I Hear the Accuser Roar

Internet searches have turned up pieces of the hymn in various forms, but never exactly the way I learned it, nor as complete. So I thought I would post it for the benefit of others. The only tune I know for it is a contemporary one, though it is apparently an older hymn. The author was Samuel Grandy, about whom I know nothing.

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

I Hear the Accuser Roar


I hear the accuser roar,
Of ills that I have done;
I know them well, and thousands more;
Jehovah findeth none.

Sin, Satan, Death, press near,
To harass and to appall;
Let but my risen Lord appear,
Backward they go and fall.

Before, behind, around,
They set their fierce array,
To fight and force me from my ground
Along Immanuel's way.

I meet them face to face,
Through Jesus' conquest blest;
March in the triumph of His grace,
Right onward to my rest.

There, in His book I bear
A more than conq'ror's name,
A soldier, son, and fellow-heir,
Who fought and overcame.

His be the Victor's name
Who fought our fight alone;
Triumphant saints no honor claim,
Their conquest was His own.

By weakness and defeat
He won the meed and crown
Trod all our foes beneath His feet,
By being trodden down.

He hell in hell laid low;
Made sin, he sin o'erthrew;
Bowed to the grave, destroyed it so,
And death, by dying, slew.

Bless, bless the Conq'ror slain!
Slain in His victory!
Who lived, who died, who lives again,
For thee, His Church, for Thee!

Marginalia by Billy Collins

Sometimes the notes are ferocious,
skirmishes against the author
raging along the borders of every page
in tiny black script.
If I could just get my hands on you,
Kierkegaard, or Conor Cruise O'Brien,
they seem to say,
I would bolt the door and beat some logic into your head.

Other comments are more offhand, dismissive -
"Nonsense." "Please!" "HA!!" -
that kind of thing.
I remember once looking up from my reading,
my thumb as a bookmark,
trying to imagine what the person must look like
who wrote "Don't be a ninny"
alongside a paragraph in The Life of Emily Dickinson.

Students are more modest
needing to leave only their splayed footprints
along the shore of the page.
One scrawls "Metaphor" next to a stanza of Eliot's.
Another notes the presence of "Irony"
fifty times outside the paragraphs of A Modest Proposal.

Or they are fans who cheer from the empty bleachers,
Hands cupped around their mouths.
"Absolutely," they shout
to Duns Scotus and James Baldwin.
"Yes." "Bull's-eye." "My man!"
Check marks, asterisks, and exclamation points
rain down along the sidelines.

And if you have managed to graduate from college
without ever having written "Man vs. Nature"
in a margin, perhaps now
is the time to take one step forward.

We have all seized the white perimeter as our own
and reached for a pen if only to show
we did not just laze in an armchair turning pages;
we pressed a thought into the wayside,
planted an impression along the verge.

Even Irish monks in their cold scriptoria
jotted along the borders of the Gospels
brief asides about the pains of copying,
a bird singing near their window,
or the sunlight that illuminated their page-
anonymous men catching a ride into the future
on a vessel more lasting than themselves.

And you have not read Joshua Reynolds,
they say, until you have read him
enwreathed with Blake's furious scribbling.

Yet the one I think of most often,
the one that dangles from me like a locket,
was written in the copy of Catcher in the Rye
I borrowed from the local library
one slow, hot summer.
I was just beginning high school then,
reading books on a davenport in my parents' living room,
and I cannot tell you
how vastly my loneliness was deepened,
how poignant and amplified the world before me seemed,
when I found on one page

a few greasy looking smears
and next to them, written in soft pencil -
by a beautiful girl, I could tell,
whom I would never meet -
"Pardon the egg salad stains, but I'm in love."

Buttprints in the Sand

From Greensboro's own Charlie and Ruth Jones, better known as Peculiar People - http://www.peculiarpeople.com/ - a spoof of the sentimentalistic and theologically dubious poem "Footprints in the Sand":

Buttprints in the Sand

One night I had a wondrous dream
One set of footprints there was seen
The footprints of my precious Lord
But mine were not along the shore.

But then some strange prints appeared
I asked the Lord, "What have we here?"
Those prints are large and round and neat
"But Lord, they are too big for feet."

"My child," He said in somber tones
"For miles I carried you along
I challenged you to walk in faith
But you refused and made me wait."

"You disobeyed, you would not grow
The walk of faith you would not know
So I got tired, I got fed up
And there I dropped you on your butt."

"Because in life there comes a time
When one must fight and one must climb
When one must rise and take a stand
Or leave their butt prints in the sand."

Greensboro, the Gospel, and the International Civil Rights Center

As those of you who live in the Greensboro area know, the International Civil Rights Center was to finally open this weekend, after a long time of planning, and following no small measure of controversy. My knowledge of what has been going on the past couple of years with regard to the Center has been limited. And I have made no attempts to follow the controversy, though, working with the public as I do, I can hardly avoid hearing a little bit about it. The opening of the Center was to be celebrated by a number of events, which were to be attended by a handful of African-American celebrities. I expect, however, that since Greensboro has been hit with a fairly heavy snow storm this weekend, not all the events have gone on as scheduled. It's rather strange for us to get this much snow, and disappointing for the event organizers, I don't doubt.

Greensboro was a fairly important player in the civil rights movement in the sixties. Those not familiar with the history can read about it here:

http://library.uncg.edu/dp/crg/

Growing up here as I did, I learned about the civil rights movement through history class in grade school. And living here most of my life since, I've also learned that not everyone was happy about it then, and many still aren't. It seems pretty clear that Greensboro is still an area of great racial tension. I follow Greensboro politics little (as I actually don't live in the city, but just outside), but enough to notice how this tension has manifested itself in the past few elections, as well as in the meetings of the city council.

The most familiar event, and most celebrated, of the civil rights movement, was the famous sit-ins at the Woolworth lunch counter in 1960. What is lesser known - entirely unknown to me, until a few years ago - is the street demonstrations of 1963. In some sense, it was actually the events of '63 that made it possible for African-Americans to begin to participate in all the aspects of society that White citizens had access to. Here is a good intro to those events:

http://library.uncg.edu/dp/crg/topicalessays/busdesegprotest.aspx

I first learned of the demonstrations of 1963 through a class on Southern History after the Civil War that I took at UNCG a few years back. We were required to do an oral presentation on one of a handful of topics relating to the civil rights movement in Greensboro, and I chose the events of '63 at random. This led to my finding my way into a largely neglected (but very nice, I might note) part of the UNCG library where microfilm of Greensboro's newspapers - formerly the Greensboro News (sold in the morning) and the Greensboro Record (sold in the afternoon) - were kept stored.

What was especially interesting for me as I searched through several days of newspaper was coming across something I didn't expect. I ran upon a response to the demonstrations, published around the beginning of June '63 in one of the Greensboro papers (I failed to make a note of which one, sadly), and written by a handful of local Christian men, who were more than likely all ministers. (I say more than likely because I am only familiar with two of the names - H. G. Mackay and Roy Putnam, both of whom were ministers in the area: Forest Avenue Tabernacle - now Shannon Hills Bible Chapel - and Trinity Church, respectively. Though I would assume that the other men were ministers as well, I can't say for sure.)

Their response took the form of a doctrinal statement, and is worth the reading, especially for those who are from or live in Greensboro. You will find it posted below. While I might differ with a minor point here or there, I would agree with it, and that almost wholeheartedly. It articulates something that desperately needs to be considered again in Greensboro today and which, I suspect, rarely is by those who regularly seek to take the reigns of power in Greensboro. You can fight for your rights and for the rights of others all you want. But if the Gospel is left out, your warring will be disastrous, for yourself as well as for others. The civil rights movement has usually been accompanied by a pseudo-Christian belief and church life that affirms a "Social Gospel", which is no Gospel at all. I'm in favor of honoring one's heritage, and the liberation that God has given the African-American community is something to praise Him for. But if the worship of Christ and the preaching of the True Gospel are to be replaced by the worship of one's own racial cause, then that is idolatry, something God doesn't take lightly. And ultimately, the Gospel entails the tearing down of racial divisions, not the establishing of them. Hopefully, the International Civil Rights Center won't just be another Tower of Babel. Considering Greensboro's recent history, I can't say I'm particularly encouraged that that will be the case.

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

A Statement of Evangelical Concern

We, the undersigned, as individual believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, desire, in view of the racial tensions now distressing our city and nation, to set forth the following statement of evangelical concern:


1. Our only recourse in this or any problem is to the God of the Bible and the Lord of History. Because He is the One with Whom we have to do, we "cease from man" and every human solution. We also bow to the truth that "God is no respecter of persons." He plays no racial favorites, but all men are accountable to Him, their Creator and Judge, on the basis of their common humanity. (Ps. 60:11, Jer. 3:23, Acts 10:34, Rom. 14:14.)

2. The humanity which men share, however, has been deeply dyed by sin with the result that they are estranged both from God and from each other. No longer do they view their fellows, as God does, without partiality. Rather do their sinful natures express themselves by an inborn pride which glories, among other things, in racial distinctions. (Rom. 3:23, Is. 59:2, Luke 18:11, John 4:9.)

3. We must acknowledge that the current unrest had its origin in the sin of our forefathers, North and South, who for their own selfish ends brought an unwilling people to these shores. Furthermore, we admit that we too bear a measure of blame, for we have been reluctant to face the spiritual implications of the gulf existing between the races.

4. Because we know our own hearts and because we believe God's Word, we can see no permanent solution arising out of man's efforts to right wrongs and conciliate grievances. Human attempts to bring the races together in Northern cities have only compounded the problem. There racial pride has been driven underground - by legislation, executive order and judicial decision - only to reappear in subtler forms and uglier guises. (Job 14:4, Matt. 12:43-45, John 15:5, II Cor. 3:5)

5. We submit that the only Scriptural hope for any lasting reconciliation between men is to be found, not in one race demanding justice from another race, but in individuals of both races humbling themselves as sinners and claiming the grace of God in Christ. In that act they will experience what Christ described as a Second Birth, with the changing of heart attitudes and the redirecting of personal motives. We do not claim that the new Birth will automatically resolve all tensions but that it alone opens up the possibility of a true solution. (John 3:3, II Cor. 5:17, Gal. 3:28, Col. 3:11)

6. In support of this claim we point to the decisive results of the Great Evangelical Awakening which came to England two centuries ago. When that nation was poised on the precipice of a bloody social revolution, hundreds of thousands in all classes experienced the New Birth. As a direct consequence the whole atmosphere of English life was improved and the needed reforms peacefully introduced. Nor was it a coincidence that the Emancipation of the slaves, first in the British Empire and then in the United States, owed its inspiration to William Wilberforce, a product of the Awakening.

7. It is our deep conviction that the living God is speaking to Greensboro through its present troubles. He it is Who, more that any racial group, is shaking the foundations and calling the citizens of this city to repentence and saving faith in His eternal Son. Increasingly the message of a Savior slain and risen has been “despised and rejected” by both Negroes and Whites in favor of manmade programs of social betterment. Now, with these failing, God would summon us back to the redeeming Cross around which men of both races can stand together on level ground. (Acts 20:21: I Cor. 1:23,24; Eph. 2:13, 14.)

A. L. Parker
Roy C. Putnam
Frederick W. Evans, Jr.
H. G. Mackay
James A. Raines
R. Harold Mangham
Russ A. Heyne
Edwin L. Smithwick.

Four Approaches to Interpreting the Book of the Revelation

This is the last of the prepatory notes designed to precede our study of Revelation. My goal was to give short definitions of the four positions, and offer a brief critique of the three views I disagree with. Brevity was a chief goal here, as you will notice. Of all the sets of notes I've prepared recently, these cover the subject of which I'm the least knowledgeable, particularly with regard to Idealism and Historicism. I trust those of you who are more familiar with these positions will offer your thoughts if you feel I have misrepresented them.

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

Four Views of Revelation

American satirist Ambrose Bierce accurately reflected the sentiments of many who have attempted to make sense of the last book of the Bible when, in his book The Devil's Dictionary, he defined "Revelation" as "a famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing." Such cynicism is understandable, in light of Revelation's complexity. And yet, if we are to take Paul's words seriously when he says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16), then to allow such cynicism to keep us away from a deep study of the book is inexcusable.

Acknowledging this, of course, doesn't make the task any easier. There have through the years been endless attempts to come to a conclusive, systematic understanding of the book. From these many attempts, however, have emerged four dominant approaches. A consideration of these before examining the book itself should prove helpful in our own study.


I.) Futurism

Futurism is the view that holds that the major portion of Revelation (from chapter 4 to the end of the book) has yet to be fulfilled in history, and will be fulfilled at the end of the current age. The seven year Tribulation, the coming of the Beast, the last battle, the Millennium, and other common themes of Bible prophecy, have yet to happen. This view is the majority view in the church today, as the majority of the church is Dispensational. Not all Futurists, however, are Dispensationalists.

Because of its wholly future nature, Futurism is subject to "newspaper exegesis". Each generation of Futurists, when encountering the evil of the world around them, has a tendency to come to the conclusion that they must be living in the "last days". The fruit of this is a proclivity to attempt to fit current events into prophetic passages, often resulting in bizarre and even humorous interpretations. Any political leader, for instance, who finds himself with an unusual amount of influence on world events is subject to the suspicion of being the Beast of Revelation 17. Yet while Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, and Ronald Reagan have all returned to dust, Futurism continues to try to put the pieces of the puzzle together, ignoring all its prior failures to predict the happenings of the end of days.


II.) Historicism

Historicism teaches that the central portion of Revelation is an unfolding of the course of history from the establishing of the Church until the Second Coming of Christ. Certain elements in Revelation are regarded as corresponding to specific historical events, such as the destruction of Rome, the rise of Islam, and the Protestant Reformation. A key aspect of the Historicist view is the belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, and that the Papacy is the Beast. Historicism was the view held by the vast majority of Protestant theologians up until the 19th century. It is in our time probably the least commonly held of the four positions.

When it comes to the obstacles this position faces, Historicism suffers from much the same problem as Futurism. While one might comfortably align passages with historical events from earlier centuries, the struggle comes when one seeks to find one's own era in Revelation. The Reformers thought that the end of the Church age would be soon and, seeing themselves freed from "the Beast", thought that they would certainly be entering the Millennium very shortly. And yet, as its predictions have failed, Historicism has undergone repeated revision. This state of flux has no doubt been a contributing factor to the majority of interpreters abandoning this approach.


III.) Idealism

The Idealist approach (also known as the Spiritualist approach) sees Revelation as a series of allegories of the life of the Christian and the Church. Rather than attaching the events in the book to specific historical occurrences, Idealism views Revelation as containing images of the struggles every Christian goes through in life, or that individual churches will experience in history. These are to be taken as a source of encouragement. Idealism is a common view in our time, particularly among Amillennialists.

While it is proper to look to Revelation for examples of how to conduct oneself in the world, to reduce it in all its complexity to mere moral lessons seems to dishonor the text. Would God really give us such details, only to have them correspond to nothing in particular? For God to everywhere in Scripture be concerned about place, matter, and history, to then give us a book that has no link to these things, seems to me to be incongruent with His character as Scripture reveals it to us.


IV.) Preterism

Preterism teaches that the majority of the Revelation was fulfilled in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A. D. Building off of and fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, Revelation shows God bringing destruction upon Israel and specifically Jerusalem for her repeated failure to trust and obey Him, which culminated in her rejection of her Messiah. While it is still a minority view, Preterism has become more common in recent years.

There have been attempts at combining the above views in various ways. Most common is the attempt to combine elements of Preterism with Idealism, such as is done by Hank Hanegraaff. Nonetheless, these four are the major views taught in the church today.

Dispensationalism Notes

The following is my brief examination of Dispensationalism that we went over in our Bible study group a couple of months ago. I got mixed reviews on it, and that's why I didn't initially put it on here. But after some thought, I decided to post it anyway. Let me note a couple of things as a preface to it.

First, it isn't the best writing I've ever done. So if you're thinking that as you read it, be comforted that I think that as well. Secondly, one can hardly leave their house nowadays without stepping on a Dispensationalist. Though the system is becoming more and more discredited by actual scholars, the average layman still believes Dispensationalism to some extent, though he may not be able to identify it as such. Consequently, any number of Dispensationalists may read this and say, "that isn't my position." But the goal here is mainly to represent Classic Dispensationalism, as taught by people such as Lewis Sperry Chafer and C. I. Scofield, not the hybrid systems that most individuals hold to today. The reader may think what I have written is overly harsh, or a misrepresentation of the system. But what I have presented here is accurate, I would contend, and I have been much gentler than one finds in critics such as John Gerstner, Cornelis van der Waal, Lorraine Boettner, Hank Hanegraaff, Reginald Kimbro, or Michael Williams. It is true that I have brought up some radical issues at times. But whereas I did not provide references to substantiate my claims, anyone wishing to track them down may consult the aforementioned authors.

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

In the life of the Church there have been various approaches to understanding God's way of working in the world through time. An exhaustive study of this would be impossible, even after a lifetime of research. Nonetheless, certain approaches have been more generally accepted, and therefore an examination of them is not only profitable but necessary.

Two views on God's overarching plan for the universe stand out in particular: Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.


I. Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism originated around 1830 in the British Isles. While elements of the system emerged from various teachers of the Plymouth Brethren movement, its main systematizer was John Nelson Darby. In the United States, Dispensationalism was disseminated largely through the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible. Eventually the system became the predominant approach to interpreting the Scriptures among Christians in the United States.

Dispensationalism teaches that God's working in the world is carried out in a series of dispensations or stewardships. At the initiation of each dispensation, God comes to man and gives man a fresh revelation of Himself. Man is then faced with new obligations before God, through which God tests the faithfulness of man. So long as man is obedient, the dispensation continues and man is blessed. But in each dispensation, it is said, man inevitably fails, bringing God's judgment upon himself.

There is disagreement among Dispensationalists on how many dispensations there will be. But the majority, drawing off of the writings of C. I. Scofield, hold that there will be a total of seven dispensations:

1.) Innocence - from Creation to the Fall
2.) Conscience - from the Fall to the Flood
3.) Human Government - from the Flood to Babel
4.) Promise - from Abraham to Egypt
5.) Law - from Moses to Christ's 1st Advent
6.) Grace - from Christ's 1st Advent to His 2nd Advent
7.) Millennium - from Christ's 2nd Advent to the Final Judgment

But while an ordering of history by a scheme of dispensations is a key feature of Dispensationalism, it is not the most important feature. The most important feature of Dispensationalism is the distinction it makes between Israel and the Church. Israel and the Church are considered to be as unmixable as oil and water. The distinctions that Dispensationalists make between the two groups are numerous. Chiefly, Israel is regarded as a physical and earthly people, whereas the Church is regarded as a spiritual and heavenly people. All other distinctions between the two arise from these.

Dispensationalists claim that God's primary concern in the history of the world is Israel. And so when Christ first came to earth, His purpose was to set up His kingdom in the earthly Jerusalem, as promised by God through the prophets. And yet Israel crucified him, having rejected His offer to rule over them.

Having risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, Jesus Christ now sits as a rejected Messiah. The kingdom is postponed until His second coming, at which time He will set up His reign in Jerusalem as He sought to do in His first coming.

So what, according to Dispensationalists, is the time we are living in now? This is the Dispensation of Grace, also known as the Church Age. Since Israel has rejected His legitimate offer, Christ has set Israel aside and has inaugurated the Church. The Church is not God's primary concern; Israel is. And so some Dispensationalists have gone so far as to refer to the Church as "God's Plan B". The Church Age is regularly considered and referred to by Dispensationalists as a "parenthesis" in God's prophetic scheme.

The Church, we are told, is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. They say that the Church was entirely hidden and unknown prior to its being revealed by Christ during His earthly ministry. And so all the prophecies in the Old Testament apply only to the nation of Israel and her interaction with the Gentile nations considered apart from the Church.

Since there are, in the Dispensational scheme, O.T. prophecies yet to be fulfilled, and the Church is not in them, and since God can only deal with one "people" at a time, then the Church must be taken out of the world before God can begin His work with Israel again. Hence, Dispensationalists propose that the Rapture occurs prior to the Tribulation.

In the Tribulation, Israel, God's first love, will return fully to the land of Israel and be restored as a nation. During that time, the Antichrist will arise and rule the world, until Christ returns and destroys the Antichrist and all those who aligned themselves with him.

One of the features of this idea of the reconstituted Israel that has come under critique by non-Dispensationalists has been the belief that Solomon's Temple will be rebuilt, in which the O.T. sacrificial system will be reinstated. The sacrifices will not only exist during the Tribulation, but will continue throughout the Millennium. This is believed, in spite of the fact that the Messiah, whom the sacrifices were originally instituted to point forward to, will Himself be seated on David's throne in Jerusalem. This is also criticized by non-Dispensationalists because of the Book of Hebrews' teaching that in His death Christ fulfilled all the types of the O.T. sacrifices through his once-for-all sacrifice, and actually propitiated sins, which Hebrews tells us the O.T. sacrifices could never do.

At the end of the Tribulation, Christ will return with the Church, will destroy His enemies, and will set up His Kingdom in Jerusalem, from where He will rule the earth for a thousand years. This is the Millennium, the seventh dispensation. In the Dispensational scheme, this means that believers who were raptured and therefore already have their resurrected, perfected bodies will dwell on earth and live forever, while those saved during the Tribulation will die and be buried. Non-dispensationalist theologians, of course, have noted the strange nature of this arrangement fairly regularly in their critiques. It would also seem contrary to the Israel-Church distinction to have the Church return with Christ and dwell on the earth with Israel, when the Church is considered a non-earthly people. Some have proposed, however, that after the Millennium, when God creates a New Heavens and a New Earth, Israel will inhabit the new Earth for eternity, whereas the Church will inhabit the new Heavens for eternity. And so the two groups will remain forever separate.

Classical Dispensationalism differs from historic orthodox Christianity on so many points that Dispensationalists have found themselves having to defend their doctrines fairly regularly since their system emerged in the 19th century. Here are a few more controversial ideas found in Dispensationalism.

1.) Classical Dispensationalism sees the world as ruled by Satan. They define the world as the works of man apart from God, which to them includes practically all aspects of culture. Sometimes, however, Dispensational theologians have slipped into condemning the material universe altogether, thus falling into the ancient heresy of Dualism, which states that all matter is evil. In condemning all culture, the result among consistent Dispensationalists has been to withdraw from society to a large extent, which in turn has led to the creation of the Christian subculture.

2.) Classical Dispensationalism sees man as made up of three parts: soul, spirit, and body. Historic Christianity regards man as composed of two parts: spirit and body. The latter view is called Dichotomy. The former view is called Trichotomy, and was condemned in the theology of Apollinaris by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

3.) Classical Dispensationalism has often been confusing in many ways when it comes to the doctrine of salvation. Historic orthodox Christianity teaches that man does not achieve favor before God (that is, salvation) by good works. And yet, good works accompany salvation in such a way that no person who is without good works will be saved. In other words, good works are the natural and necessary result of salvation, not the cause of it. Dispensationalism takes these distinctions and reverses them.

On the one hand, Dispensationalism makes a strong distinction between a Christian's position in Christ and his practice before Christ. A person may be saved, they say, and his position in Christ is therefore secure. And yet that person in practice may be living in total rebellion against God. This also shows up in the distinction between the "spiritual" Christian and the "carnal" Christian. A "spiritual" Christian is one who is saved and living according to God's word; a "carnal" Christian is one who is saved but is living contrary to God's word.

On the other hand, some Dispensationalists have fallen into teaching that the people of God have been saved in different ways in different dispensations. In particular, certain statements made by C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, suggested the belief that, whereas people in the Church Age are saved by grace, those who lived in the Age of Law were saved by good works. Later Dispensationalists have denied that their system teaches different ways of salvation, and have sought to prove that this is not what Scofield and Chafer believed. Nonetheless, no small measure of confusion on this exists in their writings.


Dispensationalism has gradually changed since its inception, as its adherents, through dialogue with non-dispensationalists, have sought to correct its more egregious errors to bring it more in line with historic Christianity. This is most notable in the school of thought known as Progressive Dispensationalism. Progressives view the dispensations as progressively building one on another (hence the name) through time, in contrast with the Classical Dispensational view, which sees each new dispensation as an entirely new era of God's dealing with man. Progressives believe, along with Covenantal theologians, that Christ is now seated on David's throne in heaven, though they believe in a future Millennium. They also see the Church and Israel in a more united fashion, though they maintain that certain promises made to Israel remain Israel's alone.

While Progressive Dispensationalism has gradually grown through the past twenty years of its existence, it has yet to make many inroads into local churches, its impact being felt moreso at this point at the seminary level. The vast majority of Evangelical churches still hold to Classical Dispensationalism as I have outlined it here, though they may not hold to every detail. And while the differences between Classical and Progressive Dispensationalism are so great that many consider Progressives to not even be Dispensationalists, they still maintain enough of traditional Dispensationalism that they cannot be considered Covenantal.

The Millennium

The following is a continuation of our study of eschatology. I wrote it about a month ago, and we finally read and discussed it tonight. Having re-read it now, I think it was moderately well done. The goal in presenting this to the group was not an extensive discussion of millennial views, so much as it was a cursory overview, sufficient to prepare everyone for a detailed Bible study on Revelation. It gets a little sarcastic at times. And rather than making fun of Dispensationalism, as is my custom, I decided this time to pick on Amillennialists a little bit. Feel free to post your comments.

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

The Millennium


One of the unique aspects of this moment in Church history is the amount of detailed attention given to eschatology, also known as the study of last things. While there have always been plenty of theories on the end of the world, both in Christian and pagan cultures, never before have there been positions so neatly defined and distinguished such as we have now, particularly in Christian theology. Whether or not the theologians have successfully gotten at Scripture's teaching on the end times is, as is the case with most everything, still a matter of debate. For now, we have a handful of choices to make in navigating the eschatological waters, and only history will tell which theologians are the closest to the truth.

It is a testimony to the strangeness of the Christian Church that in categorizing various views on the end times, we would begin by going to the most complicated and highly symbolic book in Scripture, choose one number out of the many in the text, translate the word for it into a dead language, and make it the hinge on which everything else turns. And yet this is, in fact, the current state of affairs in the study of Biblical prophecy. Inquire of anyone who is moderately theologically cognizant as to what their view of the end times is, and they will more than likely respond that they are either Premillennial, Amillennial, or Postmillennial. Derived from Revelation 20:1-7, the word "millennium" is the Latin Vulgate translation of the Greek word "chilia", both of which mean "one thousand". No other passage anywhere in Scripture, outside of these few verses in Rev. 20, speaks of Christ reigning for a thousand years. And so some theologians have reasonably asked whether it is wise to make so much of such a unique passage. Whatever the answer to this may be, the state of affairs in eschatology is such that naming one's millennial view is the starting place for interpreting the rest of Biblical prophecy.

We have already named the three basic millennial positions above. For each, however, there are two common variations, bringing the total to six. We will survey each in turn, taking note of some similarities and contrasts along the way.


I. Premillennialism

Premillennialism in its simplest form is the view that Christ's Second Coming is to occur prior to the establishing of His Kingdom upon the earth. And yet more is included in the idea of Premillennialism than this, as we will see. There are essentially two forms of Premillennialism: Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism.

A. Historic Premillennialism

Historic Premillennialism is called such because it is a view attributed to certain of the early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian. Because of this, Historic Premillennialists have often stated that their view is the single view of the early church. And yet much evidence has surfaced over the past few years to suggest that there was a greater measure of diversity among the early theologians on eschatology, and that the more prominent view among them might have been more along the lines of Postmillennialism or Amillennialism. Nonetheless, the name remains.

The basic outline of Historic Premillennialism is as follows:

- Christ is now reigning in Heaven, and yet the full establishment of His reign as David’s heir will not occur until His Second Coming.

- The current age in which we live will be one predominantly characterized by defeat, as the Church’s attempts to spread the Gospel and influence the world for good will be overwhelmingly thwarted by Satan’s work.

- As the Second Coming approaches, the world will grow more and more wicked. The Great Tribulation will begin at the end of the age, and the Antichrist will arise to dominate the world.

- Christ will return at the end of the Tribulation, defeat all His enemies, bind Satan and throw him into the Lake of Fire, and set up His throne in Jerusalem. His reign, most say, will be for a literal one thousand years. This will be a period of worldwide peace and prosperity.

- At the end of the thousand years, Satan will be released, and he will lead a revolt against Christ. God will send fire from heaven, which will consume all the enemies of Christ.

- God will then make a new heavens and a new earth, and the eternal state will begin.

B. Dispensational Premillennialism

Dispensational Premillennialism agrees largely with Historic Premillennialism, only allowing for Dispensationalism’s unique views on the Church and Israel. Whereas Historic Premillennialism holds that there is one people of God through the history of the world, Dispensationalism teaches that there are two peoples of God. And so Dispensationalism generally teaches that the Church will be raptured prior to the Tribulation, while Historic Premillennialism teaches that all those living at the end of the age will go through the Tribulation, including the Church.


II. Amillennialism

The term “amillennial” literally means “no thousand”, and whether or not Amillennialists believe that there is no thousand year reign of Christ depends on which one of them you ask. Some Amillennialists claim that the reign of Christ in Revelation 20 refers strictly to the reign of Christ in the hearts of the elect through Church history. Some say that it is the reign of Christ with the departed believers in Heaven. And some say that it is His reign in His Church on earth. Generally speaking, Amillennialists agree that the thousand years is a symbolic number, referring to the period of time between the first and second comings of Christ. And yet it is not uncommon to hear Amillennialists, seeking to distance themselves from both Premillennialism and Postmillennialism, say, “there is no one thousand year reign of Christ”.

There are two forms of Amillennialism. One we will call Pessimistic Amillennialism, and the other Optimistic Amillennialism.

A. Pessimistic Amillennialism

Pessimistic Amillennialism in its basic form looks like this:

- When Christ ascended to Heaven forty days after His resurrection, He took the throne of David in Heaven, where He reigns until His second coming.

- During the period in between the two comings, the righteous and the unrighteous will both dwell together in the world, neither having particularly greater sway over society than the other. The Church’s efforts in spreading the Gospel will have mediocre success, despite the fact that Satan is bound during this period.

- Toward the end of the Millennium, evil will grow worse and worse, culminating in a great tribulation

- Christ will return, destroy His enemies, and a new heaven and a new earth will be created.

B. Optimistic Amillennialism

Optimistic Amillennialism is a very new term in eschatology. As of yet, there have been no lengthy systematic works written to defend it, and so laying out the position in any detail is currently impossible. It largely follows the pattern of Pessimistic Amillennialism, except it expects greater success for the Church in the spreading of the Gospel between the two Advents. The degree to which it expects the world to get better depends on which theologian is addressing the question. And yet one thing is for certain for all Amillennialists - there will be no “Christianization” of the world as is taught by Postmillennialism.


III. Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism is the view that leading up to the Second Coming there will be a gradual overall betterment of the world. The Gospel will be met with success as it is preached throughout the world, so much so, in fact, that when history has come to an end, the majority of people who have lived will be saved. Consequently, blessings will abound to every part of life. Peace will increase; there will be great strides in technology, the arts, politics, and every other sphere of society. These things will come slowly, however, as yeast works its way through a lump of dough. During the Millennium, Christ is reigning on the earth through His saints, who exercise His reign in their respective callings. When Christ returns, He will return after the Millennium to a world that is mostly Christianized, though not every person will be saved.

There are two basic Postmillennial views. We will call them Puritan Postmillennialism and Modern Postmillennialism.

A. Puritan Postmillennialism

I have named this view “Puritan Postmillennialism” because it is the view that was held by the vast majority of Puritans, not to mention the majority of the Protestant Church, until the 19th century. For the Puritans, the Millennium was not the entire period between Christ’s two comings. Instead, the Millennium referred to a golden age that would come toward the end of the New Covenant period. Some believed that this would be a literal one thousand years, while others did not.

B. Modern Postmillennialism

This is a variation of Postmillennialism which emerged in the 20th century, and that, like Amillennialism, saw the entire period between the first and second comings of Christ as the Millennium. Yet, unlike Amillennialism, Modern Postmillennialism holds to a more positive outcome to the influence of the Gospel in the world.


One of the problems in Eschatology that is often discussed is the question of terminology. The term “amillennial”, for instance, is a very new term, having been coined in the late 19th century. Prior to that, what we call “Amillennialism” was just a variety of Postmillennialism. Both, after all, hold the view that Christ will return after the period delineated by the “one thousand years” in Revelation 20. For this reason, some Amillennialists are quick to note their dissatisfaction with the term used to identify their view.

While these are the most common views of the end times, there are endless variations on these, due to the complexity of the subject matter. For instance, some Amillenialists believe in a future personal Antichrist, while others do not. Also, most Premillennialists believe the Millennium is exactly one thousand years long; but it’s perfectly possible to be a Premillennialist and take that number to be symbolic of an undisclosed period of time. As we continue our study, we will find the possibility of even more variations, many of which concern the Book of the Revelation itself.

A poem by John Donne, for the leaving of the old year and the coming of the new

A HYMN TO GOD THE FATHER.
by John Donne


I.
WILT Thou forgive that sin where I begun,
Which was my sin, though it were done before?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin, through which I run,
And do run still, though still I do deplore?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.

II.
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I have won
Others to sin, and made my sin their door?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallowed in a score?
When Thou hast done, Thou hast not done,
For I have more.

III.
I have a sin of fear, that when I have spun
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore ;
But swear by Thyself, that at my death Thy Son
Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore ;
And having done that, Thou hast done ;
I fear no more.

Plague Victims Catapulted Over Walls Into Besieged City - by Thomas Lux

Early germ
warfare. The dead
hurled this way look like wheels
in the sky. Look: there goes
Larry the Shoemaker, barefoot, over the wall,
and Mary Sausage Stuffer, see how she flies,
and the Hatter twins, both at once, soar
over the parapet, little Tommy's elbow bent
as if in a salute,
and his sister, Mathilde, she follows him,
arms outstretched, through the air,
just as she did
on earth.

C. S. Lewis on Theology and Devotional Literature

Now the layman or amateur needs to be instructed as well as to be exhorted. In this age his need for knowledge is particularly pressing. Nor would I admit any sharp division between the two kinds of book. For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that "nothing happens" when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.

-- C. S. Lewis, from his introduction to "On the Incarnation of the Word of God" ("De Incarnatione Verbi Dei") by St. Athanasius

And Politicians, and Televangelists, and That Snake Lucifer...

"Consul," remarked the detective, dogmatically, "great robbers always resemble honest folks. Fellows who have rascally faces have only one course to take, and that is to remain honest; otherwise they would be arrested off-hand. The artistic thing is, to unmask honest countenances; it's no light task, I admit, but a real art."

--Around the World in Eighty Days, Chapter 6, Jules Verne

The Idolatry of Rationalism

The Manicheans did no idols make
Without themselves, nor worship gods of wood,
Yet idols did in their Ideas take,
And figured Christ as on the cross he stood.
Thus did they when they earnestly did pray
Till clearer Faith this idol took away.

We seem more inwardly to know the Son
And see our own salvation in his blood
When this is said, we think the work is done
And with the Father hold our portion good,
As if true life within these words were laid
For him that in life never words obeyed.

If this be safe, it is a pleasant way,
The Cross of Christ is very easily borne;
But six days' labour makes the sabbath day,
The flesh is dead before grace can be born,
The heart must first bear witness with the book,
The earth must burn, ere we for Christ can look.

--Sonnet 89, from Caelica, by Lord Brooke Fulke Greville (1554-1628)

Covenant Theology Notes

In a Bible study I attend, we've been doing a brief overview of the two major Evangelical approaches to interpreting Scripture, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. I drew up a short overview of both approaches, and below is my overview of Covenant Theology. I also drew up notes on Dispensationalism, but they didn't turn out as well as I would have liked, and the general response I got was that they weren't as clear as they could have been, so I don't intend to post them. Our next foray into theology will be a survey of major Millennial positions, and then a survey of the four major approaches to interpreting the Book of the Revelation. I intend, Lord willing, post each of these in time. All of this is in preparation for a lengthy study of the Book of the Revelation.

The more theologically astute will note that I left out many key issues in Reformed theology, such as church government, the sacraments, family life, and worship. The reason for this surrounds the purpose of my notes. The goal was to give an overview of Covenant Theology as a hermeneutical system, and to show how it places the Gospel in the center, as opposed to Dispensationalism, which places eschatology and God's dealing with Israel at the center. My goal also was to show the unity of God's people in Christ through the Gospel, also in contrast to Dispensationalism. In these things I believe I succeeded.

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

II. Covenant Theology (or Reformed Theology)

Because of their prominence in Scripture, covenants have been a matter of discussion by theologians throughout church history. But it was the late medieval theologians who, through a more careful consideration of the covenants, laid the groundwork for the systematization of Covenant Theology under the Reformers.

While the structuring of history by covenants is a foundational matter, a more basic issue exists for Covenant Theologians. That issue is the Sovereignty of God.

What is proposed by the Sovereignty of God is the belief that all things that take place do so strictly by the will of God. Before the creation of the universe, God foreordained all that would come to pass in history. All event were decreed by God, and happen infallibly as He decreed. Included in this is the belief that God determined in advance who would or would not be saved. God has predestined certain men and women, His elect, to salvation, leaving others to perish in their sins. This predestination is not determined by the acts of men and women, but by the will of God alone (Unconditional Election).

God's foreordaining of all things in no way makes God the author of sin. Nor does it mean that the choices that people make aren't real choices. And so Covenant Theologians recognize a mystery here. God's reasons for these things He alone knows, though we can rest assured that He has done this for His own glory, as he does in all things.

Having foreordained all things, God oversees all events in history, personally directing all things that come to pass. This is known as the doctrine of Providence.

Covenant Theologians are fairly consistent on the number of covenants they believe to be taught in Scripture, holding that God established two basic covenants with mankind: the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace.

When God created Adam and Eve, He created them perfect and having positive righteousness. God gave them the responsibilities of tending the garden, ruling over the earth, and bearing children. Amid these responsibilities, God gave them one specific negative command - to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. While this command was a requirement of both Adam and Eve, God gave the command specifically to Adam. As the Federal or Covenantal Head of mankind, Adam was the representative of all humanity, and the state of mankind's relationship with God depended upon Adam's obedience to this one command. And so when Adam disobeyed and ate of the fruit of the tree, he not only fell into sin himself, but brought mankind into a state of corruption and guilt before God and plunged all of creation into sin. The will of man was bound to sin, and man in himself was unable any longer to choose good (Total Depravity).

Upon the fall of Adam, God made a new covenant with mankind, called the Covenant of Grace. In the Covenant of Grace, God promises salvation to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ, who is the Second Adam, the Federal Head of the Covenant of Grace. Prior to the coming of Christ, the salvation He would provide was foretold and administered through Scripture, as well as the types and shadows provided in history and in the law. This period before Christ's first advent was known as the Old Covenant. After Christ's coming, this salvation has been provided through Scripture, and through the worship and discipline of the Church. This period, which we now live in, is called the New Covenant. And yet there is a union to God's people in both Covenants. There is no fundamental Israel-Church distinction as in Dispensationalism. Since all who trust in Christ are in union with Him, we are in union with one another, and to divide them is to attempt to divide Christ.

Covenant theologians recognize the other covenants in Scripture such as the Noahic, the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, and the Davidic. These covenants, however, are viewed as administrations of the one covenant referred to in Scripture as the Old Covenant.

When Christ came to live and die in our place, the salvation He provided was sufficient in every way. Christ fulfilled the Law through His life, so keeping the requirements of the Covenant of Works which Adam failed to keep, and made full atonement for sins in His death. For this reason, Covenant Theologians hold the view that Christ's death was not for all people who would ever live, but for the elect alone. This view is most commonly called Limited Atonement, though some prefer the term Definite Atonement.

In time and according to God's purpose for each elect individual, God would draw that individual irresistibly to Himself (Irresistible Grace). Having been saved, that elect individual will necessarily persevere in faithfulness to God until the end of his or her life (Perseverance of the Saints). This does not mean, however, that elect individuals can never fall into serious sin, or go through a period of rebellion against God. Yet none whom God has chosen can fully and finally fall away from Him, but God sustains them in salvation, and the general tenor of that individual's life will be one of obedience to God. In Covenant Theology, there is no "Carnal Christian - Spiritual Christian" distinction. All Christians are Spiritual, and anyone who is Carnal is an unbeliever.

Covenant theologians are in agreement on certain issues regarding the end times: Christ will return, a single resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous will occur, His saints will meet Him in the air, He will destroy His enemies, there will be one final judgment, He will create a New Heavens and a New Earth, and His saints will dwell with Him forever. But beyond that, Covenant Theology allows for a broad selection of views on the end times and the interpretation of prophecy. Though there is a basic union between all people who are in Christ, some Reformed theologians have held that one feature of the end times will be that God will reestablish Israel in the land He originally gave her. It is considered out of the bounds of accepted belief, however, to believe in a reinstitution of the Temple sacrifices during the Millennium. It is also considered out of bounds to believe that Christ is not yet reigning on David's throne. No matter what one's view is on other events of the end times, all Reformed people hold that Christ took His seat as the Davidic king in His ascension, and so now reigns in Heaven.

The Wisdom of A. W. Tozer, Part 1

I've been thinking a fair bit recently about the twentieth century Christian and Missionary Alliance pastor A. W. Tozer (1897-1963). Various terms have been applied to him, such as "prophet" and "mystic", in an attempt to characterize just what a uniquely great man he was. But whatever one may call him, he was a godly man, a great Bible teacher, and especially insightful in his consideration of the interaction of the Church with secular culture. Because of his unique contributions, I thought I would start a series of quotes from Tozer, posted every now and again as I run across them. There is a great need for the Church today to interact with the wisdom of other generations, those who are not trapped in the same way of thinking that we are. A. W. Tozer, I believe, is a good one to look to.

The first quote is one of my favorites, and comes from the book Man: The Dwelling Place of God.

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

It hardly need be said that most of us are not selective enough in our reading. I have often wondered how many square yards of newsprint pass in front of the eyes of the average civilized man in the course of a year. Surely it must run into several acres; and I am afraid our average reader does not realize a very large crop of his acreage. The best advice I have heard on this topic was given by a Methodist minister. He said, "Always read your newspaper standing up." Henry David Thoreau also had a low view of the daily press. Just before leaving the city for his now-celebrated sojourn on the banks of Walden Pond, a friend asked him if he would like to have a newspaper delivered to his cottage. "No," replied Thoreau, "I have already seen a newspaper."

There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything.

Once there was a fellow who, sentenced to life without parole, found himself in the top bunk of a cell on his first night in prison. The prison was quiet until, after a while, a prisoner in a nearby cell yelled out, "34!" The whole prison erupted in laughter. After a few more minutes of silence, another prisoner called out, "56!" Again laughter broke out. A little bit later, a third prisoner yelled out, "22!" Once more, the prison echoed with laughter.

Finally, curiosity got the better of the new inmate. "What's the deal with the numbers?" he asked his cellmate. "Oh," said the cellmate, "we only know a few jokes, so we've given each joke a number. So rather than saying the whole joke, we just call out the number, and everyone knows what the joke is."

The new prisoner said to himself, "I think I'll give it a try." So he called out, "47!"

Nobody laughed.

On the bottom bunk, his cellmate mumbled to himself. "Some people just don't know how to tell a joke."

I'm around...

...I've just been too busy to blog. Working, studying Hebrew locally at Westover Church, a group book study on Calvin's Institutes, and Bible study on the basics of Eschatology, soon to move into a study of the Book of the Revelation. Hopefully I'll return to some substantial posting soon. Meanwhile, visits to the page here have been up, so thanks to all of you. Keep coming back - I'll get back into the swing of things before long.

The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry: A Movie Review

I was off work today, so I decided to run by the movie theater and check out the latest Evangelical movie making the rounds, the title of which is The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry. Since it's fresh on my mind, let me offer a few thoughts on it.

Set in small town America in 1970, the movie is based on a true story, and revolves around a young boy named Dustin, his two best friends, and an elderly man named Jonathan Sperry. Sperry takes it upon himself to strike up a friendship with Dustin and his two friends, and starts a Bible study with them, inspiring the boys to give the Gospel to others, which leads to more boys joining the Bible study. Much of the film surrounds Dustin's fascination with a young girl and his desire to date her. Then there is the town bully, who Sperry himself leads to Christ. Lastly, there is a crotchety old neighbor, whose role in the tale remains largely mysterious until the last few minutes of the film. For any who are planning on seeing the film, I will leave the rest of the plot for you to discover for yourself. Having said that, let me recommend that you don't go see this film.

In short, this is the worst film I have seen in a very long time. "Harsh words," you might say. An understandable response. I have heard from others who thought this was a fantastic film, which inspired me to go see it. I hate to question their taste, but I'm afraid it's unavoidable. My intention is neither to offend nor to stand in the way of something that might be used for the good of the kingdom of God. I just think it's time that Evangelical Christians stop supporting bad art made in the name of Christ.

And this film is bad art, if anything. Granted, there are redeeming qualities here. For one thing, the Gospel is present in the movie. One can hardly complain there. And the moral lessons of Scripture that are given are, of course, wonderful. But just as the some of the best of Evangelicalism is on display here, so is some of the worst.

First of all, the script is terrible. The dialogue was so bad it hurt (I mean that quite literally - it was painful to listen to). A disproportionate part of the film is spent listening to the three boys prattle on about Dustin's love interest, a young girl who was a classmate and who worked at a local diner that about half the film was shot in. And prattling it was. Certainly, we're talking about young boys here. And anyone can sound pretty annoying when fascination over the opposite sex kicks in. But this was incomparable. First they are in the diner, and Dustin is whining over the girl. Then they are walking across a bridge, and Dustin is whining over the girl. Then Dustin is calling his friends on the phone and whining over the girl. Then back to the diner... sheer misery. A couple of brief scenes would have been enough to get the point across. But the moping going on was beyond anything resembling masculinity, even young, immature masculinity. The movie may have been clean, but if I was the father of a boy, the last thing I would want to do would be to expose him to such garbage.

Almost all of the dialogue of the film was of this nature. Even the lessons which Sperry taught to the boys, lessons based in Scripture, were told in such a mundane fashion that they hardly resembled the depth one finds in Scripture itself. Was this a reflection of how the actual Jonathan Sperry spoke to the boys? I have no clue, of course. But I highly doubt that the boys (now adult men) who actually learned from Sperry remember his lessons word for word, leaving hope that the real Jonathan Sperry was a far more interesting teacher. He was evidently a man of great character; that doesn't say anything about his teaching, however. All in all, the basic outline of the story had great potential. But the script itself was nowhere near to doing justice to the ideas behind it.

Then there was the acting. The film featured two seasoned actors in Gavin MacLeod and Robert Guillaume. I didn't even recognize MacLeod, and only discovered it was him in watching the credits. I remember watching him on "The Love Boat" as a child, and he fit his role there. But any other time I remember seeing him act I found him less than interesting, and there was no exception here. Robert Guillaume was his typical splendid self, and was the only bright spot acting-wise in the film. And yet even he seemed hindered by the terrible script, though this was probably helped along by some bad directing as well.

The rest of the cast was fairly painful to watch. One can only expect so much from child actors, I suppose. But while watching them was torture itself, the other actors faired little better. The best word I can come up with is "wooden", though even that is insufficient. Words can't really express how bad both the body language and line delivery were.

There was throughout the film a prevailing sense of sentimentalism, something which is common whenever Evangelicals attempt to make art. It is interesting that Evangelicals as a whole tend to carry with them the feeling that ever since the 1960's, the pagans have taken over the culture, and morality has gone down the tubes. And in a minor sense, I suppose that's true. But a more accurate account of it recognizes that Evangelicals actually retreated from society, a retreat that started long before the '60's. And as nature abhors a vacuum, the pagans simply rushed in to fill in the void. This can be attributed to a number of things, though a large measure of blame, I would say, lies at the feet of Dispensationalism and its self-fulfilling prophecies of the downturn of society. So while it is a fact that small town America was a more moral place in 1970, it wasn't idyllic. Children go astray because their parents go astray. The rebellion of the sixties took place because Christianity had come to be defined as external conformity to certain behaviors deemed "Christian", and the Gospel had been replaced by the fear of man. So those who would return to mid-twentieth century America would simply be setting us up for another cultural revolution as ungodly and tumultuous as the one we have been through in the past thirty years. Not something to be desired, I dare say.

Then there is the whole purpose of the film. As is customary in Evangelical art, it was clear that the goal that the film makers had in mind was not to make good art, but rather to use the film merely as a vehicle through which to spread the Gospel. Once again, one can hardly criticize the desire to see people saved. But as inevitably happens whenever Evangelicals take such a route, the art suffers at the expense of sharing the Gospel. Part of this is due to the unbiblical and hokey way we tend to express the Gospel in the Evangelical church. As much as my Evangelical friends react against this, the Gospel is not "asking Jesus into your heart". It also is not "having a personal relationship with Jesus". These are sentimentalistic attempts at expressing the Gospel, and one will search in vain to find anything resembling these phrases in Scripture. According to Scripture, the Gospel is repenting of one's sins and trusting in Christ for salvation. There are other ways this is expressed, but none of them come even close to the above two phrases. Does this mean that I don't have a personal relationship with Jesus? Of course I do. But the phrase reflects a romantic and sentimentalistic approach that comes not out of Scripture, but out of Western culture, and as such is at odds with Scripture. Why we get so hung up on these Evangelical catch phrases and choose them over Scripture's way of speaking is bizarre to me. It suggests that we look to find our comfort not in Christ, but in the Evangelical subculture.

We seem to think that all God cares about is what we deem to be the substance of the Gospel. We think that form is irrelevant. But nothing is so unbiblical as that. The same God that said, "repent and be saved" spent pages and pages of His word detailing specifications for Noah's ark, the Tabernacle, the Temple, the ordination of the priesthood, the rituals of cleansing, the genealogies, the numbering of the tribes of Israel, and so on. God loves detail, and He has great concern for form and order. The fact that we pay little to such things is a demonstration that we have fallen far short of thinking with the mind of Christ.

And this is not limited to some segmented sphere we call "religious life". As God created all the world, and did so with deliberate form and order, so He continues to be concerned with these things throughout all creation. This includes the meals we eat, the order of our homes, the clothes we wear, and, yes, the art we create. Beyond this, why can't Christians just make good movies? Where does Scripture say that the only art we can make has to be for spreading the Gospel? It doesn't. God didn't have to slap a Bible verse on every tree in the forest, because His glory spoke through it as His handiwork. Even so should we imitate Him in our art. Paintings don't become Christian because they have a Bible verse underneath them. If it's a good painting, it will reflect God's glory.

What's sad is that pagans recognize this importance of form, while the church does not. As a side note, this in itself, I would suggest, has more to do with driving youth away from the church than we realize. It isn't because we aren't following the secular culture in our modes of worship. It's because we aren't following Scripture in even thinking carefully about our modes of worship.

So when we present the Gospel, the same is true, whether it be in a movie, or some other context. Truth and Goodness aren't sufficient. Our presentation must be beautiful as well, not by the ungodly culture's standards of beauty, but of God's. Here, The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry fails miserably.

And yet, with all of the Evangelical church's abandonment of secular culture, we turn and pander after it as if we are its servants. The presence of the two aforementioned secular actors in the film itself is an indicator of this. But then there is the actor who plays Dustin. While he has made a number of appearances on TV and as the voice of cartoon characters, he wasn't chosen, I would suggest, for his great resume. And I hope he wasn't chosen for his acting skills. His name, in fact, is Jansen Panettiere, and I think it should be obvious why he was chosen. He is the younger brother of actress Hayden Panettiere, who has appeared in numerous TV and movie roles, and is probably best known for her lead role on the TV show "Heroes". Evangelicals are so obsessed by pagan Hollywood that all it will take to get them to go see a Christian film is a recognizable name like that. Quick quiz: how many professing believers spend more time reading People Magazine than they do reading their Bibles? I'm scared to even guess the answer. It's one thing to appreciate some of the products of Hollywood - an appropriate thing, so far as they are allowable by Scripture's standards. It's entirely another matter that we think the only way we can get Christians to watch Christian movies is by using Hollywood stars and their younger siblings.

Some would say that this is an attempt to draw unbelievers in to see the Christian film, hear the Gospel, and hopefully be saved. This is a good desire. But isn't the definition of insanity to repeat an action and expect different results? This never happens on any broad scale. Sure, one might be able to name the occasional person who comes to one of these films and trusts in Christ. But where are the masses of people who are supposed to be saved this way? The silence is deafening. I suppose it would be a true miracle for an unbeliever to get past the bad art and hear and believe the gospel (though salvation itself is always a miracle, no matter the circumstances). But the fact that this is rare at best should make us reassess this approach, and reconsider how we allot the resources over which God has made us stewards.

So if I haven't made it clear by now, I didn't like this film. I don't question the motives of anyone involved in the making of it. I'm sure the intention was the salvation of souls and the glory of God. And by that intention alone, God will be glorified. The question here is rather whether or not there are better ways of glorifying God, and I would suggest there are.

And if you've dying to see a movie this weekend, rent WALL-E, or wait a few days for UP to come out on DVD. I can guarantee that they won't be a waste of money.

Martin Luther on Justification by Faith Alone

I greatly longed to understand Paul's Epistle to the Romans and nothing stood in the way but that one expression, "the justice of God," because I took it to mean that justice whereby God is just and deals justly in punishing the unjust. My situation was that, although an impeccable monk, I stood before God as a sinner troubled in conscience, and I had no confidence that my merit would assuage him. Therefore I did not love a just and angry God, but rather hated and murmured against him. Yet I clung to the dear Paul and had a great yearning to know what he meant.

Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that "the just shall live by his faith." Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on a new meaning, and whereas before the "justice of God" had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven...

If you have a true faith that Christ is your Saviour, then at once you have a gracious God, for faith leads you in and opens up God's heart and will, that you should see pure grace and overflowing love. This it is to behold God in faith that you should look upon his fatherly, friendly heart, in which there is no anger nor ungraciousness. He who sees God as angry does not see him rightly but looks only on a curtain, as if a dark cloud had been drawn across his face.

The Parallel Structures of Ruth 1 & 4

In our Wednesday evening Bible study group we just completed the Book of Ruth. As we were going to be finishing up ch. 4 the other night, I threw together this bare bones outline to show the parallel structures of Ruth 1 & 4. Ruth 2 & 3 also parallel one another, the result being that the book functions somewhat chiastically. In chapters 1 and 4, the Prologue in ch. 1 (I.) parallels the Epilogue in ch. 4 (III.). The Negotiation in ch. 1 (II.) parallels the Negotiation in ch. 4 (I.). And the Rest in ch. 1 (III.) parallels the Rest in ch. 4 (II.). The reader should also take note of the preponderance of "threes" in the outlines. This is something inherent to the text, not simply an arbitrary choice I made in outlining it. I would suggest also that this is a manifestation of the Trinitarian foundation of the Covenant, which plays a central role in the Book of Ruth, as in all of Scripture, and all of life, for that matter. But that is a discussion for another occasion. Lack of time has prevented me from doing either a basic outline of chs. 2 & 3, or an outline of the whole book. For now, at least, I thought I would post what I had.

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

Ruth 1 - Structure


I.  Prologue of the Book of Ruth - vs. 1-5


II.  Naomi "arose" - Negotiating a relationship on the way back to Bethlehem

 A.  Naomi's First Speech - vs. 8-9a

  A'.  Ruth and Orpah's verbal and nonverbal response - vs. 9b-10

 B.  Naomi's Second Speech - vs. 11-13

  B'.  Ruth and Orpah's nonverbal responses - vs. 14

 C.  Naomi's Third Speech - vs. 15

  C'. Ruth's verbal response - vs. 16-18


III.  Rest in the Land

 A.  Naomi and Ruth arrive in the land - vs. 19a

 B.  Women address Naomi - vs. 19b

 C.  Naomi renames herself - vs. 20-21



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

Ruth 4 - Structure


I.  Boaz "had gone up"- Negotiating a relationship at the gate of Bethlehem

 A.  Boaz's First Speech - vs. 3-4a

  A'.  Redeemer's verbal response - vs. 4b

 B.  Boaz's Second Speech - vs. 5

  B'.  Redeemer's verbal and nonverbal responses - vs. 6-8

 C.  Boaz's Third Speech - vs. 9-10

  C'.  Elders' and People's verbal response - vs. 11-12


II.  Rest in the Land

 A.  Boaz and Ruth "arrive" in the land - vs. 13

 B.  Women address Naomi - vs. 14-16

 C.  Women name Obed - vs. 17


III. Epilogue of the Book of Ruth - vs. 18-22

The Subtleties of Statism

A couple of older pieces on His Holiness in D. C. The first is something I sent a year and a half ago to James Ostrowski, a contributor to the Lew Rockwell blog, who then honored me by posting this on said blog. The second is a response to a friend who emailed me to ask what problems I saw the President's speech to school children a few weeks back. A little past their date, perhaps, but still relevant. And when you write something that is only read by one or two people, you sort of feel compelled to put it out there in such a way that others can read it too. The first may not seem currently relevant, but actually remains so, when one is reminded of the President's recent rallies (read: revivals) to drum up support for a Socialized health care system.

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

In a piece from the PBS Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, E. J. Dionne pointed out that Obama is actually speaking in the fashion of a revivalist. I’ve noticed the same is true of his wife Michelle. This seems to fit in nicely with the idea of Obama’s movement being a sort of cult following. Revivalism from the beginning has only thrived insofar as a single individual is the focus of the devotion of the faithful, and that individual is chosen based on his ability to stir up excitement in his followers. Objective truth and deep sustained intellectual reflection are substituted with shallow rhetoric and easily attained emotional fervor. So, in fact, Obama actually has more in common with Charles Finney than with any former president, in that his views on policy are largely irrelevant to his supporters. In the modern context, Joel Osteen comes to mind. People don’t care what he says, so long as he makes them feel good. But what we’re witnessing is a sort of resurrection of the Caesar cult. People believe that the government is to be their savior, and they think Obama would make a good messiah.

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

The topic of Obama's speech may be a moot one now, but I still thought I'd respond to your question. Even though the speech is over, the topic is still relevant.

I think in a sense your assessment of McCain and Obama was correct, at least in terms of how we define "democrat" and "socialist" more popularly. But the truth is that they were both socialists. In fact, almost everyone who was running for President and was recognized as a legitimate contender was a socialist, except for Ron Paul, and maybe Dennis Kucinich. Whenever you support the idea of the government serving as a means to redistribute wealth, you are a socialist. It doesn't matter if you intend the wealth to be used for "universal health care", the National Endowment for the Arts, State parks and monuments, subsidized housing, subsidized farming, or so-called "free" education. As soon as a government begins to redistribute wealth, it becomes a socialist system. The question then is how socialist it is, not whether it is.

The act of taking money from one party and giving it to another is called "theft" by Scripture. Just because the one doing the taking has all the tanks doesn't make it okay.

So both major parties, Republicans and Democrats, are socialists. They just differ on what to do with the money once they've collected it. The Democrats are usually worse, of course, because their social policies are more so at odds with Scripture. But this doesn't mean that the Republicans are always wearing white hats.

Both parties are, for the most part, Statist. By that I mean that they believe that the supreme authority in the world is the State. It chiefly defines who we are. We are political animals. I am not first and foremost a Christian, or even a Lewis, according to Statism. I am first and foremost an American, and everything I do is to serve its goals and ends. If anything gets in the way of that, it has to go. Sure, the politicians speak of "family values". But that's partially because Statism is inconsistent with the world God has created, and there's no escaping the family. To some degree, however, this is merely lip service. Service of the State is the foundation of all of life for the Statist.

We fail to recognize this, so we have a hard time seeing it in something like the President's speech. But whenever he says things like, "you need to do your best for your country," or "if you quit school, you're quitting on your country," or "don't let your country down," that's the assumption behind those statements. He isn't saying that we just live together and therefore have an effect on each other's lives. He's saying we belong to the U. S. Government. In this, there are ultimately no individual rights, despite what the founding fathers stated and believed. That's the reason for Government-run schools. They don't exist to make sure everybody's educated. Government schools have always been a chief means of instilling propaganda in the citizenry wherever Socialism has existed. That's why religion is shut out of the schools. True orthodox Christianity provides competition with the supremacy of the State. This may not be a comfortable thing to hear, since you're a parent and send you children to the Government school. Most parents don't even think of such things, and just send their kids to the Government school because they're already paying their taxes for it, or because it's just what you do. And why don't we think of these things? Because the issues were never raised for us. And why were they never raised? Because we learned our history and political theory in Government schools, were we ourselves were propagandized. Let me make it clear, though, that I'm not criticizing parents in this, because I think most don't know better. I also think there are almost no teachers that think of themselves as "agents of propagandization". They're just doing what they were taught to do, and that's teach the curriculum.

The Government sets itself up as the Savior of its people. It says, "you have a problem? We'll take care of it for you." They then use that as a way of increasing taxation and legislation. But it's just a means of controlling the people and destroying liberty. We fall lock and step, and look to the State to take care of us, and it's gradually becoming cradle to the grave. So Statism actually is a religion. It's worship of the State. There's a reason that all the monuments and buildings in D. C. were designed to look like temples to the Greek and Roman gods.

In fact, the President himself believes that the children that live in the United States belong to him. They are "America's children", in the sense of possession. That's why the State can take your children away from you if they want to - because they belong to the State, not you. You're just raising them in the place of the State, because you're a servant of the State, too. And if the State wants to take your children away from you for six hours a day, and teach them things you disagree with, including evolution, or that all religions are created equal, or that certain "lifestyles" that clearly contradict Scripture are okay, they have the right to do so, because the children belong to the State. In the case of the President, he is America personified. That's why he can say, "I expect all of you" to do thus and such. Or "I'm calling on each of you" to do thus and such. But what the children do is, in reality, none of his business.

So there were content things in the President's speech, but not the kind we tend to look for. I get the impression that most Republicans thought that maybe he would say something like, "I'm trying to convince your parents that Socialized health care is a good thing, but they aren't listening to me. We all know they're wrong, right? How about going and convincing them for me." But he isn't going to do that. He's too smart for that. Content-wise, the problems in his speech lay in areas where Republicans and Democrats tend to agree.

But why did he even give the speech then? It was an act of propaganda. He hasn't been having much luck with the adults, so he turned to the children. They would pick up on the idea that their basic allegiance is to the State, though they generally couldn't articulate it. And they would walk away with the idea that that Mr. Obama is a pretty darn nice guy. "Hey look, he cares about me! He's going to make sure I have everything I need to get a good education. He loves me." This has been a common tactic of Socialist and Communist regimes. In Communist China in the sixties and seventies, they had what the West called "The Little Red Book", a collection of quotations from Mao Zedong. It was their Bible. Not only did adults read it, it was taught in the schools. You don't just indoctrinate adults. It's easier to convince children of something, and if you get them while they're young, they're less likely to question when they get older. In the case of Communist China, or the U. S. S. R., as well as Barack Obama, the goal is to create a cult of personality. That's how Obama won in the first place. He's just trying to increase the size of the cult.

So that's the sum of it. Sorry for this being so long. I just wanted to be clear. I'm sure this isn't quite the response you were expecting. I'm a Republican, but I fall more in line with the views of someone like Ron Paul, though I'm sure I wouldn't agree with him on everything. I voted for McCain-Palin, however, because of abortion issues.

No progress, I believe, is going to be made without questioning the President's intent. Republicans try to be nice and not judge people's motives, but I think it's mostly because they're cowards. They've bought into the cult of personality too. They are afraid because Obama comes across so confident and convincing, and, quite honestly, because they are afraid of looking like racists. Obama is a Socialist, if not a Communist, and he is intentionally carrying out a Socialist agenda. The goal is to take freedom away from us. He has been lying about the health care bill. His goal is not love, but power. I don't generally go around questioning people's motives. But I don't trust Barack Obama at all.

I'm not sure in anything I've said here that you'll find something that's convincing to Democrats. To most people, I know I'd sound like a lunatic. Beyond that, Obama (or his speech writer) designed the speech in such a way as to prevent critiques of single lines. A real critique requires some in-depth discussion of political theory, which is what I was getting at here, but which most people don't have the interest or attention span for.

Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and Covenant Structure

In our Wednesday evening Bible study group we are currently in chapter three of the Book of Ruth, after having studied our way through Deuteronomy 27-34, Joshua, and Judges over the past year and a half. Once we've finished Ruth in a couple of weeks, we will then move on bravely to the Book of the Revelation. A broader connection exists between all of these books than the fact that they are all in the Bible, though this connection is rarely recognized or discussed. With this in mind, I thought I would post the following piece which I put together for our group when we first jumped into Deuteronomy.

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

Ancient Near Eastern Treaties

In recent years, scholars have learned of a general pattern found in treaties in the Ancient Near East. Called Suzerainty Treaties, they involve the covenanting of a suzerain lord (the conquering king) and a vassal (the conquered king).

“After a war, the victorious king would make a covenant with his defeated foe, making certain promises and guaranteeing protection on condition that the vassal-king and all under his authority would obey their new lord. Both lord and vassal would swear an oath, and they would thenceforth be united in covenant” - David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, pg. 14

It has been noted that the same basic structure is utilized in the Biblical covenants.

Five-point Covenantal Structure

1. Preamble (identifying the lordship of the Great King, stressing both his transcendence [greatness and power] and his immanence [nearness and presence]

2. Historical Prologue (surveying the lord’s previous relationship to the vassal, especially emphasizing the blessings bestowed)

3. Ethical Stipulations (expounding the vassal’s obligations, his “guide to citizenship” in the covenant)

4. Sanctions (outlining the blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience)

5. Succession Arrangements (dealing with the continuity of the covenant relationship over future generations)

Covenantal Structure of Deuteronomy

1. Preamble (1:1-5)
2. Historical Prologue (1:6-4:49)
3. Ethical Stipulations (5:1-26:19)
4. Sanctions (27:1-30:20)
5. Succession Arrangements (31:1-34:12)

Other elements of Near Eastern treaties are often included in the structure, such as The Invocation of Witnesses (cf. Deut. 30:19) and Directions for the Deposition and Regular Public Reading of the Covenant Documents (cf. Deut. 31:9-13). Adding these would, of course, make this a seven-point model. But there is much disagreement on this, as scholars suggest various ways of outlining the covenant documents found in Scripture and the various Near Eastern vassal states. Also, the five-point model is the one most commonly held by scholars.

“If a vassal kingdom violated the terms of the covenant, the lord would send messengers to the vassal, warning the offenders of coming judgment, in which the curse-sanctions of the covenant would be enforced. This turns out to be the function of the Biblical prophets…They were prosecuting attorneys, bringing God’s message of Covenant Lawsuit to the offending nations of Israel and Judah. And the structure of the lawsuit was always patterned after the original structure of the covenant. In other words, just as the Biblical covenants themselves follow the standard five-part treaty structure, the Biblical prophecies follow the treaty form as well.” - David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, pg. 15

Four Biblical Covenantal Models

1. Pre-Creation and Post-Creation Covenants

A. Pre-Creation Covenants - Covenants made between the Persons of the Trinity
B. Post-Creation Covenants - All covenants made after God created the world

This is a common Reformed teaching, though it is hard to substantiate from Scripture.

2. Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace

A. Covenant of Works - This is the covenant God established with Adam in the Garden. It is also called the Covenant of Life or the Creation Covenant.

B. Covenant of Grace - Established in Gen. 3, all subsequent covenants between God and man fall under this categorization.

3. Old Covenant and New Covenant

A. Old Covenant - The term is used to refer to the entire covenant administration prior to the coming of Christ, though the New Testament at times seems to use the term strictly to refer to the Mosaic Covenant.

B. New Covenant - The covenant instituted with the coming, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

4. The Six Historical Covenants

A. Creation Covenant (Gen. 1-2)
B. Adamic Covenant (Gen. 3)
C. Noahic Covenant (Gen. 6-9
D. Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12, 15, 17)
E. Mosaic Covenant (Ex. 19-24, Deut.)
F. Davidic Covenant (II Sam. 7)
G. New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34)

Hear our cry, Obama

The emperor cult of ancient Rome has returned.

The Red House

A commercial for a furniture place in High Point. Furniture for black people, white people, and "exspanic" people too.

Actual Analogies and Metaphors Written by High School Students

The following came to mind earlier this evening for some reason. These are statements taken from actual essays written by high school students. They were making the rounds on blogs a couple of years ago, and I was thinking I had posted them here at that time. I haven't been able to find them, so I might not have. I've re-read them many times, and I end up with my sides hurting from laughter every time I do.

1. Her face was a perfect oval, like a circle that had its two sides gently compressed by a Thigh Master.

2. His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free.

3. He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it.

4. She grew on him like she was a colony of E. coli and he was room-temperature Canadian beef.

5. She had a deep, throaty, genuine laugh, like that sound a dog makes just before it throws up.

6. Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.

7. He was as tall as a six-foot, three-inch tree.

8. The revelation that his marriage of 30 years had disintegrated because of his wife's infidelity came as a rude shock, like a surcharge at a formerly surcharge-free ATM.

9. The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn't.

10. McBride fell 12 stories, hitting the pavement like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup.

11. From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an eerie, surreal quality, like when you're on vacation in another city and Jeopardy comes on at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30.

12. Her hair glistened in the rain like a nose hair after a sneeze.

13. The hailstones leaped from the pavement, just like maggots when you fry them in hot grease.

14. Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p.m. traveling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 p.m. at a speed of 35 mph.

15. They lived in a typical suburban neighborhood with picket fences that resembled Nancy Kerrigan's teeth.

16. John and Mary had never met. They were like two hummingbirds who had also never met.

17. He fell for her like his heart was a mob informant and she was the East River.

18. Even in his last years, Grandpappy had a mind like a steel trap, only one that had been left out so long, it had rusted shut.

19. Shots rang out, as shots are wont to do.

20. The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work.

21. The young fighter had a hungry look, the kind you get from not eating for a while.

22. "Oh, Jason, take me!" she panted, her breasts heaving like a college freshman on $1-a-beer night.

23. He was as lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical lame duck, either, but a real duck that was actually lame. Maybe from stepping on a land mine or something.

24. The ballerina rose gracefully en pointe and extended one slender leg behind her, like a dog at a fire hydrant.

25. It was an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools.

26. He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a garbage truck backing up.

27. She was as easy as the TV Guide crossword.

28. Her eyes were like limpid pools, only they had forgotten to put in any pH cleanser.

29. She walked into my office like a centipede with 98 missing legs.

30. It hurt the way your tongue hurts after you accidentally staple it to the wall.

Boring is Good

A great post from George Grant on why boring is good:

http://grantian.blogspot.com/2009/09/yearning-for-boring.html

Taking a Vampire - or a Fad - by the Tails

I haven't read any of the Twilight series, so I can't comment on it myself. But Doug Wilson wrote a few posts about it recently which are worth the read, even if you disagree with his conclusions:

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6882
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6885
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6890
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6899

I'll start respecting the office of the President as soon as the President does.

Oh, Joe Wilson. After a brief moment of masculine courage, in which you dared question the divine right of kings, you have bowed in exchange for lands and titles. He who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit for the kingdom.



The parallels are multitude, and that's because our government emerged from the history depicted here. But few people know these things anymore. If you haven't seen the movie, you need to. For our purposes, the most pertinent statement comes at the 7:13 mark. Whether or not it actually happened, I don't know.

Only in America...

...would we have a holiday that was named in such a way as to make us feel bad for taking the day off.

This just in from CNN...

...fires are moving rapidly throughout California. The cause? The Duggars are having too many children. Those darn resource consumers...