totalitarian regimes work, though the situation at Page is at the microcosmic level. The goal of totalitarianism is power and control, not the good of the people. The motivator is fear. Rather than dealing with the real issue, totalitarianism finds a scapegoat (Rene Girard is proven right again). And totalitarianism understands, far better than the general public, that he who controls the music of a society steers the society whichever direction he wants.

**********************

July 02, 2009

Jules Pegram will go down in history as the man who nearly "murdered" Page High School's graduation - and that's something Guilford County Schools can't take away from him.

Page, like every school in Guilford County, hasn't expelled a single student since the consolidation of Guilford County Schools in 1992 - despite a recent history that includes an October 2007 25-student cafeteria brawl that resulted in 11 arrests.

And yet Page and Guilford County Schools administrators, in a fit of bureaucratic overreaction and just plain control-freakishness, this spring spent months working to prevent Jules Pegram, a talented Page student, from using four notes of a barely controversial school spirit song in a composition to be played at the high school's June 8 graduation.

The administrators won in the end, preventing the lovely orchestral piece from being played. In the process, they nearly lost the right to play the school alma mater and fight song by enraging the original composers of those songs, who rallied to support the young composer.

Read the rest here:

Page Does Not Know The Score

Shared via AddThis

Hark! Where's the Bible Ark?

My skepticism vindicates itself once again. But really, this is all understandable. You know how it happens. You find yourself visiting Big Papa in Rome, wondering at the beauty of Vatican City, and you start making promises you can't keep. It could happen to the best of us.

Hark! Where's the Bible Ark?

Shared via AddThis

'Ark of the Covenant' about to be unveiled?

The unveiling is supposed to take place sometime today. That is all it will take to keep me glued to the news most of the day. Yet while I find this exciting, I remain skeptical. How will we know for sure that this is the real ark? One way or another, I predict numerous conversions to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, numerous pilgrimages, and numerous tv shows about the Ark on NatGeo and the History Channel, all of which will succeed in missing the point of Biblical Christianity.

'Ark of the Covenant' about to be unveiled?

Shared via AddThis

Don't Give Up

I was thinking of this song earlier today for some reason. A little eighties flash back. It's a song about a man's struggle to find work in a time of mass unemployment and poverty, and the encouragement his wife gives him to not despair. Rarely does pop music reach depths such as this. There is something here of the honor that a man finds in providing for his family, and the nobility of a woman who stands by and encourages no matter what happens.

The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism

I thought I had posted this on here when I discovered it a couple of years ago, but it appears I didn't. The American Religion set forth in all its glory, or lack thereof, with a heavy dose of sarcasm. I don't know who the author of it is, but I got it from here: http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~tim/introframe/semi-pelagian.html

1. Q: What is the chief end of each individual Christian?
A: Each individual Christian's chief end is to get saved. This is the first and great commandment.

2. Q: And what is the second great commandment?
A: The second, which is like unto it, is to get as many others saved as he can.

3. Q: What one work is required of thee for thy salvation?
A: It is required of me for my salvation that I make a Decision for Christ, which meaneth to accept Him into my heart to be my personal lord and saviour

4. Q: At what time must thou perform this work?
A: I must perform this work at such time as I have reached the Age of Accountability.

5. Q: At what time wilt thou have reached this Age?
A: That is a trick question. In order to determine this time, my mind must needs be sharper than any two-edged sword, able to pierce even to the division of bone and marrow; for, alas, the Age of Accountability is different for each individual, and is thus unknowable.

6. Q: By what means is a Decision for Christ made?
A: A Decision for Christ is made, not according to His own purpose and grace which was given to me in Christ Jesus before the world began, but according to the exercise of my own Free Will in saying the Sinner's Prayer in my own words.

7. Q: If it be true then that man is responsible for this Decision, how then can God be sovereign?
A: He cannot be. God sovereignly chose not to be sovereign, and is therefore dependent upon me to come to Him for salvation. He standeth outside the door of my heart, forlornly knocking, until such time as I Decide to let Him in.

8. Q: How then can we make such a Decision, seeing that the Scripture saith, we are dead in our trespasses and sins?
A: By this the Scripture meaneth, not that we are dead, but only that we are sick or injured in them.

9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner's Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.

10. Q: What is thy story? What is thy song?
A: Praising my Savior all the day long.

11. Q: You ask me how I know he lives?
A: He lives within my heart.

12. Q: And what else hast thou got in thine heart?
A: I've got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart.

13. Q: Where??
A: Down in my heart!

14. Q: Where???
A: Down in my heart!!

15. Q: What witness aid hath been given us as a technique by which we may win souls?
A: The tract known commonly as the Four Spiritual Laws, is the chief aid whereby we may win souls.

16. Q: What doth this tract principally teach?
A: The Four Spiritual Laws principally teach, that God's entire plan for history and the universe centereth on me, and that I am powerful enough to thwart His divine purpose if I refuse to let Him pursue His Wonderful Plan for my life.

17. Q: What supplementary technique is given by which we may win souls?
A: The technique of giving our own Personal Testimony, in the which we must always be ready to give an answer concerning the years we spent in vanity and pride, and the wretched vices in which we wallowed all our lives until the day we got saved.

18. Q: I'm so happy, what's the reason why?
A: Jesus took my burden all away!

19. Q: What are the means given whereby we may large crowds of souls in a spectacular manner?
A: Such a spectacle is accomplished by means of well-publicized Crusades and Revivals which (in order that none may be loath to attend) are best conducted anywhere else but in a Church.

20. Q: Am I a soldier of the Cross?
A: I am a soldier of the Cross if I join Campus Crusade, Boys' Brigade, the Salvation Army, or the Wheaton Crusaders; of if I put on the helmet of Dispensationalism, the breastplate of Pietism, the shield of Tribulationism, and the sword of Zionism, having my feet shod with the gospel of Arminianism.

21. Q: Who is your boss?
A: My boss is a Jewish carpenter.

22. Q: Hath God predestined vessels of wrath to Hell?
A: God hath never performed such an omnipotent act, for any such thing would not reflect His primary attribute, which is Niceness.

23. Q: What is sanctification?
A: Sanctification is the work of my free Will, whereby I am renewed by having my Daily Quiet Time.

24. Q: What rule hath God for our direction in prayer?
A: The rule that we must bow our hands, close our heads, and fold our eyes.

25. Q: What doth the Lord's Prayer teach us?
A: The Lord's Prayer teacheth us that we must never memorize a prayer, or use one that hath been written down.

26. Q: What's the book for thee?
A: The B-I-B-L-E.

27. Q: Which are among the first books which a Christian should read to his soul's health?
A: Among the first books which a Christian should read are the books of Daniel and Revelation, and The Late Great Planet Earth.

28. Q: Who is on the Lord's side?
A: He who doth support whatsoever is done by the nation of Israel, and who doth renounce the world, the flesh, and the Catholic Church.

29. Q: What are the seven deadly sins?
A: The seven deadly sins are smoking, drinking, dancing, card-playing, movie-going, baptizing babies, and having any creed but Christ.

30. Q: What is a sacrament?
A: A sacrament is an insidious invention devised by the Catholic Church whereby men are drawn into idolatry.

31. Q: What is the Lord's Supper?
A: The Lord's Supper is a dispensing of saltines and grape juice, in the which we remember Christ's command to pretend that they are His body and
blood.

32. Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is the act whereby, by the performance of something that seems quite silly in front of everyone, I prove that I really, really mean it.

33. Q: What is the Church?
A: The Church is the tiny minority of individuals living at this time who have Jesus in their hearts, and who come together once a week for a sermon, fellowship and donuts.

34. Q: What is the office of the keys?
A: The office of the keys is that office held by the custodian.

35. Q: What meaneth "The Priesthood Of All Believers"?
A: The Priesthood Of All Believers meaneth that there exists no authority in the Church, as that falsely thought to be held by elders, presbyters, deacons, and bishops, but that each individual Christian acts as his own authority in all matters pertaining to the faith.

36. Q: Who is the Holy Spirit?
A: The Holy Spirit is a gentleman Who would never barge in.

37. Q: How long hath the Holy Spirit been at work?
A: The Holy Spirit hath been at work for more than a century: expressly, since the nineteenth-century Revitalization brought about by traveling Evangelists carrying tents across America.

38. Q: When will be the "Last Days" of which the Bible speaketh?
A: The "Last Days" are these days in which we are now living, in which the Antichrist, the Beast, and the Thief in the Night shall most certainly appear.

39. Q: What is the name of the event by which Christians will escape these dreadful entities?
A: The event commonly known as the Rapture, in the which it is our Blessed Hope that all cars driven by Christians will suddenly have no drivers.

40. Q: When is Jesus coming again?
A: Maybe morning, maybe noon, maybe evening, and maybe soon.

41. Q: When the roll, roll, roll, is called up yonder, where will you be?
A: There.

42. Q: Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!
A: Praise ye the Lord!

43. Q: Praise ye the Lord!
A: Hallelujah!

44. Q: Where will we meet again?
A: Here, there, or in the air.

45. Q: What can a pastor say while all heads are bowed?
A. Yes, I see that hand.

46. Q. How is a person saved?
A. If you walk this aisle…”

47. Q. And what requirement is there if you should fall into sin?
A. You just need to rededicate your life to God.

48. Q: Can I hear an Ay-men?
A: Ay-men.

Ignatius, the Cool Youth Pastor

A little mockery of the "cool" youth pastor. Leaving aside, of course, the question of whether or not there should even be "youth pastors".... Another one found on Doug Wilson's blog.

Martha Stewart's Inhospitality

John Barach notes that Martha Stewart is less concerned about hospitality than she is about impressing people:

http://barach.us/2009/06/01/the-trouble-with-martha/

Africa and Western Paternalism

It has become a commonplace in intellectual circles these days to state that the West, namely Europe and North America, are gradually dying; that we are in a time of transition, and that the center of power, wealth, and culture is shifting to the East. Some of us are late to the party, however, as the death of the West was prophesied long before now. As far back as 1948, Richard Weaver, in his landmark book Ideas Have Consequences, stated in his opening sentence, "This is another book about the dissolution of the West." This is a great source of fear for some, but for the Christian there should be no fear. God is Sovereign, and has promised to bring His plan for the world to completion, even through what appears to us to be the darkest of days. For that matter, to assert that the West has nailed everything intellectually and culturally is a manifestation of a Perfectionist spirit, which I suspect comes not out of the Wesleyanism from which we derive the term, but rather from Roman Catholicism, which has largely been the backbone of Western Culture since Constantine. If the Church is infallible, then who can help but look upon all other cultures with pity? But neither the Western Church, nor the culture it built, are infallible, and so one can't be surprised that declension should take place, as God strengthens the Church in other parts of the world.

Now I don't want to be misunderstood. Not all cultures are equal. I do believe that a larger measure of grace has been shown to the Western church, though we are selling the blessings we have been given down the river day by day. But as a believer in Providence, I recognize that all that is good is given by God, and no man or civilization has room to boast in itself. In addition, God is still in the process of maturing the Church, both in the East and the West (Ephesians 4), and so to assert that we in the West have arrived is arrogant and unbiblical. Lastly, as we say in the South (that is, the Southeastern U. S.), even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while, and so even non-Christian cultures can stumble upon truths which the Church either has forgotten or should have seen. And the fact that this happens should serve as an embarrassment to the Church, causing her to search and strive more diligently for Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.

It is also worth pointing out that the shift of culture toward the East is simply following the growth of the Church. As the Western missions movement has prospered over the past few centuries in the East, cultural seeds have been planted in those places, all while Western culture has gradually withered.

The West hasn't always dealt with the rest of the world in the most admirable of ways, however, though the sort of self-flagellation and attribution of blame to the West that takes place is usually over-the-top, and at times simply untrue. What I find especially interesting, though, is how Western Paternalism is implicit even in those who think they have succeeded in evading it. This came to mind as I was considering the May issue of New African Magazine recently.

I've picked up a couple of copies of New African over the past few months. Whereas I'm not often familiar with the individuals mentioned in it, I've still been able to see a different angle on Africa, along with getting an idea of how Africans (some, at least) view American and European culture.

I haven't been surprised to find that they don't always take to us so well, and the May issue of the magazine contained a couple of articles that highlighted that in intriguing ways. The first, written by a woman named Akua Djanie, is entitled "My problem with giving children their rights". She believes the problems of children in Western culture, which she fears are gradually creeping into African culture through the influence of Western media, stem from the notion of "children's rights". By the term "children's rights", she makes it clear that she does not intend to imply that children are mere property, or that the sort of abuse that children in parts of the world are subjected to is okay. Nonetheless, those things that the West often terms "rights" are far from such, according to Ms. Djanie. "As a child," she states, "the only right I had was the right to be fed, clothed and educated." She detests the disrespect that Western children feel free to express toward their elders, saying, "Imagine a child in Africa answering back to their parents and using swear words? God forbid Africa should ever turn out like that."

While this has been spread to Africa through the media, she says, "In countries such as the UK and America, I blame the state for the way children have turned out." She also sees individualism as a chief problem: "African society should not get to the stage where our individual needs overshadow all else."

Whereas those in American pop media often claim to be concerned about social issues in Africa (a claim which I'm sure is sincere for some), Ms. Djanie sees the sort of "culture" portrayed in Western media as a key problem: "As a parent raising young children in Africa, it frightens me the way we so blindly copy Western culture. Every time I go out with my sons, I lift up their shirts to make sure they are not dressed as American prisoners, with their trousers hanging from their hips. I don't allow my sons to leave the house with their underwear showing." She even goes so far as to ban certain types of Western-influenced African media from her home: "Because my children are under 18 years old, Nigerian movies have been banned in my home because I believe they portray the negative side of African culture. Films portraying guns, films with foul language and sexual scenes are also not allowed." The timing of such a criticism is particularly interesting, for at the same time that New African chose to print an article that condemned, the BBC magazine Focus on Africa, in its April-June issue, chose to publish an article promoting the Nigerian movie industry.

She closes her article by reiterating her belief that the state has no say in the raising of children: "I hope the day never comes when the state takes over control of our children in Africa. Because although they may think they are doing them a favour, they are in fact doing not only the children but the whole society a great disservice."

So while the Western governments, along with the United Nations, are asserting the rights of children, claiming that these things are good and necessary, and something that needs to be pushed upon the rest of the world, at least some in Africa are accusing us of missing the point. As I read Ms. Djanie's article, I see a Biblicism that has disappeared from American culture, though we had it just fifty years ago. Whether or not she is a Christian, I do not know. But the article certainly gives one reason to think that she is.

In the same issue is an article about a new book on economic aid, entitled Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is Another Way For Africa. Written by Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian woman who has worked for both the World Bank and Goldman Sachs, the book asserts that the financial aid that non-African countries have given to African governments has proven "ineffectual and downright harmful". Among other things, Moyo claims that aid "reduces a recipient government's accountability to its citizens" and "chokes the entrepreneurial spirit". Those of us in the West who have already said these things could elaborate this way: when you teach a person to be dependent on you, you teach them to be lazy. Economic growth doesn't take place, nor does personal growth. People become ingrateful. And when a person implicitly trusts a government of fallible people, power corrupts and the government in question more and more takes advantage of and abuses the citizenry. This has been understood in the West, and at one point was well known. And yet this fact must not generally be known by Africans, as the article states that this "is not a totally new argument, but it is new to a general public in the West whose charitable impulse is to help, and generally believes that aid is beyond criticism and the only way to address the problem of poverty."

The article goes on to discuss alternative ways of bringing money into African countries, ways that do not include accepting aid. The details of this are no doubt debatable among economists. My point here, however, is simply to note that not all Africans think we are doing them a favor when we simply send money to their respective governments.

For that matter, the practice itself seems to me to be a manifestation of the Western Paternalistic mindset. In the West, we have worked hard, using the resources we have to build a great culture. I think it is rather insulting of those in the East to suggest that they need us to baby them in order for them to flourish equally well.

Now I’m not naive enough to think that a couple of articles from a magazine somehow mean that these perspectives are widely held in Africa. I would expect that there, just as in the United States, many if not most people have never even thought these issues through carefully. Nonetheless, there’s something to be said for the fact that these articles were printed in what claims to be “The bestselling pan-African magazine”. These things should be considered carefully by us, in the way we regard the East, and therefore in the policies our government promotes and which we support. If the prognosticators are correct, this may be a sign of good things to come outside of the West. Meanwhile, our hope in this is that God might show us in the West more grace, that the spiritual and cultural darkness that appears to loom before us might not actually overtake us.

A. N. Wilson Returns to the Faith

I first heard of English writer and critic A. N. Wilson on an edition of the Mars Hill Audio Journal several years ago. He had professed at one time to be a believer, but by the early nineties he had decided that Christianity was lacking in evidence, and had come to consider himself an atheist. It seems that he has now left his atheism behind, and is making, according to him, a slow return to faith:

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/conversion-experience-atheism

His citation of Mahatma Gandhi is questionable, as Gandhi wasn't a Christian. And he expresses the idea in the article that the Flood and Noah's Ark are fictional, which contradicts Scripture clearly. Nonetheless, I think it's reasonable to say he's definitely in a better position than he was when he claimed to be an atheist. Hopefully, his faith is sincerely in Jesus Christ.

I especially find his reference to aesthetics interesting. He was never a fully convinced atheist, it seems, and he found a beauty in music and literature created by believers that was unmatched in the works of atheists. This is something I wish Evangelicals would give more thought to, as Evangelical aesthetics have a tendency to be especially ugly. If there were a way to find out for sure, I think we would find that the church loses more people due to aesthetics than we realize. Take the aforementioned Jeffrey Steel, for instance, as he himself cited aesthetics as a beginning factor that led him to Rome.

Along with Steel, Wilson could certainly use our prayers. Whereas he seems to have a ways to go, he is still an example that should give us hope. So long as a person has breath, there is hope for them, for the arm of the LORD has not been shortened, that it cannot save (Isaiah 59:1).

HT: Chuck Colson - http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090507/a-n-wilson-returns-to-the-faith/index.html

Jeffrey Steel Swims the Kool-Aid Filled Tiber

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.

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).

Total Eclipse of the Heart: Literal Video Version

A friend of mine linked this on Facebook. It's too funny to be missed.

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.

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

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

Border Patrol conducts illegal search

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.

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."

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

British minister beaten by Muslims

Who says Islam isn't a peaceful religion?

http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newsdetail.php?newscode=9769

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

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 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.stm

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

A lesson from the life of Bernie Madoff

When choosing a crime to commit, take your last name into consideration first.

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.

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

Does anybody else find it ironic...

...that President Obama is giving a speech about a lean economy on Fat Tuesday?

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.