Growing up in a Dispensational church, I had learned of Bible teacher Dave Hunt when I was in my late teens. He himself came from a Plymouth Brethren background, and as is characteristic of Brethren teachers, spent a fair bit of time teaching on issues of the end times, the subject which seems to draw most people to him. It was only sometime after having read a fair bit of his writing in his newsletters that I was told he had once claimed to have had Charismatic experiences, such as the Baptism of the Spirit and speaking in tongues, only later to deny that these things took place. He wrote of his experiences in a book called Confessions of a Heretic, which he had let go out of print after he determined he had falsely interpreted his experiences, and now spends a fair bit of his teaching criticizing Charismatic teachers. We're currently discussing Cessationism in Bible study, so since I had picked up Confessions of a Heretic a couple of years ago, I thought I would give it a read. In the midst of reading the book, I thought I would contact Mr. Hunt's ministry, The Berean Call, to see if he had in fact come to view his charismatic experiences as false. I was surprised to receive the response that Mr. Hunt saw no Biblical evidence to suggest that the more controversial gifts, such as prophecy and tongues, had passed away. His concern, the email said, is with those who carry out practices that claim to be the Biblical gifts, but which in fact are abuses and false expressions of the gifts. I doubt that many of those who read or listen to Mr. Hunt's teaching will know that he is, in fact, a charismatic of sorts.
The book itself tells of Hunt's experiences of many business-related miracles, particularly the near failing of a business he oversaw, in which God seemed to miraculously save the business repeatedly, in spite of bad business decisions, not to mention the illegal activity by Mr. Hunt of writing checks without funds backing them, on numerous occasions. Hunt goes on to tell of experiences of laying hands on his children when they were sick, only to find them suddenly and miraculously healed; the supposed experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace; Hunt's experience of speaking in tongues in private prayer; and many other seemingly miraculous events. All of these things led to Hunt's excommunication from the Brethren Assemblies, as anyone who knows the Brethren would expect. In the end, all the events appear to lead to the Hunts' moving to Europe, where the book closes.
So far as the style of the book is concerned, it reads like the typical Evangelical biography. It was an easy read, not particularly complex in sentence or narrative structure, and I finished it in a few days. Like the standard Evangelical biography, Hunt's book seems primarily concerned with communicating a series of events in an overly simplistic way, the point of which is to convey a message. In such writing, setting usually suffers, as it is mere window dressing, present only to convince the shopper to by the product featured in the display. This is Pragmatism in all its ugliness. Beyond this but connected to it, Hunt's book falls into a category I call "polemical narrative". Not only is Hunt seeking to tell of his experiences, he is attempting to make an argument through the story, particularly a defense of himself in each of the circumstances he tells of. In "polemical narrative", the desire to make an argument overwhelms the act of storytelling to the point that the art of storytelling becomes secondary to the "message" and therefore becomes substandard. Essentially, when a writer of narrative becomes more concerned with convincing the reader of a certain set of facts than creating a good story, you end up with a poorly written story. This, I would say, is a good way of explaining why writing by Evangelicals is often so bad, especially when they attempt to write fiction. For these reasons, I didn't find Hunt's book to be especially good writing. I stuck with the book because it was a nice break from some heavier reading I had been doing, and because of my curiosity about Hunt's Charismatic past. But the writing was barely engaging, and I often found it laborious to stick with it.
When it comes to the events discussed in the book, I must confess to mixed feelings. For some time in my life I held to the traditional Cessationist viewpoint with regard to miraculous gifts, but there have been questions in my mind about this viewpoint for a number of years, questions which have gradually produced significant doubt about it. I can't say that I am a Non-Cessationist at this point; certain of the traditional Cessationist arguments still carry weight for me. Nonetheless, I would not call myself a full-blown Cessationist. Simply put, it's a matter I'm studying and thinking my way through at present. If nothing else, the way that the debate has been carried out in recent history is something I believe needs revamping. Both Cessationists and Non-Cessationists tend to carry certain assumptions with them that owe more to a Newtonian, or even a Deistic, worldview than either side recognizes, the main assumption being that God stands outside of His Creation and aloof from it, only to occasionally stick His finger in to meddle with it. But this is contrary to Scripture, as demonstrated most clearly in the Psalms, and testified to in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 5. God upholds and governs all things in history, carrying them out according to His foreordained plan and for His own glory. When a person speaks in tongues, it isn't that God all of a sudden decided to step in and do something, whereas He hadn't been acting before. He is constantly at work, and if tongues are His doing, then He is simply at that moment acting in a way different than what we are used to. And if God doesn't ordain tongues for today, that doesn't mean He is generally inactive, for He is constantly at work in every corner of His universe.
There is also the matter of Rationalism, which Cessationism tends to fall into. The assumption, probably more implied than clearly stated, is that God never works through non-verbal means to communicate to people, or, at least, that non-verbal means are substandard to the point of being nearly worthless. But this is more than dubious. While it is clear that non-verbal means are not sufficient in themselves for communication, God regularly used non-verbal means to communicate in Biblical history. Therefore, to raise an objection against all non-verbal means of communication is not merely to raise an objection against non-verbal means, but against God as the One Who has seen fit at times to work this way. And to assume that God no longer works in non-verbal modes of communication since the completion of the canon of Scripture seems very clearly to contradict Scripture's own teaching on Creation and Providence.
I have been intrigued with those in the Reformed community who have either rejected Cessationism outright, or else offered the possibility of a sort of modified Cessationist view. Certain well-known names come to mind immediately, such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, C. J. Mahaney, and Joshua Harris. But there have been others such as Vern Poythress, James Jordan, David Chilton, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Gordon Fee. Then one encounters innumerable professions of miracles, more often from what may be called the looney Charismatic fringe, but not entirely so. I think, for instance, of the occasional claim of miracles that comes from Evangelicals on the mission field. None of these things are fully convincing in my own mind. But they should at least cause one to think carefully before pronouncing all such claims as false.
Therefore when I encounter Mr. Hunt's experiences, I'm hesitant to make a declaration about them. I wouldn't doubt Mr. Hunt's record of what actually happened. But I would doubt his interpretation of the events. While I can't claim he didn't have some sort of dramatic, post-salvation experience, to go labeling it as the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" seems to be a bit presumptuous. This is apart from the fact that Scripture seems to teach very clearly that no such "baptism" is normative in history, but rather was confined to certain circumstances in the period of transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. And if God worked miraculously in particular situations in Mr. Hunt's life, which it seems He apparently did, it makes more sense to consider it God working patiently with Mr. Hunt in the context of his immature presumptions and wrong understandings. Just because God saved the business Mr. Hunt was overseeing from bankruptcy, and that on many occasions, doesn't mean that it was right for Hunt to follow his feelings and the nebulous "what God seemed to be saying to him" in his decision making. It simply means that, as in many cases in our lives, God acts in our favor in spite of us more than we know.
So while I wouldn't claim to know exactly what was going on in every situation that Mr. Hunt tells of, I didn't find the book convincing enough to make me a Charismatic. Certainly, some of the circumstances are more easily explained than others. But it will take a Scriptural argument if I ever become completely convinced of the Non-Cessationist position, and Hunt's book, for the most part, doesn't provide that argument.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Page Does Not Know The Score
Guilford County residents, these are your tax dollars at work. As the article notes, this is also bureaucracy at work. It might not be immediately obvious, but this is an example of how totalitarian regimes work, though the situation at Page is at the microcosmic level. The goal of totalitarianism is power and control, not the good of the people. The motivator is fear. Rather than dealing with the real issue, totalitarianism finds a scapegoat (Rene Girard is proven right again). And totalitarianism understands, far better than the general public, that he who controls the music of a society steers the society whichever direction he wants.
**********************
July 02, 2009
Jules Pegram will go down in history as the man who nearly "murdered" Page High School's graduation - and that's something Guilford County Schools can't take away from him.
Page, like every school in Guilford County, hasn't expelled a single student since the consolidation of Guilford County Schools in 1992 - despite a recent history that includes an October 2007 25-student cafeteria brawl that resulted in 11 arrests.
And yet Page and Guilford County Schools administrators, in a fit of bureaucratic overreaction and just plain control-freakishness, this spring spent months working to prevent Jules Pegram, a talented Page student, from using four notes of a barely controversial school spirit song in a composition to be played at the high school's June 8 graduation.
The administrators won in the end, preventing the lovely orchestral piece from being played. In the process, they nearly lost the right to play the school alma mater and fight song by enraging the original composers of those songs, who rallied to support the young composer.
Read the rest here:
Page Does Not Know The Score
Shared via AddThis
**********************
July 02, 2009
Jules Pegram will go down in history as the man who nearly "murdered" Page High School's graduation - and that's something Guilford County Schools can't take away from him.
Page, like every school in Guilford County, hasn't expelled a single student since the consolidation of Guilford County Schools in 1992 - despite a recent history that includes an October 2007 25-student cafeteria brawl that resulted in 11 arrests.
And yet Page and Guilford County Schools administrators, in a fit of bureaucratic overreaction and just plain control-freakishness, this spring spent months working to prevent Jules Pegram, a talented Page student, from using four notes of a barely controversial school spirit song in a composition to be played at the high school's June 8 graduation.
The administrators won in the end, preventing the lovely orchestral piece from being played. In the process, they nearly lost the right to play the school alma mater and fight song by enraging the original composers of those songs, who rallied to support the young composer.
Read the rest here:
Page Does Not Know The Score
Shared via AddThis
Friday, June 26, 2009
Hark! Where's the Bible Ark?
My skepticism vindicates itself once again. But really, this is all understandable. You know how it happens. You find yourself visiting Big Papa in Rome, wondering at the beauty of Vatican City, and you start making promises you can't keep. It could happen to the best of us.
Hark! Where's the Bible Ark?
Shared via AddThis
Hark! Where's the Bible Ark?
Shared via AddThis
'Ark of the Covenant' about to be unveiled?
The unveiling is supposed to take place sometime today. That is all it will take to keep me glued to the news most of the day. Yet while I find this exciting, I remain skeptical. How will we know for sure that this is the real ark? One way or another, I predict numerous conversions to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, numerous pilgrimages, and numerous tv shows about the Ark on NatGeo and the History Channel, all of which will succeed in missing the point of Biblical Christianity.
'Ark of the Covenant' about to be unveiled?
Shared via AddThis
'Ark of the Covenant' about to be unveiled?
Shared via AddThis
Monday, June 22, 2009
Don't Give Up
I was thinking of this song earlier today for some reason. A little eighties flash back. It's a song about a man's struggle to find work in a time of mass unemployment and poverty, and the encouragement his wife gives him to not despair. Rarely does pop music reach depths such as this. There is something here of the honor that a man finds in providing for his family, and the nobility of a woman who stands by and encourages no matter what happens.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism
I thought I had posted this on here when I discovered it a couple of years ago, but it appears I didn't. The American Religion set forth in all its glory, or lack thereof, with a heavy dose of sarcasm. I don't know who the author of it is, but I got it from here: http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~tim/introframe/semi-pelagian.html
1. Q: What is the chief end of each individual Christian?
A: Each individual Christian's chief end is to get saved. This is the first and great commandment.
2. Q: And what is the second great commandment?
A: The second, which is like unto it, is to get as many others saved as he can.
3. Q: What one work is required of thee for thy salvation?
A: It is required of me for my salvation that I make a Decision for Christ, which meaneth to accept Him into my heart to be my personal lord and saviour
4. Q: At what time must thou perform this work?
A: I must perform this work at such time as I have reached the Age of Accountability.
5. Q: At what time wilt thou have reached this Age?
A: That is a trick question. In order to determine this time, my mind must needs be sharper than any two-edged sword, able to pierce even to the division of bone and marrow; for, alas, the Age of Accountability is different for each individual, and is thus unknowable.
6. Q: By what means is a Decision for Christ made?
A: A Decision for Christ is made, not according to His own purpose and grace which was given to me in Christ Jesus before the world began, but according to the exercise of my own Free Will in saying the Sinner's Prayer in my own words.
7. Q: If it be true then that man is responsible for this Decision, how then can God be sovereign?
A: He cannot be. God sovereignly chose not to be sovereign, and is therefore dependent upon me to come to Him for salvation. He standeth outside the door of my heart, forlornly knocking, until such time as I Decide to let Him in.
8. Q: How then can we make such a Decision, seeing that the Scripture saith, we are dead in our trespasses and sins?
A: By this the Scripture meaneth, not that we are dead, but only that we are sick or injured in them.
9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner's Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.
10. Q: What is thy story? What is thy song?
A: Praising my Savior all the day long.
11. Q: You ask me how I know he lives?
A: He lives within my heart.
12. Q: And what else hast thou got in thine heart?
A: I've got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart.
13. Q: Where??
A: Down in my heart!
14. Q: Where???
A: Down in my heart!!
15. Q: What witness aid hath been given us as a technique by which we may win souls?
A: The tract known commonly as the Four Spiritual Laws, is the chief aid whereby we may win souls.
16. Q: What doth this tract principally teach?
A: The Four Spiritual Laws principally teach, that God's entire plan for history and the universe centereth on me, and that I am powerful enough to thwart His divine purpose if I refuse to let Him pursue His Wonderful Plan for my life.
17. Q: What supplementary technique is given by which we may win souls?
A: The technique of giving our own Personal Testimony, in the which we must always be ready to give an answer concerning the years we spent in vanity and pride, and the wretched vices in which we wallowed all our lives until the day we got saved.
18. Q: I'm so happy, what's the reason why?
A: Jesus took my burden all away!
19. Q: What are the means given whereby we may large crowds of souls in a spectacular manner?
A: Such a spectacle is accomplished by means of well-publicized Crusades and Revivals which (in order that none may be loath to attend) are best conducted anywhere else but in a Church.
20. Q: Am I a soldier of the Cross?
A: I am a soldier of the Cross if I join Campus Crusade, Boys' Brigade, the Salvation Army, or the Wheaton Crusaders; of if I put on the helmet of Dispensationalism, the breastplate of Pietism, the shield of Tribulationism, and the sword of Zionism, having my feet shod with the gospel of Arminianism.
21. Q: Who is your boss?
A: My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
22. Q: Hath God predestined vessels of wrath to Hell?
A: God hath never performed such an omnipotent act, for any such thing would not reflect His primary attribute, which is Niceness.
23. Q: What is sanctification?
A: Sanctification is the work of my free Will, whereby I am renewed by having my Daily Quiet Time.
24. Q: What rule hath God for our direction in prayer?
A: The rule that we must bow our hands, close our heads, and fold our eyes.
25. Q: What doth the Lord's Prayer teach us?
A: The Lord's Prayer teacheth us that we must never memorize a prayer, or use one that hath been written down.
26. Q: What's the book for thee?
A: The B-I-B-L-E.
27. Q: Which are among the first books which a Christian should read to his soul's health?
A: Among the first books which a Christian should read are the books of Daniel and Revelation, and The Late Great Planet Earth.
28. Q: Who is on the Lord's side?
A: He who doth support whatsoever is done by the nation of Israel, and who doth renounce the world, the flesh, and the Catholic Church.
29. Q: What are the seven deadly sins?
A: The seven deadly sins are smoking, drinking, dancing, card-playing, movie-going, baptizing babies, and having any creed but Christ.
30. Q: What is a sacrament?
A: A sacrament is an insidious invention devised by the Catholic Church whereby men are drawn into idolatry.
31. Q: What is the Lord's Supper?
A: The Lord's Supper is a dispensing of saltines and grape juice, in the which we remember Christ's command to pretend that they are His body and
blood.
32. Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is the act whereby, by the performance of something that seems quite silly in front of everyone, I prove that I really, really mean it.
33. Q: What is the Church?
A: The Church is the tiny minority of individuals living at this time who have Jesus in their hearts, and who come together once a week for a sermon, fellowship and donuts.
34. Q: What is the office of the keys?
A: The office of the keys is that office held by the custodian.
35. Q: What meaneth "The Priesthood Of All Believers"?
A: The Priesthood Of All Believers meaneth that there exists no authority in the Church, as that falsely thought to be held by elders, presbyters, deacons, and bishops, but that each individual Christian acts as his own authority in all matters pertaining to the faith.
36. Q: Who is the Holy Spirit?
A: The Holy Spirit is a gentleman Who would never barge in.
37. Q: How long hath the Holy Spirit been at work?
A: The Holy Spirit hath been at work for more than a century: expressly, since the nineteenth-century Revitalization brought about by traveling Evangelists carrying tents across America.
38. Q: When will be the "Last Days" of which the Bible speaketh?
A: The "Last Days" are these days in which we are now living, in which the Antichrist, the Beast, and the Thief in the Night shall most certainly appear.
39. Q: What is the name of the event by which Christians will escape these dreadful entities?
A: The event commonly known as the Rapture, in the which it is our Blessed Hope that all cars driven by Christians will suddenly have no drivers.
40. Q: When is Jesus coming again?
A: Maybe morning, maybe noon, maybe evening, and maybe soon.
41. Q: When the roll, roll, roll, is called up yonder, where will you be?
A: There.
42. Q: Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!
A: Praise ye the Lord!
43. Q: Praise ye the Lord!
A: Hallelujah!
44. Q: Where will we meet again?
A: Here, there, or in the air.
45. Q: What can a pastor say while all heads are bowed?
A. Yes, I see that hand.
46. Q. How is a person saved?
A. If you walk this aisle…”
47. Q. And what requirement is there if you should fall into sin?
A. You just need to rededicate your life to God.
48. Q: Can I hear an Ay-men?
A: Ay-men.
1. Q: What is the chief end of each individual Christian?
A: Each individual Christian's chief end is to get saved. This is the first and great commandment.
2. Q: And what is the second great commandment?
A: The second, which is like unto it, is to get as many others saved as he can.
3. Q: What one work is required of thee for thy salvation?
A: It is required of me for my salvation that I make a Decision for Christ, which meaneth to accept Him into my heart to be my personal lord and saviour
4. Q: At what time must thou perform this work?
A: I must perform this work at such time as I have reached the Age of Accountability.
5. Q: At what time wilt thou have reached this Age?
A: That is a trick question. In order to determine this time, my mind must needs be sharper than any two-edged sword, able to pierce even to the division of bone and marrow; for, alas, the Age of Accountability is different for each individual, and is thus unknowable.
6. Q: By what means is a Decision for Christ made?
A: A Decision for Christ is made, not according to His own purpose and grace which was given to me in Christ Jesus before the world began, but according to the exercise of my own Free Will in saying the Sinner's Prayer in my own words.
7. Q: If it be true then that man is responsible for this Decision, how then can God be sovereign?
A: He cannot be. God sovereignly chose not to be sovereign, and is therefore dependent upon me to come to Him for salvation. He standeth outside the door of my heart, forlornly knocking, until such time as I Decide to let Him in.
8. Q: How then can we make such a Decision, seeing that the Scripture saith, we are dead in our trespasses and sins?
A: By this the Scripture meaneth, not that we are dead, but only that we are sick or injured in them.
9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner's Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.
10. Q: What is thy story? What is thy song?
A: Praising my Savior all the day long.
11. Q: You ask me how I know he lives?
A: He lives within my heart.
12. Q: And what else hast thou got in thine heart?
A: I've got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart.
13. Q: Where??
A: Down in my heart!
14. Q: Where???
A: Down in my heart!!
15. Q: What witness aid hath been given us as a technique by which we may win souls?
A: The tract known commonly as the Four Spiritual Laws, is the chief aid whereby we may win souls.
16. Q: What doth this tract principally teach?
A: The Four Spiritual Laws principally teach, that God's entire plan for history and the universe centereth on me, and that I am powerful enough to thwart His divine purpose if I refuse to let Him pursue His Wonderful Plan for my life.
17. Q: What supplementary technique is given by which we may win souls?
A: The technique of giving our own Personal Testimony, in the which we must always be ready to give an answer concerning the years we spent in vanity and pride, and the wretched vices in which we wallowed all our lives until the day we got saved.
18. Q: I'm so happy, what's the reason why?
A: Jesus took my burden all away!
19. Q: What are the means given whereby we may large crowds of souls in a spectacular manner?
A: Such a spectacle is accomplished by means of well-publicized Crusades and Revivals which (in order that none may be loath to attend) are best conducted anywhere else but in a Church.
20. Q: Am I a soldier of the Cross?
A: I am a soldier of the Cross if I join Campus Crusade, Boys' Brigade, the Salvation Army, or the Wheaton Crusaders; of if I put on the helmet of Dispensationalism, the breastplate of Pietism, the shield of Tribulationism, and the sword of Zionism, having my feet shod with the gospel of Arminianism.
21. Q: Who is your boss?
A: My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
22. Q: Hath God predestined vessels of wrath to Hell?
A: God hath never performed such an omnipotent act, for any such thing would not reflect His primary attribute, which is Niceness.
23. Q: What is sanctification?
A: Sanctification is the work of my free Will, whereby I am renewed by having my Daily Quiet Time.
24. Q: What rule hath God for our direction in prayer?
A: The rule that we must bow our hands, close our heads, and fold our eyes.
25. Q: What doth the Lord's Prayer teach us?
A: The Lord's Prayer teacheth us that we must never memorize a prayer, or use one that hath been written down.
26. Q: What's the book for thee?
A: The B-I-B-L-E.
27. Q: Which are among the first books which a Christian should read to his soul's health?
A: Among the first books which a Christian should read are the books of Daniel and Revelation, and The Late Great Planet Earth.
28. Q: Who is on the Lord's side?
A: He who doth support whatsoever is done by the nation of Israel, and who doth renounce the world, the flesh, and the Catholic Church.
29. Q: What are the seven deadly sins?
A: The seven deadly sins are smoking, drinking, dancing, card-playing, movie-going, baptizing babies, and having any creed but Christ.
30. Q: What is a sacrament?
A: A sacrament is an insidious invention devised by the Catholic Church whereby men are drawn into idolatry.
31. Q: What is the Lord's Supper?
A: The Lord's Supper is a dispensing of saltines and grape juice, in the which we remember Christ's command to pretend that they are His body and
blood.
32. Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is the act whereby, by the performance of something that seems quite silly in front of everyone, I prove that I really, really mean it.
33. Q: What is the Church?
A: The Church is the tiny minority of individuals living at this time who have Jesus in their hearts, and who come together once a week for a sermon, fellowship and donuts.
34. Q: What is the office of the keys?
A: The office of the keys is that office held by the custodian.
35. Q: What meaneth "The Priesthood Of All Believers"?
A: The Priesthood Of All Believers meaneth that there exists no authority in the Church, as that falsely thought to be held by elders, presbyters, deacons, and bishops, but that each individual Christian acts as his own authority in all matters pertaining to the faith.
36. Q: Who is the Holy Spirit?
A: The Holy Spirit is a gentleman Who would never barge in.
37. Q: How long hath the Holy Spirit been at work?
A: The Holy Spirit hath been at work for more than a century: expressly, since the nineteenth-century Revitalization brought about by traveling Evangelists carrying tents across America.
38. Q: When will be the "Last Days" of which the Bible speaketh?
A: The "Last Days" are these days in which we are now living, in which the Antichrist, the Beast, and the Thief in the Night shall most certainly appear.
39. Q: What is the name of the event by which Christians will escape these dreadful entities?
A: The event commonly known as the Rapture, in the which it is our Blessed Hope that all cars driven by Christians will suddenly have no drivers.
40. Q: When is Jesus coming again?
A: Maybe morning, maybe noon, maybe evening, and maybe soon.
41. Q: When the roll, roll, roll, is called up yonder, where will you be?
A: There.
42. Q: Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!
A: Praise ye the Lord!
43. Q: Praise ye the Lord!
A: Hallelujah!
44. Q: Where will we meet again?
A: Here, there, or in the air.
45. Q: What can a pastor say while all heads are bowed?
A. Yes, I see that hand.
46. Q. How is a person saved?
A. If you walk this aisle…”
47. Q. And what requirement is there if you should fall into sin?
A. You just need to rededicate your life to God.
48. Q: Can I hear an Ay-men?
A: Ay-men.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Ignatius, the Cool Youth Pastor
A little mockery of the "cool" youth pastor. Leaving aside, of course, the question of whether or not there should even be "youth pastors".... Another one found on Doug Wilson's blog.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Martha Stewart's Inhospitality
John Barach notes that Martha Stewart is less concerned about hospitality than she is about impressing people:
http://barach.us/2009/06/01/the-trouble-with-martha/
http://barach.us/2009/06/01/the-trouble-with-martha/
Africa and Western Paternalism
It has become a commonplace in intellectual circles these days to state that the West, namely Europe and North America, are gradually dying; that we are in a time of transition, and that the center of power, wealth, and culture is shifting to the East. Some of us are late to the party, however, as the death of the West was prophesied long before now. As far back as 1948, Richard Weaver, in his landmark book Ideas Have Consequences, stated in his opening sentence, "This is another book about the dissolution of the West." This is a great source of fear for some, but for the Christian there should be no fear. God is Sovereign, and has promised to bring His plan for the world to completion, even through what appears to us to be the darkest of days. For that matter, to assert that the West has nailed everything intellectually and culturally is a manifestation of a Perfectionist spirit, which I suspect comes not out of the Wesleyanism from which we derive the term, but rather from Roman Catholicism, which has largely been the backbone of Western Culture since Constantine. If the Church is infallible, then who can help but look upon all other cultures with pity? But neither the Western Church, nor the culture it built, are infallible, and so one can't be surprised that declension should take place, as God strengthens the Church in other parts of the world.
Now I don't want to be misunderstood. Not all cultures are equal. I do believe that a larger measure of grace has been shown to the Western church, though we are selling the blessings we have been given down the river day by day. But as a believer in Providence, I recognize that all that is good is given by God, and no man or civilization has room to boast in itself. In addition, God is still in the process of maturing the Church, both in the East and the West (Ephesians 4), and so to assert that we in the West have arrived is arrogant and unbiblical. Lastly, as we say in the South (that is, the Southeastern U. S.), even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while, and so even non-Christian cultures can stumble upon truths which the Church either has forgotten or should have seen. And the fact that this happens should serve as an embarrassment to the Church, causing her to search and strive more diligently for Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.
It is also worth pointing out that the shift of culture toward the East is simply following the growth of the Church. As the Western missions movement has prospered over the past few centuries in the East, cultural seeds have been planted in those places, all while Western culture has gradually withered.
The West hasn't always dealt with the rest of the world in the most admirable of ways, however, though the sort of self-flagellation and attribution of blame to the West that takes place is usually over-the-top, and at times simply untrue. What I find especially interesting, though, is how Western Paternalism is implicit even in those who think they have succeeded in evading it. This came to mind as I was considering the May issue of New African Magazine recently.
I've picked up a couple of copies of New African over the past few months. Whereas I'm not often familiar with the individuals mentioned in it, I've still been able to see a different angle on Africa, along with getting an idea of how Africans (some, at least) view American and European culture.
I haven't been surprised to find that they don't always take to us so well, and the May issue of the magazine contained a couple of articles that highlighted that in intriguing ways. The first, written by a woman named Akua Djanie, is entitled "My problem with giving children their rights". She believes the problems of children in Western culture, which she fears are gradually creeping into African culture through the influence of Western media, stem from the notion of "children's rights". By the term "children's rights", she makes it clear that she does not intend to imply that children are mere property, or that the sort of abuse that children in parts of the world are subjected to is okay. Nonetheless, those things that the West often terms "rights" are far from such, according to Ms. Djanie. "As a child," she states, "the only right I had was the right to be fed, clothed and educated." She detests the disrespect that Western children feel free to express toward their elders, saying, "Imagine a child in Africa answering back to their parents and using swear words? God forbid Africa should ever turn out like that."
While this has been spread to Africa through the media, she says, "In countries such as the UK and America, I blame the state for the way children have turned out." She also sees individualism as a chief problem: "African society should not get to the stage where our individual needs overshadow all else."
Whereas those in American pop media often claim to be concerned about social issues in Africa (a claim which I'm sure is sincere for some), Ms. Djanie sees the sort of "culture" portrayed in Western media as a key problem: "As a parent raising young children in Africa, it frightens me the way we so blindly copy Western culture. Every time I go out with my sons, I lift up their shirts to make sure they are not dressed as American prisoners, with their trousers hanging from their hips. I don't allow my sons to leave the house with their underwear showing." She even goes so far as to ban certain types of Western-influenced African media from her home: "Because my children are under 18 years old, Nigerian movies have been banned in my home because I believe they portray the negative side of African culture. Films portraying guns, films with foul language and sexual scenes are also not allowed." The timing of such a criticism is particularly interesting, for at the same time that New African chose to print an article that condemned, the BBC magazine Focus on Africa, in its April-June issue, chose to publish an article promoting the Nigerian movie industry.
She closes her article by reiterating her belief that the state has no say in the raising of children: "I hope the day never comes when the state takes over control of our children in Africa. Because although they may think they are doing them a favour, they are in fact doing not only the children but the whole society a great disservice."
So while the Western governments, along with the United Nations, are asserting the rights of children, claiming that these things are good and necessary, and something that needs to be pushed upon the rest of the world, at least some in Africa are accusing us of missing the point. As I read Ms. Djanie's article, I see a Biblicism that has disappeared from American culture, though we had it just fifty years ago. Whether or not she is a Christian, I do not know. But the article certainly gives one reason to think that she is.
In the same issue is an article about a new book on economic aid, entitled Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is Another Way For Africa. Written by Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian woman who has worked for both the World Bank and Goldman Sachs, the book asserts that the financial aid that non-African countries have given to African governments has proven "ineffectual and downright harmful". Among other things, Moyo claims that aid "reduces a recipient government's accountability to its citizens" and "chokes the entrepreneurial spirit". Those of us in the West who have already said these things could elaborate this way: when you teach a person to be dependent on you, you teach them to be lazy. Economic growth doesn't take place, nor does personal growth. People become ingrateful. And when a person implicitly trusts a government of fallible people, power corrupts and the government in question more and more takes advantage of and abuses the citizenry. This has been understood in the West, and at one point was well known. And yet this fact must not generally be known by Africans, as the article states that this "is not a totally new argument, but it is new to a general public in the West whose charitable impulse is to help, and generally believes that aid is beyond criticism and the only way to address the problem of poverty."
The article goes on to discuss alternative ways of bringing money into African countries, ways that do not include accepting aid. The details of this are no doubt debatable among economists. My point here, however, is simply to note that not all Africans think we are doing them a favor when we simply send money to their respective governments.
For that matter, the practice itself seems to me to be a manifestation of the Western Paternalistic mindset. In the West, we have worked hard, using the resources we have to build a great culture. I think it is rather insulting of those in the East to suggest that they need us to baby them in order for them to flourish equally well.
Now I’m not naive enough to think that a couple of articles from a magazine somehow mean that these perspectives are widely held in Africa. I would expect that there, just as in the United States, many if not most people have never even thought these issues through carefully. Nonetheless, there’s something to be said for the fact that these articles were printed in what claims to be “The bestselling pan-African magazine”. These things should be considered carefully by us, in the way we regard the East, and therefore in the policies our government promotes and which we support. If the prognosticators are correct, this may be a sign of good things to come outside of the West. Meanwhile, our hope in this is that God might show us in the West more grace, that the spiritual and cultural darkness that appears to loom before us might not actually overtake us.
Now I don't want to be misunderstood. Not all cultures are equal. I do believe that a larger measure of grace has been shown to the Western church, though we are selling the blessings we have been given down the river day by day. But as a believer in Providence, I recognize that all that is good is given by God, and no man or civilization has room to boast in itself. In addition, God is still in the process of maturing the Church, both in the East and the West (Ephesians 4), and so to assert that we in the West have arrived is arrogant and unbiblical. Lastly, as we say in the South (that is, the Southeastern U. S.), even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while, and so even non-Christian cultures can stumble upon truths which the Church either has forgotten or should have seen. And the fact that this happens should serve as an embarrassment to the Church, causing her to search and strive more diligently for Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.
It is also worth pointing out that the shift of culture toward the East is simply following the growth of the Church. As the Western missions movement has prospered over the past few centuries in the East, cultural seeds have been planted in those places, all while Western culture has gradually withered.
The West hasn't always dealt with the rest of the world in the most admirable of ways, however, though the sort of self-flagellation and attribution of blame to the West that takes place is usually over-the-top, and at times simply untrue. What I find especially interesting, though, is how Western Paternalism is implicit even in those who think they have succeeded in evading it. This came to mind as I was considering the May issue of New African Magazine recently.
I've picked up a couple of copies of New African over the past few months. Whereas I'm not often familiar with the individuals mentioned in it, I've still been able to see a different angle on Africa, along with getting an idea of how Africans (some, at least) view American and European culture.
I haven't been surprised to find that they don't always take to us so well, and the May issue of the magazine contained a couple of articles that highlighted that in intriguing ways. The first, written by a woman named Akua Djanie, is entitled "My problem with giving children their rights". She believes the problems of children in Western culture, which she fears are gradually creeping into African culture through the influence of Western media, stem from the notion of "children's rights". By the term "children's rights", she makes it clear that she does not intend to imply that children are mere property, or that the sort of abuse that children in parts of the world are subjected to is okay. Nonetheless, those things that the West often terms "rights" are far from such, according to Ms. Djanie. "As a child," she states, "the only right I had was the right to be fed, clothed and educated." She detests the disrespect that Western children feel free to express toward their elders, saying, "Imagine a child in Africa answering back to their parents and using swear words? God forbid Africa should ever turn out like that."
While this has been spread to Africa through the media, she says, "In countries such as the UK and America, I blame the state for the way children have turned out." She also sees individualism as a chief problem: "African society should not get to the stage where our individual needs overshadow all else."
Whereas those in American pop media often claim to be concerned about social issues in Africa (a claim which I'm sure is sincere for some), Ms. Djanie sees the sort of "culture" portrayed in Western media as a key problem: "As a parent raising young children in Africa, it frightens me the way we so blindly copy Western culture. Every time I go out with my sons, I lift up their shirts to make sure they are not dressed as American prisoners, with their trousers hanging from their hips. I don't allow my sons to leave the house with their underwear showing." She even goes so far as to ban certain types of Western-influenced African media from her home: "Because my children are under 18 years old, Nigerian movies have been banned in my home because I believe they portray the negative side of African culture. Films portraying guns, films with foul language and sexual scenes are also not allowed." The timing of such a criticism is particularly interesting, for at the same time that New African chose to print an article that condemned, the BBC magazine Focus on Africa, in its April-June issue, chose to publish an article promoting the Nigerian movie industry.
She closes her article by reiterating her belief that the state has no say in the raising of children: "I hope the day never comes when the state takes over control of our children in Africa. Because although they may think they are doing them a favour, they are in fact doing not only the children but the whole society a great disservice."
So while the Western governments, along with the United Nations, are asserting the rights of children, claiming that these things are good and necessary, and something that needs to be pushed upon the rest of the world, at least some in Africa are accusing us of missing the point. As I read Ms. Djanie's article, I see a Biblicism that has disappeared from American culture, though we had it just fifty years ago. Whether or not she is a Christian, I do not know. But the article certainly gives one reason to think that she is.
In the same issue is an article about a new book on economic aid, entitled Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is Another Way For Africa. Written by Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian woman who has worked for both the World Bank and Goldman Sachs, the book asserts that the financial aid that non-African countries have given to African governments has proven "ineffectual and downright harmful". Among other things, Moyo claims that aid "reduces a recipient government's accountability to its citizens" and "chokes the entrepreneurial spirit". Those of us in the West who have already said these things could elaborate this way: when you teach a person to be dependent on you, you teach them to be lazy. Economic growth doesn't take place, nor does personal growth. People become ingrateful. And when a person implicitly trusts a government of fallible people, power corrupts and the government in question more and more takes advantage of and abuses the citizenry. This has been understood in the West, and at one point was well known. And yet this fact must not generally be known by Africans, as the article states that this "is not a totally new argument, but it is new to a general public in the West whose charitable impulse is to help, and generally believes that aid is beyond criticism and the only way to address the problem of poverty."
The article goes on to discuss alternative ways of bringing money into African countries, ways that do not include accepting aid. The details of this are no doubt debatable among economists. My point here, however, is simply to note that not all Africans think we are doing them a favor when we simply send money to their respective governments.
For that matter, the practice itself seems to me to be a manifestation of the Western Paternalistic mindset. In the West, we have worked hard, using the resources we have to build a great culture. I think it is rather insulting of those in the East to suggest that they need us to baby them in order for them to flourish equally well.
Now I’m not naive enough to think that a couple of articles from a magazine somehow mean that these perspectives are widely held in Africa. I would expect that there, just as in the United States, many if not most people have never even thought these issues through carefully. Nonetheless, there’s something to be said for the fact that these articles were printed in what claims to be “The bestselling pan-African magazine”. These things should be considered carefully by us, in the way we regard the East, and therefore in the policies our government promotes and which we support. If the prognosticators are correct, this may be a sign of good things to come outside of the West. Meanwhile, our hope in this is that God might show us in the West more grace, that the spiritual and cultural darkness that appears to loom before us might not actually overtake us.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
A. N. Wilson Returns to the Faith
I first heard of English writer and critic A. N. Wilson on an edition of the Mars Hill Audio Journal several years ago. He had professed at one time to be a believer, but by the early nineties he had decided that Christianity was lacking in evidence, and had come to consider himself an atheist. It seems that he has now left his atheism behind, and is making, according to him, a slow return to faith:
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/conversion-experience-atheism
His citation of Mahatma Gandhi is questionable, as Gandhi wasn't a Christian. And he expresses the idea in the article that the Flood and Noah's Ark are fictional, which contradicts Scripture clearly. Nonetheless, I think it's reasonable to say he's definitely in a better position than he was when he claimed to be an atheist. Hopefully, his faith is sincerely in Jesus Christ.
I especially find his reference to aesthetics interesting. He was never a fully convinced atheist, it seems, and he found a beauty in music and literature created by believers that was unmatched in the works of atheists. This is something I wish Evangelicals would give more thought to, as Evangelical aesthetics have a tendency to be especially ugly. If there were a way to find out for sure, I think we would find that the church loses more people due to aesthetics than we realize. Take the aforementioned Jeffrey Steel, for instance, as he himself cited aesthetics as a beginning factor that led him to Rome.
Along with Steel, Wilson could certainly use our prayers. Whereas he seems to have a ways to go, he is still an example that should give us hope. So long as a person has breath, there is hope for them, for the arm of the LORD has not been shortened, that it cannot save (Isaiah 59:1).
HT: Chuck Colson - http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090507/a-n-wilson-returns-to-the-faith/index.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/conversion-experience-atheism
His citation of Mahatma Gandhi is questionable, as Gandhi wasn't a Christian. And he expresses the idea in the article that the Flood and Noah's Ark are fictional, which contradicts Scripture clearly. Nonetheless, I think it's reasonable to say he's definitely in a better position than he was when he claimed to be an atheist. Hopefully, his faith is sincerely in Jesus Christ.
I especially find his reference to aesthetics interesting. He was never a fully convinced atheist, it seems, and he found a beauty in music and literature created by believers that was unmatched in the works of atheists. This is something I wish Evangelicals would give more thought to, as Evangelical aesthetics have a tendency to be especially ugly. If there were a way to find out for sure, I think we would find that the church loses more people due to aesthetics than we realize. Take the aforementioned Jeffrey Steel, for instance, as he himself cited aesthetics as a beginning factor that led him to Rome.
Along with Steel, Wilson could certainly use our prayers. Whereas he seems to have a ways to go, he is still an example that should give us hope. So long as a person has breath, there is hope for them, for the arm of the LORD has not been shortened, that it cannot save (Isaiah 59:1).
HT: Chuck Colson - http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090507/a-n-wilson-returns-to-the-faith/index.html
Jeffrey Steel Swims the Kool-Aid Filled Tiber
When I first linked Jeffrey Steel on this blog, he was a former PCA minister in the theological vein of James Jordan and Peter Leithart, who had moved to Great Britain and was pursuing Holy Orders in the Church of England. Whereas he already had some leanings that were more Catholic than I was or am now, I chose to link him nonetheless, in the belief that his blog had information and discussion that was of value to the Universal Church.
Those who have followed his blog have no doubt noticed that he has gradually moved more and more Catholic over the past few years. Sadly, he has announced today that he is withdrawing from the Church of England and his ministry, and he and his family will be joining the Roman Catholic Church in the near future. This is no surprise, but it is sad nonetheless. In one sense, I understand the draw to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. But I also see plenty of theological problems in both groups, and that is what has kept me from following a similar path.
A few years back, when I was contemplating joining the Anglican Church, I had a conversation with a man who was Archbishop and Metropolitan in a particular continuing Anglican group. I told him I didn't agree with the notion of the Apostolic Succession of Bishops, and asked if I could join his church anyway. He told me no, of course. That was the answer I had suspected, I told him, but I had studied the issue and had just not been convinced that Apostolic Succession was true. "But Kerry," he said, "who are you to question that?" For me, therein lies the debate, and the reason I can't join such a group. Anglo-catholics show up, and tell me I should exercise implicit faith in their leadership. Roman Catholics show up, and tell me I should exercise implicit faith in their leadership. The same is true of the various Eastern Orthodox groups, some of which won't even acknowledge one another as legitimate. For that matter, it's true of innumerable cults, such as the Mormons. And why, apart from the testimony of Scripture, should I recognize one over the other? There is no Scripture to support them, so there is no reason, and therefore they have no argument.
I am keeping the link to Jeffrey Steel's blog up for now, though I may change my mind in the future. While I am a Protestant in the Anglican Church, I'm not one who believes there is no value in Catholic thought and practice. I trust, though, that readers of this blog will use their discernment when checking out the sites I link.
Those who have followed his blog have no doubt noticed that he has gradually moved more and more Catholic over the past few years. Sadly, he has announced today that he is withdrawing from the Church of England and his ministry, and he and his family will be joining the Roman Catholic Church in the near future. This is no surprise, but it is sad nonetheless. In one sense, I understand the draw to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. But I also see plenty of theological problems in both groups, and that is what has kept me from following a similar path.
A few years back, when I was contemplating joining the Anglican Church, I had a conversation with a man who was Archbishop and Metropolitan in a particular continuing Anglican group. I told him I didn't agree with the notion of the Apostolic Succession of Bishops, and asked if I could join his church anyway. He told me no, of course. That was the answer I had suspected, I told him, but I had studied the issue and had just not been convinced that Apostolic Succession was true. "But Kerry," he said, "who are you to question that?" For me, therein lies the debate, and the reason I can't join such a group. Anglo-catholics show up, and tell me I should exercise implicit faith in their leadership. Roman Catholics show up, and tell me I should exercise implicit faith in their leadership. The same is true of the various Eastern Orthodox groups, some of which won't even acknowledge one another as legitimate. For that matter, it's true of innumerable cults, such as the Mormons. And why, apart from the testimony of Scripture, should I recognize one over the other? There is no Scripture to support them, so there is no reason, and therefore they have no argument.
I am keeping the link to Jeffrey Steel's blog up for now, though I may change my mind in the future. While I am a Protestant in the Anglican Church, I'm not one who believes there is no value in Catholic thought and practice. I trust, though, that readers of this blog will use their discernment when checking out the sites I link.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Old Posts: A Meditation on Friendship
This is an old post from a couple of years ago. I think I only ever posted it on Myspace.
Anything really worth having takes work. This is especially true with relationships, and so it is often considered such with regard to marriage. But it is also true with regard to friendships. "Friendships come and go," people say. But why it has to be this way, I don't know. In fact, I would question whether or not it does. In our country, marriage has mostly ceased to be a commitment and has become a commodity. It seems like every other week I am hearing about somebody getting a divorce, even people who I would have never expected to. And our philosophy about friendship seems no different. Certainly, the two aren't parallel. There are no covenant bonds in friendship, though it is worth noting that in the two supreme examples of friendship in Scripture, that of Abraham and God, and David and Jonathan, there were, in fact, explicit covenant bonds. What that should mean for our friendships today, I do not know.
Ours is a selfish society. This results in divorce, but it also results in a failure to maintain deep, long-term friendships. Even finding a true friend seems nearly impossible. But then maintaining that friendship, nurturing it even through difficult times, and sustaining it over many years, is something of a pipe dream. Nobody seems to consider that this might not only be the result, but also a major cause, of our shallowness. A failure of friendship contributes to a feeling of unrootedness, a sense that we don't really belong anywhere or to anyone. We long for an identity, something outside of ourselves to tell us who we are and who we should strive to be. Much of this is, of course, due to the failure of the family in our society. But families who fail to give sacrificially of themselves by reaching outside to those without families eventually find themselves ingrown and dying.
Friendship requires a type of intimacy, a sharing of life. Jesus addressed this in his words to his disciples at the Last Supper:
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another. (John 15:12-17)
This section of Jesus' words are structured as a chiasm, which is a literary structure containing symmetrical thoughts while moving progressively in a logical fashion. Here is the diagram I would suggest for this section:
A – the command to love one another
B – to love is to lay down your life for your friends
C – you are my friends if you do what I command you
D – servants don't know what their master is doing
D' – friends share in what friends are doing
C' – you didn't choose me, I chose you
B' – you should go and bear fruit that will abide
A' – the command to love one another
In a chiasm, the center section is the focal point or the central meaning of the passage. Here, it is the transition of the disciples from being merely servants to being friends. This is contained in the parallel D and D'. And the intimacy we see is not merely a sharing of feelings or interests, but a sharing of vocation. Jesus came to live and to die. The disciples sharing of this was not merely in imitation, but they were called to participate in the vocation of Jesus. It was through them that the work of the Father would be continued, and even the work of Jesus Himself.
It is interesting to note the change from servanthood, or slavery, to friendship. Such reflects the teaching of Paul with regard to the transition from the Old Covenant to the New. We see this in Galatians 3 & 4, where Paul tells how those living under the Old Covenant were children and therefore no different that slaves. And yet those who are in Christ are in the New Covenant. They are Christ's, they are children of God, and they are Abraham's offspring (Gal. 3:26, 29).
When we add to this James's discussion of Abraham's obedience (James 2:21-24), we see that as Abraham obeyed God, so should we, if we are truly his children (see also John 8:39-41). And, as James tells us, Abraham was called the friend of God (James 2:23). So just as Abraham was God's friend, so all that are in Abraham are not merely servants, but friends of God.
And yet, this does not eliminate all notions of authority, obedience, or accountability. "You are my friends if you do what I command you," Jesus tells them. We have a hard time conceiving that it is possible that those under authority might actually be friends with those in authority over them. And yet Jesus says this is not only possible, but it is necessary for those who would participate in his ministry. This should bring to question the modern approach to ministry, which is shaped on a business model rather than a Biblical model. Pastors are to be servants, walking and living among those they serve, rather than CEO's who show up in the offices and factories every once in a while to pretend they really care about the people who work for them.
One aspect of the passage that I have left out of my diagram involves Jesus' relationship with his Father, yet this is a key aspect of what he is saying. The work to which the disciples are called is the work of the Father. This is the work which Jesus came to do. The disciples were, in being adopted into the family, also being brought into the family business. And in being brought into the family business, they would have communion with the Father as Jesus does.
The whole passage is bracketed with the command to sacrificial love. It is only true love if one lays down his life. It involves finding one's place in the God-ordained structure of a community or family and being obedient in that vocation. And it involves the sharing of life, that is, of truth and experiences.
Kind of hard to do if one spends most of his spare time drunk in a bar. Or glued to a recliner in front of the TV or the internet. Or, for that matter, if one shuts out all those "difficult" people in preference of those nice, cozy relationships that take no work and therefore never grow. Jesus spent three years discipling twelve men. All had their faults. None of them fully understood his work, even up until the point he left them. And all of them abandoned him in his darkest hour. He gave himself when he got nothing in return, knowing that the harvest never comes in the same season in which you sow.
The perfection we long for isn't meant to exist in this world. We live and we die, and we spend much time in between wondering whether we are actually doing anybody any good. But God is the gardener, and He assures us that when we die and fall into the ground as He has commanded us (John 12:24-26), He will cause to spring up from our death fruit that will abide.
And this is as true in friendships as anywhere else. This doesn't answer all the questions, of course. By the nature of friendship, it takes the effort of two people, and if only one is willing to do the work necessary, it seems to stand that the friendship won't get very far. Yet this remains, that God calls us to serve one another sacrificially, obeying His calling and sharing our lives with one another. If even the whole world abandons us, we may still serve the world, knowing that God is our friend, and He will never abandon us, but will stick closer than a brother (Proverbs 18:24).
Anything really worth having takes work. This is especially true with relationships, and so it is often considered such with regard to marriage. But it is also true with regard to friendships. "Friendships come and go," people say. But why it has to be this way, I don't know. In fact, I would question whether or not it does. In our country, marriage has mostly ceased to be a commitment and has become a commodity. It seems like every other week I am hearing about somebody getting a divorce, even people who I would have never expected to. And our philosophy about friendship seems no different. Certainly, the two aren't parallel. There are no covenant bonds in friendship, though it is worth noting that in the two supreme examples of friendship in Scripture, that of Abraham and God, and David and Jonathan, there were, in fact, explicit covenant bonds. What that should mean for our friendships today, I do not know.
Ours is a selfish society. This results in divorce, but it also results in a failure to maintain deep, long-term friendships. Even finding a true friend seems nearly impossible. But then maintaining that friendship, nurturing it even through difficult times, and sustaining it over many years, is something of a pipe dream. Nobody seems to consider that this might not only be the result, but also a major cause, of our shallowness. A failure of friendship contributes to a feeling of unrootedness, a sense that we don't really belong anywhere or to anyone. We long for an identity, something outside of ourselves to tell us who we are and who we should strive to be. Much of this is, of course, due to the failure of the family in our society. But families who fail to give sacrificially of themselves by reaching outside to those without families eventually find themselves ingrown and dying.
Friendship requires a type of intimacy, a sharing of life. Jesus addressed this in his words to his disciples at the Last Supper:
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another. (John 15:12-17)
This section of Jesus' words are structured as a chiasm, which is a literary structure containing symmetrical thoughts while moving progressively in a logical fashion. Here is the diagram I would suggest for this section:
A – the command to love one another
B – to love is to lay down your life for your friends
C – you are my friends if you do what I command you
D – servants don't know what their master is doing
D' – friends share in what friends are doing
C' – you didn't choose me, I chose you
B' – you should go and bear fruit that will abide
A' – the command to love one another
In a chiasm, the center section is the focal point or the central meaning of the passage. Here, it is the transition of the disciples from being merely servants to being friends. This is contained in the parallel D and D'. And the intimacy we see is not merely a sharing of feelings or interests, but a sharing of vocation. Jesus came to live and to die. The disciples sharing of this was not merely in imitation, but they were called to participate in the vocation of Jesus. It was through them that the work of the Father would be continued, and even the work of Jesus Himself.
It is interesting to note the change from servanthood, or slavery, to friendship. Such reflects the teaching of Paul with regard to the transition from the Old Covenant to the New. We see this in Galatians 3 & 4, where Paul tells how those living under the Old Covenant were children and therefore no different that slaves. And yet those who are in Christ are in the New Covenant. They are Christ's, they are children of God, and they are Abraham's offspring (Gal. 3:26, 29).
When we add to this James's discussion of Abraham's obedience (James 2:21-24), we see that as Abraham obeyed God, so should we, if we are truly his children (see also John 8:39-41). And, as James tells us, Abraham was called the friend of God (James 2:23). So just as Abraham was God's friend, so all that are in Abraham are not merely servants, but friends of God.
And yet, this does not eliminate all notions of authority, obedience, or accountability. "You are my friends if you do what I command you," Jesus tells them. We have a hard time conceiving that it is possible that those under authority might actually be friends with those in authority over them. And yet Jesus says this is not only possible, but it is necessary for those who would participate in his ministry. This should bring to question the modern approach to ministry, which is shaped on a business model rather than a Biblical model. Pastors are to be servants, walking and living among those they serve, rather than CEO's who show up in the offices and factories every once in a while to pretend they really care about the people who work for them.
One aspect of the passage that I have left out of my diagram involves Jesus' relationship with his Father, yet this is a key aspect of what he is saying. The work to which the disciples are called is the work of the Father. This is the work which Jesus came to do. The disciples were, in being adopted into the family, also being brought into the family business. And in being brought into the family business, they would have communion with the Father as Jesus does.
The whole passage is bracketed with the command to sacrificial love. It is only true love if one lays down his life. It involves finding one's place in the God-ordained structure of a community or family and being obedient in that vocation. And it involves the sharing of life, that is, of truth and experiences.
Kind of hard to do if one spends most of his spare time drunk in a bar. Or glued to a recliner in front of the TV or the internet. Or, for that matter, if one shuts out all those "difficult" people in preference of those nice, cozy relationships that take no work and therefore never grow. Jesus spent three years discipling twelve men. All had their faults. None of them fully understood his work, even up until the point he left them. And all of them abandoned him in his darkest hour. He gave himself when he got nothing in return, knowing that the harvest never comes in the same season in which you sow.
The perfection we long for isn't meant to exist in this world. We live and we die, and we spend much time in between wondering whether we are actually doing anybody any good. But God is the gardener, and He assures us that when we die and fall into the ground as He has commanded us (John 12:24-26), He will cause to spring up from our death fruit that will abide.
And this is as true in friendships as anywhere else. This doesn't answer all the questions, of course. By the nature of friendship, it takes the effort of two people, and if only one is willing to do the work necessary, it seems to stand that the friendship won't get very far. Yet this remains, that God calls us to serve one another sacrificially, obeying His calling and sharing our lives with one another. If even the whole world abandons us, we may still serve the world, knowing that God is our friend, and He will never abandon us, but will stick closer than a brother (Proverbs 18:24).
Monday, June 01, 2009
Total Eclipse of the Heart: Literal Video Version
A friend of mine linked this on Facebook. It's too funny to be missed.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Radicalism and the Free Market Reconsidered
The following was written specifically for Facebook, but rather than attempting to edit it for this blog, I thought I would just publish it as is. Comments, as always, are welcome.
One of the things I've found interesting since joining Facebook and reconnecting with old friends and acquaintances is the different political directions that people I've known have gone. But at the risk of sounding demeaning, I don't usually find them all that shocking. Those who were raised in Conservative churches and families and then went the direction of the Democratic party don't surprise me. I guess when you know someone, you know them.
I'm sure there are a lot of reasons that stand behind such a shift. Some people go away to college at state universities, the professors of which are usually of a Socialist or Communist inclination, and, being young, and impressionable, and hearing political theory delineated in an intellectual fashion, often for the first time in their lives, they find themselves quickly swayed the way of the Left.
Then there are those who, quite frankly, view certain celebrities as demiurges, and who can disagree with such a manifestation of the Divine? There is no doubt that Barack Obama wouldn't have won the election without Oprah Winfrey, though what qualifies her as a reliable political counselor I have yet to figure out.
There are certainly alot of other reasons for the conversion of many from the Right to the Left (weren't the sheep on the right, and the goats on the left? But I digress.). But whatever the reason for the following of this path , their path is the result of poorly thought out positioning, rather than a careful search into political theory and history.
Now I would like to think that those individuals who have made this shift would still be reading at this point, and would be willing to receive criticism with an open mind (isn't it the Left that is always calling out for open mindedness?). Since I have made many criticisms of the Obama administration already, I would expect that some of these individuals have blocked my comments and therefore won't notice I have written this. Yet hope springs eternal. Whether or not I am preaching merely to the choir remains to be seen.
One criticism of Conservatism that I often hear raised is that which has to do with so-called "Capitalist greed". The assumption is that Capitalism inevitably exists as an institutionalism of greed. Since greed tears societies and communities apart, and since Capitalism can't exist without greed, ergo, Capitalism must go.
I do think that the Right (if I may use it in a broad way) is partially responsible for this misunderstanding of Capitalism. Sometimes this mistake is an honest one, based on what they themselves have been taught Capitalism means. Yet I think it can be reasonably argued that Capitalism doesn't necessarily cause or exist dependently upon greed.
Perhaps it would be better if we used the term "Free Market Economy". The term "Capitalism" has been often used as synonymous with "Free Market Economy", but this hasn't always been the case. Along with sometimes being a loaded term which carries implications of sanctified greed at the expense of others, "Capitalism" has sometimes been used to refer to an approach often taken in the U. S., in which civil government privileges the wealthy. It can be argued, and has been argued, that these approaches are different from what has been intended by "Free Market Economy".
Without getting into a lengthy discussion of the Socialist option, I think it needs to be said that there is clear opposition to it in Scripture. If nothing else, one has to understand that Socialism violates two of the Ten Commandments: You Shall Not Steal, and You Shall Not Covet. Both imply private individual ownership over which the State has no authority. I am forbidden to take that which God has given me no right to take from another individual, and I am sinning to want to take it from them, even if this is for a supposedly good cause.
But rather than me saying more, here are a couple of sources from others worth checking out.
First, there is this article:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0193b.asp
In it, the author discusses the historical difference between Capitalism and the Free Market.
Secondly, there is this video:
http://www.booktv.org/watch.aspx?ProgramId=PC-10489
The lecturer, Jay Richards, discusses myths commonly associated with Capitalism. In the lecture, he manages to mention Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, Hillaire Belloc, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Rod Dreher. It's not one to miss.
These certainly aren't enough, I wouldn't expect, to cause a Leftist running down the saw dust trail in repentance from any economic fallacies they may hold. But I hope they will cause the reader to see that there is a different approach to economics and the civil government than what they have considered.
I have so often seen people be thoughtlessly reactionary to their Conservative roots, that while I have my own criticisms of the Right, I have a hard time taking those reactionaries very seriously. So this is what you might think of as a brief invitation away from a reactionary approach. If we are going to be responsible citizens in the place God has put us, then one must be led by careful thought, not by a spirit of populist fervor, whether that fervor be on the Left or the Right.
One of the things I've found interesting since joining Facebook and reconnecting with old friends and acquaintances is the different political directions that people I've known have gone. But at the risk of sounding demeaning, I don't usually find them all that shocking. Those who were raised in Conservative churches and families and then went the direction of the Democratic party don't surprise me. I guess when you know someone, you know them.
I'm sure there are a lot of reasons that stand behind such a shift. Some people go away to college at state universities, the professors of which are usually of a Socialist or Communist inclination, and, being young, and impressionable, and hearing political theory delineated in an intellectual fashion, often for the first time in their lives, they find themselves quickly swayed the way of the Left.
Then there are those who, quite frankly, view certain celebrities as demiurges, and who can disagree with such a manifestation of the Divine? There is no doubt that Barack Obama wouldn't have won the election without Oprah Winfrey, though what qualifies her as a reliable political counselor I have yet to figure out.
There are certainly alot of other reasons for the conversion of many from the Right to the Left (weren't the sheep on the right, and the goats on the left? But I digress.). But whatever the reason for the following of this path , their path is the result of poorly thought out positioning, rather than a careful search into political theory and history.
Now I would like to think that those individuals who have made this shift would still be reading at this point, and would be willing to receive criticism with an open mind (isn't it the Left that is always calling out for open mindedness?). Since I have made many criticisms of the Obama administration already, I would expect that some of these individuals have blocked my comments and therefore won't notice I have written this. Yet hope springs eternal. Whether or not I am preaching merely to the choir remains to be seen.
One criticism of Conservatism that I often hear raised is that which has to do with so-called "Capitalist greed". The assumption is that Capitalism inevitably exists as an institutionalism of greed. Since greed tears societies and communities apart, and since Capitalism can't exist without greed, ergo, Capitalism must go.
I do think that the Right (if I may use it in a broad way) is partially responsible for this misunderstanding of Capitalism. Sometimes this mistake is an honest one, based on what they themselves have been taught Capitalism means. Yet I think it can be reasonably argued that Capitalism doesn't necessarily cause or exist dependently upon greed.
Perhaps it would be better if we used the term "Free Market Economy". The term "Capitalism" has been often used as synonymous with "Free Market Economy", but this hasn't always been the case. Along with sometimes being a loaded term which carries implications of sanctified greed at the expense of others, "Capitalism" has sometimes been used to refer to an approach often taken in the U. S., in which civil government privileges the wealthy. It can be argued, and has been argued, that these approaches are different from what has been intended by "Free Market Economy".
Without getting into a lengthy discussion of the Socialist option, I think it needs to be said that there is clear opposition to it in Scripture. If nothing else, one has to understand that Socialism violates two of the Ten Commandments: You Shall Not Steal, and You Shall Not Covet. Both imply private individual ownership over which the State has no authority. I am forbidden to take that which God has given me no right to take from another individual, and I am sinning to want to take it from them, even if this is for a supposedly good cause.
But rather than me saying more, here are a couple of sources from others worth checking out.
First, there is this article:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0193b.asp
In it, the author discusses the historical difference between Capitalism and the Free Market.
Secondly, there is this video:
http://www.booktv.org/watch.aspx?ProgramId=PC-10489
The lecturer, Jay Richards, discusses myths commonly associated with Capitalism. In the lecture, he manages to mention Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, Hillaire Belloc, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Rod Dreher. It's not one to miss.
These certainly aren't enough, I wouldn't expect, to cause a Leftist running down the saw dust trail in repentance from any economic fallacies they may hold. But I hope they will cause the reader to see that there is a different approach to economics and the civil government than what they have considered.
I have so often seen people be thoughtlessly reactionary to their Conservative roots, that while I have my own criticisms of the Right, I have a hard time taking those reactionaries very seriously. So this is what you might think of as a brief invitation away from a reactionary approach. If we are going to be responsible citizens in the place God has put us, then one must be led by careful thought, not by a spirit of populist fervor, whether that fervor be on the Left or the Right.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
What's an out-of-work Hobbit to do?
The economic crisis has reached the Shire, and a Hobbit must take work wherever he can:
http://www.yogabbagabba.com/#/elijah_wood
http://www.yogabbagabba.com/#/elijah_wood
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Obama Iconography
In former times, the general public in the United States would have recognized this as blasphemy, and the person responsible would have been held accountable. Those days appear long gone. Lord, have mercy upon us.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96138
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96138
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
A note on some recent magazines
Magazines as a media form seem to be dying a slow death, sped up somewhat by the recent economic downturn. Nonetheless, I remain a magazine addict, and have a hard time believing that I will ever be satisfied with the internet as a substitute. In light of my clinging to hope beyond hope, here are a couple of recent issues of magazines worth checking out.
First, the latest issue of Christianity Today features an article about the ever provocative Douglas Wilson. Pastor Wilson himself commented on it on his own blog, and was reasonably pleased with the article. I thought the article was fairly good, though the author seemed to accent the controversies that have surrounded Doug a bit much. One can hardly blame her. People love train wrecks, and where they can't find one, they are usually glad to manufacture one for their own amusement. And this does sell magazines, after all.
Secondly, the latest issue of First Things is devoted entirely to the life of Father Richard John Neuhaus. I haven't spent much time examining it yet, but it looks to be quite good.
Lastly, the latest issue of National Geographic contains an article on the state of religion in Russia, particularly highlighting the Russian Orthodox Church and its historic relationship with the national government. What makes it most interesting is that it was written by Serge Schmemann, the son of the late Father Alexander Schmemann. Fr. Schmemann was a priest in the Orthodox Church in America, and president of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary in New York. Serge weaves references to his father's work into the article, making it especially interesting for those who have appreciated Fr. Schmemann.
First, the latest issue of Christianity Today features an article about the ever provocative Douglas Wilson. Pastor Wilson himself commented on it on his own blog, and was reasonably pleased with the article. I thought the article was fairly good, though the author seemed to accent the controversies that have surrounded Doug a bit much. One can hardly blame her. People love train wrecks, and where they can't find one, they are usually glad to manufacture one for their own amusement. And this does sell magazines, after all.
Secondly, the latest issue of First Things is devoted entirely to the life of Father Richard John Neuhaus. I haven't spent much time examining it yet, but it looks to be quite good.
Lastly, the latest issue of National Geographic contains an article on the state of religion in Russia, particularly highlighting the Russian Orthodox Church and its historic relationship with the national government. What makes it most interesting is that it was written by Serge Schmemann, the son of the late Father Alexander Schmemann. Fr. Schmemann was a priest in the Orthodox Church in America, and president of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary in New York. Serge weaves references to his father's work into the article, making it especially interesting for those who have appreciated Fr. Schmemann.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Flannery O'Connor
Flannery O'Connor's birthday was March 25th, and it passed me by without my noticing it. This is fairly inexcusable, considering she was possibly the greatest writer America has ever produced. HT to the Avenue Blog for the reminder: http://auburnavenue.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/happy-birthday-flannery/
Here are a couple of great quotes from O'Connor:
“Everywhere I go I’m asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don’t stifle enough of them. There’s many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.”
On hearing that her friends, Sally and Robert Fitzgerald, were expecting their fifth child:
"I hope this one will be a girl & have a fierce Old Testament name and cut off a lot of heads."
"My mamma and I have interesting literary discussions like the following which took place over some Modern Library books that I had just ordered:
SHE: 'Mobby Dick. I've always heard about that.'
ME: 'Mow-by Dick.'
SHE: 'MOW-by Dick. The Idiot. You would get something called The Idiot. What's it about?'
Me: 'An idiot.'"
"The Manicheans separated spirit and matter. To them all material things were evil. They sought pure spirit and tried to approach the infinite directly without any mediation of matter. This is also pretty much the modern spirit, and for the sensibility infected with it, fiction is hard if not impossible to write because fiction is so very much an incarnational art."
"People have a habit of saying, 'What is the theme of your story?' and they expect you to give them a statement: 'The theme of my story is the economic pressure of the machine on the middle class' - or some such absurdity. And when they've got a statement like that, they go off happy and feel it is no longer necessary to read the story... Some people have the notion that you read the story and then climb out of it into the meaning, but for the fiction writer himself the whole story is the meaning, because it is an experience, not an abstraction."
"I was once, five or six years ago, taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy and her husband, Mr. Broadwater... She departed the Church at the age of 15 and is a Big Intellectual. We went at eight and at one, I hadn't opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say...Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them. Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater said when she was a child and received the host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the most portable person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it. That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable."
Here are a couple of great quotes from O'Connor:
“Everywhere I go I’m asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don’t stifle enough of them. There’s many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.”
On hearing that her friends, Sally and Robert Fitzgerald, were expecting their fifth child:
"I hope this one will be a girl & have a fierce Old Testament name and cut off a lot of heads."
"My mamma and I have interesting literary discussions like the following which took place over some Modern Library books that I had just ordered:
SHE: 'Mobby Dick. I've always heard about that.'
ME: 'Mow-by Dick.'
SHE: 'MOW-by Dick. The Idiot. You would get something called The Idiot. What's it about?'
Me: 'An idiot.'"
"The Manicheans separated spirit and matter. To them all material things were evil. They sought pure spirit and tried to approach the infinite directly without any mediation of matter. This is also pretty much the modern spirit, and for the sensibility infected with it, fiction is hard if not impossible to write because fiction is so very much an incarnational art."
"People have a habit of saying, 'What is the theme of your story?' and they expect you to give them a statement: 'The theme of my story is the economic pressure of the machine on the middle class' - or some such absurdity. And when they've got a statement like that, they go off happy and feel it is no longer necessary to read the story... Some people have the notion that you read the story and then climb out of it into the meaning, but for the fiction writer himself the whole story is the meaning, because it is an experience, not an abstraction."
"I was once, five or six years ago, taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy and her husband, Mr. Broadwater... She departed the Church at the age of 15 and is a Big Intellectual. We went at eight and at one, I hadn't opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say...Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them. Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater said when she was a child and received the host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the most portable person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it. That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable."
Monday, March 30, 2009
Fireproof - Art, or Propaganda?
Here are some great thoughts from Doug Wilson on the latest Evangelical fad movie, Fireproof:
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6434
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6434
Friday, March 27, 2009
British minister beaten by Muslims
Who says Islam isn't a peaceful religion?
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newsdetail.php?newscode=9769
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newsdetail.php?newscode=9769
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Prodigal Father
Here's a fantastic sermon on the Prodigal Father, given by Gene Helsel at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Check it out if you get the chance:
http://www.canonpress.org/shop/custom.asp?recid=26
http://www.canonpress.org/shop/custom.asp?recid=26
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Once...
...there was a pub in County Clare where the locals took their evening beverages. One particular night, a gentleman walks in who was unfamiliar to the rest of the patrons. Saddling up to the bar, he says to the bartender, "I'd like three beers." Wondering in his own mind, but not questioning the man, the bartender fills his request. The gentleman drinks the three beers, and leaves the bar.
The next night, the gentleman does the same. Pulling up to the bar, he requests his three beers, and after having drunk them, he leaves.
The third night comes, and the man once more comes in and requests his three beers. By this point, the bartender's curiosity is getting the best of him, so he asks the fellow, "say, bud, why is it that each evening you request exactly three beers?" The gentleman was glad to answer. "I have two brothers, you see. And we made a pact with one another that wherever we went and had a beer, we would also have a beer for each of our other two brothers, in honor of one another. So that's why, each time I order a beer for myself, I order two more as well."
The bartender thought this was one of the noblest things he had ever heard, and he began to tell it to those he knew. Soon word of the gentleman and his two brothers spread throughout the countryside.
Then one day, as the bartender was serving drinks, the gentleman came up to the bar and said, "bartender, give me two beers." With a heavy heart, the bartender brought the man two beers, and by the next day word had spread that one of the gentleman's brothers had died.
The next evening, when the gentleman came into the pub, the bartender, hesitant to bring the subject up, said, "I am sure sorry to hear about the death of your brother."
"My brother isn't dead! What made you think he was dead?" the man replied.
"Well, you've only been ordering two beers the past couple of nights," said the bartender.
"Oh, that," the gentleman said. "Actually, I've only been ordering two beers because I've given up drinking for Lent."
The next night, the gentleman does the same. Pulling up to the bar, he requests his three beers, and after having drunk them, he leaves.
The third night comes, and the man once more comes in and requests his three beers. By this point, the bartender's curiosity is getting the best of him, so he asks the fellow, "say, bud, why is it that each evening you request exactly three beers?" The gentleman was glad to answer. "I have two brothers, you see. And we made a pact with one another that wherever we went and had a beer, we would also have a beer for each of our other two brothers, in honor of one another. So that's why, each time I order a beer for myself, I order two more as well."
The bartender thought this was one of the noblest things he had ever heard, and he began to tell it to those he knew. Soon word of the gentleman and his two brothers spread throughout the countryside.
Then one day, as the bartender was serving drinks, the gentleman came up to the bar and said, "bartender, give me two beers." With a heavy heart, the bartender brought the man two beers, and by the next day word had spread that one of the gentleman's brothers had died.
The next evening, when the gentleman came into the pub, the bartender, hesitant to bring the subject up, said, "I am sure sorry to hear about the death of your brother."
"My brother isn't dead! What made you think he was dead?" the man replied.
"Well, you've only been ordering two beers the past couple of nights," said the bartender.
"Oh, that," the gentleman said. "Actually, I've only been ordering two beers because I've given up drinking for Lent."
The Movement of the Spheres
Greg Wilbur quotes David Yearsley on the relationship between musical counterpoint and the motion of the heavenly bodies. Is this what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote Ainulindale?
He can create money out of thin air
In The Christian Almanac, George Grant and Greg Wilbur take the position that the movie version takes Baum's original intent and turns it on it's head. Unfortunately, I don't have the book at my disposal at the moment, so any interested may want to check it out. Nonetheless, this BBC article is a good introduction to the question of whether the Wizard of Oz was intended to be a political allegory:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7933175.stmMonday, March 16, 2009
In lieu...
... of anything from me on music at the moment, here's an interesting post from Doug Wilson on a recent experience he had:
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6391
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6391
Saturday, March 14, 2009
A lesson from the life of Bernie Madoff
When choosing a crime to commit, take your last name into consideration first.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Getting the Ooshy-gooshies: Music, pt. 2
Let's rehearse, in a nutshell, the history of the recent worship wars. Until the late 1960's, music in the American church was pretty consistent across the board, no matter what denomination one was in. (There were some variations between traditions, some greater than others, but they weren't as great as the gap between what are now considered "traditional" and "contemporary" forms of worship.) But with the cultural revolution of the sixties came the beginnings of a revolution in church music. And now, there is scarcely a denomination that hasn't since been affected by the shift in music.
So has the change been for the good? It's a simple question that one might think would yield a simple answer, but I don't think it does.
Often when people address the question of whether or not a certain type of Christian music is good, the rationale that people will give is something along the lines of this: "It must be good, because the Lord blessed me through it." But just because the Lord uses something for good in a person's life, that doesn't mean that we should regularly seek that thing out. God once spoke through a donkey (Numbers 22), but that doesn't mean then that we should make a regular practice of ordaining jackasses to the ministry (though some denominations do this fairly frequently). Equally so, God uses all sorts of things to bless his children, whether or not those things are good in themselves (Romans 8:28).
This sort of thinking is what is called "pragmatism". Pragmatism says that a thing is justified by its effectiveness. If it works, then do it. But pragmatism excludes all other moral claims. The easiest way for me to get money may be to knock over a convenience store. But God says it is sin, and therefore it's wrong.
Also, when talking to people about worship music, I frequently find there is little rational thought behind why they like the kind of worship music they like. "It gets me pumped up," or some variation thereof, isn't a good argument for why a certain type of music is appropriate for worship. Based on that argument, maybe we should replace the bread and wine (or, I suppose for most, grape juice) with giant candy bars and Red Bull. This isn't to say there shouldn't be an emotional response to music in worship, or that worship music shouldn't be pleasing to the emotions. But when that is one's main focus in assessing worship music, then there is a need for them to do a little deeper thinking on the subject. This would also suggest an erroneous way of viewing the world in general that goes deeper than the question of music.
This isn't a problem confined to the younger generation of Christians, either. Part of the problem in the worship wars has been that the older generation hasn't been able to intelligently articulate why they think the music they were accustomed to worshiping with is superior. And in some cases, the music they were accustomed to wasn't superior. That's where we'll pick up next time.
So has the change been for the good? It's a simple question that one might think would yield a simple answer, but I don't think it does.
Often when people address the question of whether or not a certain type of Christian music is good, the rationale that people will give is something along the lines of this: "It must be good, because the Lord blessed me through it." But just because the Lord uses something for good in a person's life, that doesn't mean that we should regularly seek that thing out. God once spoke through a donkey (Numbers 22), but that doesn't mean then that we should make a regular practice of ordaining jackasses to the ministry (though some denominations do this fairly frequently). Equally so, God uses all sorts of things to bless his children, whether or not those things are good in themselves (Romans 8:28).
This sort of thinking is what is called "pragmatism". Pragmatism says that a thing is justified by its effectiveness. If it works, then do it. But pragmatism excludes all other moral claims. The easiest way for me to get money may be to knock over a convenience store. But God says it is sin, and therefore it's wrong.
Also, when talking to people about worship music, I frequently find there is little rational thought behind why they like the kind of worship music they like. "It gets me pumped up," or some variation thereof, isn't a good argument for why a certain type of music is appropriate for worship. Based on that argument, maybe we should replace the bread and wine (or, I suppose for most, grape juice) with giant candy bars and Red Bull. This isn't to say there shouldn't be an emotional response to music in worship, or that worship music shouldn't be pleasing to the emotions. But when that is one's main focus in assessing worship music, then there is a need for them to do a little deeper thinking on the subject. This would also suggest an erroneous way of viewing the world in general that goes deeper than the question of music.
This isn't a problem confined to the younger generation of Christians, either. Part of the problem in the worship wars has been that the older generation hasn't been able to intelligently articulate why they think the music they were accustomed to worshiping with is superior. And in some cases, the music they were accustomed to wasn't superior. That's where we'll pick up next time.
Friday, March 06, 2009
A Man's Library
Douglas Phillips, on why a father's library is an important part of any Christian home:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/education/a_mans_library.aspx
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/education/a_mans_library.aspx
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Does anybody else find it ironic...
...that President Obama is giving a speech about a lean economy on Fat Tuesday?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Well, well, well...
Tonight I decided randomly to go to Westover Church here in Greensboro for their singles group called The Well. I used to attend somewhat regularly, but it's been over a year since I've been. I'm glad I went.
I asked a single friend a few years back, "why is it that all they ever talk about in singles groups is relationships and the end times?" The friend thought for a second and replied, "hey, that is all we ever talk about!" So I couldn't help but laugh to myself when I showed up tonight to find out they were beginning a four week series on relationships.
Former singles pastor Chris Lewis (now pastor of discipleship) gave the message tonight. One passage he discussed was the conversation that Jesus had with the woman at the well, recorded in John 4. That sparked a few thoughts in my own mind, which follow, and had little to do with what Chris actually said. (Sorry Chris, I actually was listening.)
I believe it was Doug Wilson who pointed out in one of his lectures that, throughout Scripture, whenever a man and woman meet at a well, then a wedding is soon to follow. Men and women would tend to meet there, and therefore it wasn't unusual that their meeting then led to their getting married. The well was sort of like the soda shop, or the water fountain, or maybe today, the Starbucks. Or maybe like the bar, though people who meet in bars don't usually get married, they just use one another until they tire of one another. But in Scripture, beyond the mere sociological aspect, wells carry a specific typological significance. Since wells have water, they tie in to the various typological meanings of water in Scripture. Water is connected to the Holy Spirit; to death, burial, and resurrection; to regeneration; and through the Exodus and the Jordan, it is connected to entering the Promised Land. All these things overlap in the John 4 passage. But in the least, we should note the connection between this passage and other passages where men and women meet at wells. So it is reasonable that the disciples would be shocked that Jesus would be talking to this woman. Would he have anything to do with a woman who had lived such a promiscuous life? But this is exactly how God had been throughout the Old Covenant. Yahweh's wife, Israel, had played the harlot over and over and over again, and He had repeatedly taken her back. This woman, though a Samaritan, symbolized unfaithful Israel. In fact, in being a Samaritan, she was an example of an unlawful intermarriage between the people of God and the pagans.
So was Jesus looking to marry this woman? Well, yes and no. This woman also symbolized the church, in that she wasn't fully Jewish. Were she to become one of the faithful, and therefore one of the church, then yes, Jesus was going to "marry" her, just as He would marry all who became part of the church. In fact, Jesus notes that the woman had had five husbands, and the man she was with at the time wasn't her husband. So a little basic math reveals that she had been with six men. Then who was to be the seventh, that is, who was to be her Sabbath rest? Jesus was.
But on the other hand, he wasn't going to marry her. Jeff Meyers once noted in a lecture that Jesus has several encounters with women through out the Gospel of John. It seems reminiscent of Adam's act of naming the animals (Genesis 2) and not finding among them a suitable helper. Jesus meets many women, but only the Church is fit to be his mate.
The conversation between Jesus and the woman turns to the subject of the proper place of worship, and the debate is over which mountain is the correct one. But Jesus tells her that neither is right. He says that true worshipers will worship in Spirit and in truth. We might be tempted to take that to mean in a non-physical way, or that location doesn't matter. But that isn't the case. True worship is directed heavenward, where the New Jerusalem is, the heavenly Mount Zion. This connects the passage to Revelation 21, where the New Jerusalem is portrayed as a Bride, adorned for her husband, coming down out of heaven. Jesus will marry the Church, which is His Bride, which is the New Jerusalem.
And all of this happened at the Well.
I asked a single friend a few years back, "why is it that all they ever talk about in singles groups is relationships and the end times?" The friend thought for a second and replied, "hey, that is all we ever talk about!" So I couldn't help but laugh to myself when I showed up tonight to find out they were beginning a four week series on relationships.
Former singles pastor Chris Lewis (now pastor of discipleship) gave the message tonight. One passage he discussed was the conversation that Jesus had with the woman at the well, recorded in John 4. That sparked a few thoughts in my own mind, which follow, and had little to do with what Chris actually said. (Sorry Chris, I actually was listening.)
I believe it was Doug Wilson who pointed out in one of his lectures that, throughout Scripture, whenever a man and woman meet at a well, then a wedding is soon to follow. Men and women would tend to meet there, and therefore it wasn't unusual that their meeting then led to their getting married. The well was sort of like the soda shop, or the water fountain, or maybe today, the Starbucks. Or maybe like the bar, though people who meet in bars don't usually get married, they just use one another until they tire of one another. But in Scripture, beyond the mere sociological aspect, wells carry a specific typological significance. Since wells have water, they tie in to the various typological meanings of water in Scripture. Water is connected to the Holy Spirit; to death, burial, and resurrection; to regeneration; and through the Exodus and the Jordan, it is connected to entering the Promised Land. All these things overlap in the John 4 passage. But in the least, we should note the connection between this passage and other passages where men and women meet at wells. So it is reasonable that the disciples would be shocked that Jesus would be talking to this woman. Would he have anything to do with a woman who had lived such a promiscuous life? But this is exactly how God had been throughout the Old Covenant. Yahweh's wife, Israel, had played the harlot over and over and over again, and He had repeatedly taken her back. This woman, though a Samaritan, symbolized unfaithful Israel. In fact, in being a Samaritan, she was an example of an unlawful intermarriage between the people of God and the pagans.
So was Jesus looking to marry this woman? Well, yes and no. This woman also symbolized the church, in that she wasn't fully Jewish. Were she to become one of the faithful, and therefore one of the church, then yes, Jesus was going to "marry" her, just as He would marry all who became part of the church. In fact, Jesus notes that the woman had had five husbands, and the man she was with at the time wasn't her husband. So a little basic math reveals that she had been with six men. Then who was to be the seventh, that is, who was to be her Sabbath rest? Jesus was.
But on the other hand, he wasn't going to marry her. Jeff Meyers once noted in a lecture that Jesus has several encounters with women through out the Gospel of John. It seems reminiscent of Adam's act of naming the animals (Genesis 2) and not finding among them a suitable helper. Jesus meets many women, but only the Church is fit to be his mate.
The conversation between Jesus and the woman turns to the subject of the proper place of worship, and the debate is over which mountain is the correct one. But Jesus tells her that neither is right. He says that true worshipers will worship in Spirit and in truth. We might be tempted to take that to mean in a non-physical way, or that location doesn't matter. But that isn't the case. True worship is directed heavenward, where the New Jerusalem is, the heavenly Mount Zion. This connects the passage to Revelation 21, where the New Jerusalem is portrayed as a Bride, adorned for her husband, coming down out of heaven. Jesus will marry the Church, which is His Bride, which is the New Jerusalem.
And all of this happened at the Well.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Why Johnny Can't Preach
I just got an email from the Westminster Seminary bookstore that featured this book, which looks like it would be very interesting:
Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers
Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Christ the Ark
This morning's Old Testament reading from the Book of Common Prayer came from Genesis 8, which tells of the latter portion of the time that Noah, his family, and all the animals spent on the ark. What strikes me as interesting is the care that God gave in describing to us the sequence of events that took place leading up to and during the flood. Four chapters of Genesis are devoted to the story of Noah (ch. 6-9), which suggests that we do the story a disservice when we reduce it down to a tale about a big boat full of cuddly animals.
The passage is rife with typological symbolism. The tabernacle typology fills the passage, and seems to be the main imagery here. Just as Yahweh went into great detail in His prescriptions for the tabernacle, and then later the temple, He also here goes into great detail in His instructions to Noah. The measurements are detailed, as are the materials that the ark is to be made out of. Rooms are to be made in the ark (6:14), which are later echoed in the two rooms in the tabernacle, and even moreso in the various chambers of the temple (1 Kings 6:3-5). We might say, in other words, that, from the perspective of the flood, the ark prefigured the tabernacle and the temple. But from the perspective of the tabernacle and the temple, they were designed in part to resemble and hearken back to the ark. They were each, in themselves, arks, means of salvation from the judgment of God for sin.
Yahweh commands Noah to take seven pairs of each clean animal, which pointed forward to the Mosaic law and the animals prescribed in the Levitical offerings. And after the flood, we are told that Noah offered burnt offerings to Yahweh, a specific type of offering in the Levitical system (Lev. 1). As the ark pointed forward to the tabernacle and temple, so Noah functioned here as priest and pointed forward to the Levitical priesthood.
There are the details given regarding the days and months during the flood. The number seven makes several appearances in the story, pointing back to the Creation as well as forward to the foundation of the Levitical calendar, the Sabbath (Lev. 23:3). It also seems to be no coincidence that the ark came to rest on the 17th day of the 7th month, which date would later have been during the Feast of Booths (Lev. 23:33-36).
Leaving the matter of the Old Covenant liturgical system somewhat, we also see a parallel between the flood and the baptism of Jesus. Peter shows us the connection between the flood and the baptism of Christians (1 Peter 3:18-22), but when the details are considered, the connection with Christ's baptism (Mt. 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk. 3:21-22) becomes apparent. Christ went into water, just as the ark did. We have reference to the opening of the heavens (Gen. 7:11), just as in the stories of Jesus' baptism. And there are the reports of the Holy Spirit being as a dove (even in the bodily form of a dove, as Luke records, vs. 22), which is a link to Noah's sending out of the dove from the ark (Gen. 8:8-12).
And so the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple, were all types of Christ. Or, in other words, Christ was the fullness of all that the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple, were mere shadows.
The passage is rife with typological symbolism. The tabernacle typology fills the passage, and seems to be the main imagery here. Just as Yahweh went into great detail in His prescriptions for the tabernacle, and then later the temple, He also here goes into great detail in His instructions to Noah. The measurements are detailed, as are the materials that the ark is to be made out of. Rooms are to be made in the ark (6:14), which are later echoed in the two rooms in the tabernacle, and even moreso in the various chambers of the temple (1 Kings 6:3-5). We might say, in other words, that, from the perspective of the flood, the ark prefigured the tabernacle and the temple. But from the perspective of the tabernacle and the temple, they were designed in part to resemble and hearken back to the ark. They were each, in themselves, arks, means of salvation from the judgment of God for sin.
Yahweh commands Noah to take seven pairs of each clean animal, which pointed forward to the Mosaic law and the animals prescribed in the Levitical offerings. And after the flood, we are told that Noah offered burnt offerings to Yahweh, a specific type of offering in the Levitical system (Lev. 1). As the ark pointed forward to the tabernacle and temple, so Noah functioned here as priest and pointed forward to the Levitical priesthood.
There are the details given regarding the days and months during the flood. The number seven makes several appearances in the story, pointing back to the Creation as well as forward to the foundation of the Levitical calendar, the Sabbath (Lev. 23:3). It also seems to be no coincidence that the ark came to rest on the 17th day of the 7th month, which date would later have been during the Feast of Booths (Lev. 23:33-36).
Leaving the matter of the Old Covenant liturgical system somewhat, we also see a parallel between the flood and the baptism of Jesus. Peter shows us the connection between the flood and the baptism of Christians (1 Peter 3:18-22), but when the details are considered, the connection with Christ's baptism (Mt. 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk. 3:21-22) becomes apparent. Christ went into water, just as the ark did. We have reference to the opening of the heavens (Gen. 7:11), just as in the stories of Jesus' baptism. And there are the reports of the Holy Spirit being as a dove (even in the bodily form of a dove, as Luke records, vs. 22), which is a link to Noah's sending out of the dove from the ark (Gen. 8:8-12).
And so the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple, were all types of Christ. Or, in other words, Christ was the fullness of all that the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple, were mere shadows.
And now, for something completely different... a little pre-show music.
I decided a week or so ago that I would write some pieces about music and post them on my Facebook page. I'll be posting them here as well. They will rarely make Facebook references, but I don't really care to take the time to edit them for this blog. So here is the first one, as written for Facebook, and I trust the reader will be able to consider it without being to distracted by comments referring to the original intended context.
I think the one thing that comes up most often when I talk to people about worship is music. Obviously, music is an important part of worship, so it's natural that people would want to talk about it. Whether or not it's as important as most Christians think it is, however, is a whole other question.
The "worship wars" are gradually becoming old news, it seems to me. As the older generation of Christians are passing on, so is the music they were accustomed to hearing in church. And as the younger generation has grown up and is taking the reins of leadership, the default position now in most Evangelical churches seems to be contemporary worship. Generally, though, what is meant by "contemporary worship" is simply "worship with contemporary music". This isn't to say that there aren't other things that have changed in worship in recent decades. But let's be honest. People don't generally find themselves in the middle of huge church splits over whether or not to have a skit before the sermon on Sunday morning. Usually, the fights that take place over worship in the local church center around music. Of course, when the shift in music takes place, other things usually come with it. You don't find churches with worship bands where the seats are full of women in dresses and men in three-piece suits, after all.
Then there is the whole question of music outside of corporate worship. As a Christian, is music that falls under the heading "Christian" the only type of music I should listen to? Is all "secular" music bad? I'm always intrigued by the different answers to these questions that are bandied about in Evangelical circles.
When I signed up on Facebook a couple of months ago, I didn't really anticipate reconnecting with so many people from earlier in my life. As I've interacted with old friends through email and online, music usually comes up, since I'm a musician of sorts. For what it's worth, I must confess that I don't play guitar much anymore. I'd rather listen to others play these days. And the photo with the headstock of my guitar? I was just trying to get an artsy picture for my profile.
Nonetheless, people who haven't seen me in years still think of me, I guess, as a musician. For those who have only known me recently, it used to be that my guitar and I were practically joined at the hip. Much of my identity was wrapped up in it. These days, I'd rather be reading. The world is full of things to learn, and I want to learn all I can, hopefully for my own good, for the good of others, and, especially, for God's glory. I find the masses, however, aren't as interested in knowledge. For most people, armchair polymath apparently holds less mystique than guitarist. If you play a song people like, they love you. If you tell them some sort of insight you gained from Scripture, or from reflecting on the world around you, they generally seem, shall we say, less than impressed. Alas.
But I still consider myself a musician. I've been a sort of musical jack of all trades, master of none. I sang in choirs and choruses in school and church from elementary school on up through high school, and even one semester in college. I played in a garage band in high school. I sang with a southern gospel group briefly. I led singing in youth group, and daily worship for a ministry I served at for a couple of years. I've sung solo in churches and in coffee shops. I've dabbled in everything from barber shop to Bach to the Beatles. So, though I may not be classically trained, in light of my experience I believe I have some views on the topic of music that are worth sharing.
So my plans at this point are to post occasional thoughts on music, both inside and outside the church, and this is the introductory post. As always, I welcome any interaction on what I'm writing.
I think the one thing that comes up most often when I talk to people about worship is music. Obviously, music is an important part of worship, so it's natural that people would want to talk about it. Whether or not it's as important as most Christians think it is, however, is a whole other question.
The "worship wars" are gradually becoming old news, it seems to me. As the older generation of Christians are passing on, so is the music they were accustomed to hearing in church. And as the younger generation has grown up and is taking the reins of leadership, the default position now in most Evangelical churches seems to be contemporary worship. Generally, though, what is meant by "contemporary worship" is simply "worship with contemporary music". This isn't to say that there aren't other things that have changed in worship in recent decades. But let's be honest. People don't generally find themselves in the middle of huge church splits over whether or not to have a skit before the sermon on Sunday morning. Usually, the fights that take place over worship in the local church center around music. Of course, when the shift in music takes place, other things usually come with it. You don't find churches with worship bands where the seats are full of women in dresses and men in three-piece suits, after all.
Then there is the whole question of music outside of corporate worship. As a Christian, is music that falls under the heading "Christian" the only type of music I should listen to? Is all "secular" music bad? I'm always intrigued by the different answers to these questions that are bandied about in Evangelical circles.
When I signed up on Facebook a couple of months ago, I didn't really anticipate reconnecting with so many people from earlier in my life. As I've interacted with old friends through email and online, music usually comes up, since I'm a musician of sorts. For what it's worth, I must confess that I don't play guitar much anymore. I'd rather listen to others play these days. And the photo with the headstock of my guitar? I was just trying to get an artsy picture for my profile.
Nonetheless, people who haven't seen me in years still think of me, I guess, as a musician. For those who have only known me recently, it used to be that my guitar and I were practically joined at the hip. Much of my identity was wrapped up in it. These days, I'd rather be reading. The world is full of things to learn, and I want to learn all I can, hopefully for my own good, for the good of others, and, especially, for God's glory. I find the masses, however, aren't as interested in knowledge. For most people, armchair polymath apparently holds less mystique than guitarist. If you play a song people like, they love you. If you tell them some sort of insight you gained from Scripture, or from reflecting on the world around you, they generally seem, shall we say, less than impressed. Alas.
But I still consider myself a musician. I've been a sort of musical jack of all trades, master of none. I sang in choirs and choruses in school and church from elementary school on up through high school, and even one semester in college. I played in a garage band in high school. I sang with a southern gospel group briefly. I led singing in youth group, and daily worship for a ministry I served at for a couple of years. I've sung solo in churches and in coffee shops. I've dabbled in everything from barber shop to Bach to the Beatles. So, though I may not be classically trained, in light of my experience I believe I have some views on the topic of music that are worth sharing.
So my plans at this point are to post occasional thoughts on music, both inside and outside the church, and this is the introductory post. As always, I welcome any interaction on what I'm writing.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Irony with a vengeance
Many of you will be familiar with Ben Stein. He is probably best known for his appearance as the dead-pan teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, or maybe for his now defunct game show "Win Ben Stein's Money". He happens to be an all-around brilliant guy, being also an economist, as well as a political commentator and speech writer. His most recent fame, however, has come from his movie "Expelled", which was released last year and which highlighted the bias of the scientific community against anything but Evolutionary theory.
Well, his exposé of Darwinianism has come to be a personal reality for him. Originally asked to give the commencement address at the University of Vermont this Spring, a huge backlash erupted, based off of his criticisms of Evolution. As a result, Stein has declined the invitation to speak.
On the Big Hollywood website, Andrew Leigh notes the irony in this. The whole point of "Expelled" was to show the unwillingness within academia to be open to theories of origins other than Evolution. Now, the thesis of the movie has been confirmed. Plus, the Darwinists have shown that they are as hypocritical as they often accuse Christians of being. So who's closed minded now?
Relevant links:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090203/NEWS02/902030316
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090203/NEWS02/90203038&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/aleigh/2009/02/04/ben-steins-commencement-day-off/
HT: Gary DeMar
Well, his exposé of Darwinianism has come to be a personal reality for him. Originally asked to give the commencement address at the University of Vermont this Spring, a huge backlash erupted, based off of his criticisms of Evolution. As a result, Stein has declined the invitation to speak.
On the Big Hollywood website, Andrew Leigh notes the irony in this. The whole point of "Expelled" was to show the unwillingness within academia to be open to theories of origins other than Evolution. Now, the thesis of the movie has been confirmed. Plus, the Darwinists have shown that they are as hypocritical as they often accuse Christians of being. So who's closed minded now?
Relevant links:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090203/NEWS02/902030316
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090203/NEWS02/90203038&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/aleigh/2009/02/04/ben-steins-commencement-day-off/
HT: Gary DeMar
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Monday, February 09, 2009
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Monday, February 02, 2009
The Modern State, a False God
(W)ithout a sound faith, men will trust almost anything and anyone rather than God. Having denied God, men will then proceed to deify themselves, their own creations (including the state) and almost anything other than the living God (Rom. 1:18-23). Chief among these man-made idols or gods is the state. As St. Augustine pointed out, in The City of God, when men forsake God, and when a civil order becomes godless, it is soon no more than a larger band of thieves, a super-mafia, whose victims are the citizens. This evil situation is compounded by the fact that the people insist on trusting this false god, the idol state. The more it oppresses them, the more they turn on state-created scapegoats, and each of them in turn becomes a scapegoat. But this is not all: to relieve themselves of a state-created oppression, they vote still greater powers to the state, crying in effect, "O Baal, hear us" and save us (I Kings 18:26).
As we view the modern state, it is important to recognize one central fact: the major enemy of the humanistic state is its own people. The U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. have their differences, and they may go to war, but both have been in continuous war against their own peoples from 1918 to the present. Savage as the treatment by the U.S.S.R. of Germany was, after World War II, it never equalled its savagery towards its own peoples. The U.S.A. has been generous to its enemies, and to all the world, except its own people. In the name of the public welfare, it has robbed, abused, and mistreated its own citizenry, and it is waging war against all segments of society, behind a facade of subsidies, and, with President Carter, began a war against Christianity as well.
People should have been forewarned. Early in the modern era, city planners, as soon as they came into existence, began to think of straight streets, not for the convenience of the public, but for the control of the people. An angry populace could be handled more easily by cannons shooting down straight streets, and rebellious peoples could be easily subdued by a cavalry charge up and down a straight street.
The first principle of the modern state is to protect itself against its own people, and to control them. Its second and lesser principle is to protect itself against foreign enemies. Foreign enemies are a periodic problem; the people are a state's permanent problem.
Thus, to entrust the state to control our lives, our families, our education, religion, and economics is to ask for our destruction.
The goal of state-controlled economics is the increase of statist powers, and the control of money is basic to that goal. To trust the state with money is to ensure, virtually always in history, the debauchery of money.
--Rousas John Rushdooney, The Roots of Inflation, pp. 41-42 (1982)
As we view the modern state, it is important to recognize one central fact: the major enemy of the humanistic state is its own people. The U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. have their differences, and they may go to war, but both have been in continuous war against their own peoples from 1918 to the present. Savage as the treatment by the U.S.S.R. of Germany was, after World War II, it never equalled its savagery towards its own peoples. The U.S.A. has been generous to its enemies, and to all the world, except its own people. In the name of the public welfare, it has robbed, abused, and mistreated its own citizenry, and it is waging war against all segments of society, behind a facade of subsidies, and, with President Carter, began a war against Christianity as well.
People should have been forewarned. Early in the modern era, city planners, as soon as they came into existence, began to think of straight streets, not for the convenience of the public, but for the control of the people. An angry populace could be handled more easily by cannons shooting down straight streets, and rebellious peoples could be easily subdued by a cavalry charge up and down a straight street.
The first principle of the modern state is to protect itself against its own people, and to control them. Its second and lesser principle is to protect itself against foreign enemies. Foreign enemies are a periodic problem; the people are a state's permanent problem.
Thus, to entrust the state to control our lives, our families, our education, religion, and economics is to ask for our destruction.
The goal of state-controlled economics is the increase of statist powers, and the control of money is basic to that goal. To trust the state with money is to ensure, virtually always in history, the debauchery of money.
--Rousas John Rushdooney, The Roots of Inflation, pp. 41-42 (1982)
Sunday, February 01, 2009
New Links
I just added a couple of new links. Two of them are to pages by my friend William Chad Newsom. He is the author of Polycarp: Crown of Fire and Talking of Dragons, both of which are published by Christian Focus. A third link is to a page called Net Right Nation. It is a news site that serves as a portal to numerous Conservative blogs. I just found them the other day, and discovered they had linked me. I always try to return the favour if I can, so you'll find them in the side bar as well. That goes for other sites as well. If you have a site and have linked me, let me know. Unless I have a good reason not to (promotion of any sort of false doctrine or rank immorality would serve as examples of "good reasons"), I'll add a link to your page.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
I just learned that Fr. Richard John Neuhaus died this past January 8. He was a convert to Roman Catholicism from Lutheranism. He was the author of numerous books, a political activist, an EWTN commentator, and editor of First Things Journal.
There were many things on which I differed with Fr. Neuhaus, his Romanism being the first to come to mind, and his defense of the neoconservative approach to politics being another. Nonetheless, I appreciated his work, particularly his regular commentary called "The Public Square". His occasions on EWTN, which usually involved a special event in the life of the church, as he was flanked by commentator Raymond Arroyo, were also quite enjoyable. He was a well read and intelligent man, and will be missed.
There were many things on which I differed with Fr. Neuhaus, his Romanism being the first to come to mind, and his defense of the neoconservative approach to politics being another. Nonetheless, I appreciated his work, particularly his regular commentary called "The Public Square". His occasions on EWTN, which usually involved a special event in the life of the church, as he was flanked by commentator Raymond Arroyo, were also quite enjoyable. He was a well read and intelligent man, and will be missed.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
If We Had Only Listened
Economies throughout the world are collapsing. And Ron Paul said it would happen, but no one listened. Even now, almost no one in Washington wants to do what it will take to fix it.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
New Pastor of Coral Ridge
This piece of news almost slipped past me. Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, which was founded by the late D. James Kennedy (known for his radio and TV ministries, political involvement, and the creation of the Evangelism Explosion training program), has finally chosen a new pastor. Interestingly enough, they have chosen one of Billy Graham's grandsons. His name is William Graham Tullian Tchividjian. The "Tullian" part comes from the early church father Tertullian, apparently. Here are a couple of articles about the choice of Pastor Tchividjian:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-coralridge0118,0,7957788.story
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/broward/story/861948.html
The most important aspect of this, of course, is that Tchividjian has a tan to rival that of his predecessor, Dr. Kennedy. I say this facetiously, of course, but it highlights a couple of concerns it raises in my own mind. The articles note that Coral Ridge considered about 150 potential pastors in their search, but also that they approached Tchividjian on three different occasions. Apparently they wanted this guy pretty bad. But why? I listened to one of his sermons today to get an idea of his teaching. The content was pretty good. And he preached for over forty minutes, so at least he doesn't preach sermonettes like so many contemporary ministers. But the shape of his preaching was very contemporary. His choice of words and his vocal inflections were all very contemporary.
This might seem a rather ridiculous observation on the face of it. But aesthetics matter, and everybody lives like they do, whether or not they realize it.
Prior to now, Coral Ridge's approach to ministry was very 20th century. Their corporate worship (at least, what they showed of it on TV week by week) was a mixture of tradition liturgical worship and American Revivalism. There were liturgical elements, like the procession of the choir, the traditional hymnody, the organ, and the robes that the choir and Dr. Kennedy wore. And yet a measure of the aesthetics of it, such as the slick production of the service, were of the Revivalistic tradition. While I believe that there is a need for liturgical change in every generation, some forms are somehow less bound to particular time periods, and carry more of a sense of transcendence about them. Liturgical robes, for instance, have been used in the church for most of the church's history, and this isn't simply because the church doesn't like change. Some art forms serve the worship of God better, which is simply to say that Relativism doesn't exist in the realm of art any more than it exists in the realm of morals. And, as R. C. Sproul says, all forms are art forms. This includes the shape of the songs we sing and the clothes we wear, not to mention the way we speak.
While Coral Ridge's worship needed some fixing, it was better than what goes on in most contemporary churches today. Tchividjian's approach, as of that of his current church, is more contemporary, however. If taking Tchividjian on as pastor means a further move away from traditional liturgy towards a contemporary worship approach, then things don't bode well for Coral Ridge. We can talk about being counter cultural all we want, and even criticize the culture on specific issues. But if the shape of the worship of the local church isn't counter cultural in some sense, then all of are criticisms will be in vain.
But this raises another issue. Dr. Kennedy often mixed church and politics in an improper way. His sermons in which he tried to prove that certain historical American figures, such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, were faithful Christians (at times dubious, especially regarding the latter figure) were inappropriate for the pulpit of the Christian church. Nonetheless, his speaking out on certain political issues, such as abortion, not to mention his political activism outside of the pulpit, were generally something to be admired and emulated. Tchividjian, on the other hand, wants to pull away from the "culture war" approach that Kennedy took. In one of the articles I linked above, the reporter states that Tchividjian "would not answer questions on current political issues, such as same-sex marriage." If he is simply steering away from a blind allegiance to Americanism, and seeking instead for local reformation, particularly by focusing on community within the church and the way that stretches out to the community around the church, then that's great. But as a Christian, one can't not speak out against the wicked decisions of the government over them. When God says something is evil, I don't then have the option to say, "no, I won't talk about that." When the opportunity arises, I must speak. I can understand how people can get worn out by the culture wars. But perhaps this weariness is just a sign that we need to reassess how we address the culture. It isn't a sign that we need to start acting like our differences don't matter. Considering the direction our country is going, this isn't the time to start getting sheepish about things.
Then there is the issue of the merger of the two churches. In order for Tchividjian to take the position, he wants his church to merge with Coral Ridge. But while Coral Ridge is in the PCA, Tchividjian's church, New City Church, is in the EPC, which is the PCA's slightly more liberal cousin. The EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church) holds tenuously to the Westminster Standards, allowing for departures from it even in regards to the Doctrines of Grace. It also allows for the ordination of women. The PCA isn't in the best shape itself, but Coral Ridge would be worse off going into the EPC. On the other hand, unless Tchividjian is willing to publicly renounce the EPC's stance on women's ordination, I don't think he should be let into the PCA. As of yet, it has not been announced which denomination the merged church would be in.
And then there's the celebrityism. He's the grandson of Billy Graham, and has "William Graham" as part of his own name. The news reports haven't hesitated to use his full name to highlight this, though he actually goes by the name "Tullian Tchividjian". But what is the likelihood of Coral Ridge choosing a no-name for the pastorate?
So, basically, Coral Ridge is choosing the grandson of a Christian celebrity, with soap star good looks, who is hip and surfs and listens to cool music, and who doesn't want to address contemporary moral issues when asked about them. As one of the articles above states, "Gasps, then applause, greeted Tchividjian's name as Dr. Dan Westphal, head of Coral Ridge's search committee, announced it during the morning service." Gasps? I hope Tchividjian is a godly man and a good pastor. But all of the above factors combined make me think that the motives behind choosing him should be suspect at the very least.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-coralridge0118,0,7957788.story
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/broward/story/861948.html
The most important aspect of this, of course, is that Tchividjian has a tan to rival that of his predecessor, Dr. Kennedy. I say this facetiously, of course, but it highlights a couple of concerns it raises in my own mind. The articles note that Coral Ridge considered about 150 potential pastors in their search, but also that they approached Tchividjian on three different occasions. Apparently they wanted this guy pretty bad. But why? I listened to one of his sermons today to get an idea of his teaching. The content was pretty good. And he preached for over forty minutes, so at least he doesn't preach sermonettes like so many contemporary ministers. But the shape of his preaching was very contemporary. His choice of words and his vocal inflections were all very contemporary.
This might seem a rather ridiculous observation on the face of it. But aesthetics matter, and everybody lives like they do, whether or not they realize it.
Prior to now, Coral Ridge's approach to ministry was very 20th century. Their corporate worship (at least, what they showed of it on TV week by week) was a mixture of tradition liturgical worship and American Revivalism. There were liturgical elements, like the procession of the choir, the traditional hymnody, the organ, and the robes that the choir and Dr. Kennedy wore. And yet a measure of the aesthetics of it, such as the slick production of the service, were of the Revivalistic tradition. While I believe that there is a need for liturgical change in every generation, some forms are somehow less bound to particular time periods, and carry more of a sense of transcendence about them. Liturgical robes, for instance, have been used in the church for most of the church's history, and this isn't simply because the church doesn't like change. Some art forms serve the worship of God better, which is simply to say that Relativism doesn't exist in the realm of art any more than it exists in the realm of morals. And, as R. C. Sproul says, all forms are art forms. This includes the shape of the songs we sing and the clothes we wear, not to mention the way we speak.
While Coral Ridge's worship needed some fixing, it was better than what goes on in most contemporary churches today. Tchividjian's approach, as of that of his current church, is more contemporary, however. If taking Tchividjian on as pastor means a further move away from traditional liturgy towards a contemporary worship approach, then things don't bode well for Coral Ridge. We can talk about being counter cultural all we want, and even criticize the culture on specific issues. But if the shape of the worship of the local church isn't counter cultural in some sense, then all of are criticisms will be in vain.
But this raises another issue. Dr. Kennedy often mixed church and politics in an improper way. His sermons in which he tried to prove that certain historical American figures, such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, were faithful Christians (at times dubious, especially regarding the latter figure) were inappropriate for the pulpit of the Christian church. Nonetheless, his speaking out on certain political issues, such as abortion, not to mention his political activism outside of the pulpit, were generally something to be admired and emulated. Tchividjian, on the other hand, wants to pull away from the "culture war" approach that Kennedy took. In one of the articles I linked above, the reporter states that Tchividjian "would not answer questions on current political issues, such as same-sex marriage." If he is simply steering away from a blind allegiance to Americanism, and seeking instead for local reformation, particularly by focusing on community within the church and the way that stretches out to the community around the church, then that's great. But as a Christian, one can't not speak out against the wicked decisions of the government over them. When God says something is evil, I don't then have the option to say, "no, I won't talk about that." When the opportunity arises, I must speak. I can understand how people can get worn out by the culture wars. But perhaps this weariness is just a sign that we need to reassess how we address the culture. It isn't a sign that we need to start acting like our differences don't matter. Considering the direction our country is going, this isn't the time to start getting sheepish about things.
Then there is the issue of the merger of the two churches. In order for Tchividjian to take the position, he wants his church to merge with Coral Ridge. But while Coral Ridge is in the PCA, Tchividjian's church, New City Church, is in the EPC, which is the PCA's slightly more liberal cousin. The EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church) holds tenuously to the Westminster Standards, allowing for departures from it even in regards to the Doctrines of Grace. It also allows for the ordination of women. The PCA isn't in the best shape itself, but Coral Ridge would be worse off going into the EPC. On the other hand, unless Tchividjian is willing to publicly renounce the EPC's stance on women's ordination, I don't think he should be let into the PCA. As of yet, it has not been announced which denomination the merged church would be in.
And then there's the celebrityism. He's the grandson of Billy Graham, and has "William Graham" as part of his own name. The news reports haven't hesitated to use his full name to highlight this, though he actually goes by the name "Tullian Tchividjian". But what is the likelihood of Coral Ridge choosing a no-name for the pastorate?
So, basically, Coral Ridge is choosing the grandson of a Christian celebrity, with soap star good looks, who is hip and surfs and listens to cool music, and who doesn't want to address contemporary moral issues when asked about them. As one of the articles above states, "Gasps, then applause, greeted Tchividjian's name as Dr. Dan Westphal, head of Coral Ridge's search committee, announced it during the morning service." Gasps? I hope Tchividjian is a godly man and a good pastor. But all of the above factors combined make me think that the motives behind choosing him should be suspect at the very least.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
What Lincoln Really Thought About Slavery
Today's event at the Lincoln memorial is more than a little ironic, in light of the following quote, which I wish was more well-known than it is:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
I lifted the quote from here: http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html
Lincoln could have cared less about freeing slaves. The War Between the States was about States' Rights versus Centralism, not slavery.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
I lifted the quote from here: http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html
Lincoln could have cared less about freeing slaves. The War Between the States was about States' Rights versus Centralism, not slavery.
Beck Beckoned By Fox
I just learned that Glenn Beck has officially moved from CNN to Fox News, and I must admit my feelings are a bit mixed. Glenn Beck was about the only conservative television commentator to give Ron Paul, the only major candidate worthy of election this last cycle, a reasonable hearing. Meanwhile, Fox News commentators ridiculed him at times, while at other times shutting him out completely. They supported the other Republican candidates, all fairly incompetent, and none of whom had a chance, in a nation obsessed with smooth speech and celebrity good-looks, against that great Socialist bearer of empty rhetoric, our new president Barack Obama (whom Doug Wilson has aptly dubbed "the Shining One", no doubt based on the Messianic aura that surrounds him).
I haven't made any attempt to find out why Beck made the change. But there was something nice about finding a conservative commentator on CNN. And now that he's on Fox, I can't help but wonder if he will be allowed the freedom to speak against the neo-cons that he had on CNN. Based on Fox's track record, I have my doubts.
I haven't made any attempt to find out why Beck made the change. But there was something nice about finding a conservative commentator on CNN. And now that he's on Fox, I can't help but wonder if he will be allowed the freedom to speak against the neo-cons that he had on CNN. Based on Fox's track record, I have my doubts.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Inauguration Inflation
Fox news notes that the tradition of the Presidential Inaugural Ball began with the inauguration of James Madison in 1809. The tickets for the Ball were $4. Today, they go into the hundreds of dollars. And remind me again why we elected Obama to the presidency? The cost of things isn't going up; the value of the dollar is going down. And Obama won't be doing what's necessary to fix this.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Historical Deconstruction Silliness
Greensboro's favourite Mormon science fiction writer, Orson Scott Card, tells of one of the latest manifestations of historical ignorance:
Just in case you had any doubt about the ignorance of "educated" Americans, I'd like to quote a line to you from a review in the Publishers Weekly of Dec. 8, 2008.
PW is the news-and-reviews magazine of the publishing and bookselling trade – reviews in PW are quite influential in helping booksellers decide which books to order and stock in their stores.
So I'm reading a review of the historical mystery The Bellini Card by Jason Goodwin, and the reviewer refers to "a portrait of Mehmet the Conqueror (who reclaimed Constantinople from the Christians in 1453), painted by the legendary artist Gentile Bellini."
What matters here is the parenthetical phrase, in which the reviewer actually makes the appalling claim that the Muslim conquest of Constantinople in 1453 somehow represented a reclaiming – which implies that Constantinople had once been Muslim and was being retrieved from Christian rule.
Here are the facts – which once were known to every college graduate, if not to every schoolchild: Constantinople was never Muslim until the Turks flat-out conquered it in a naked act of aggression in 1453.
Read the rest here:
http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-i-2009-01-08-190020.112113_PC_History_Ambiguous_Fiction_Best_Books.html
Just in case you had any doubt about the ignorance of "educated" Americans, I'd like to quote a line to you from a review in the Publishers Weekly of Dec. 8, 2008.
PW is the news-and-reviews magazine of the publishing and bookselling trade – reviews in PW are quite influential in helping booksellers decide which books to order and stock in their stores.
So I'm reading a review of the historical mystery The Bellini Card by Jason Goodwin, and the reviewer refers to "a portrait of Mehmet the Conqueror (who reclaimed Constantinople from the Christians in 1453), painted by the legendary artist Gentile Bellini."
What matters here is the parenthetical phrase, in which the reviewer actually makes the appalling claim that the Muslim conquest of Constantinople in 1453 somehow represented a reclaiming – which implies that Constantinople had once been Muslim and was being retrieved from Christian rule.
Here are the facts – which once were known to every college graduate, if not to every schoolchild: Constantinople was never Muslim until the Turks flat-out conquered it in a naked act of aggression in 1453.
Read the rest here:
http://greensboro.rhinotim
Sunday, January 11, 2009
L. A. Story
Out of the numerous gifts I received for Christmas, one friend gave me a copy of the Steve Martin film "L. A. Story". I had actually just remembered it a couple of months ago, and subsequently added it to my Amazon wish list.
Sometimes you think back with fondness on a movie that you enjoyed at an earlier point in your life, but upon watching it again, realize that your enjoyment was determined by and confined by the point you were at in your life when you saw it. One can grow out of a movie, just like one grows out of other things.
I found this wasn't the case for me with L. A. Story. It was released in 1991, and so the clothes and music are dated. But if one can get past this, the film is brilliant. It is essentially a comedic love story set in Los Angeles, but it is far deeper than most films that would fit into that category. The first thing I noticed in re-watching the film was the many quotes and allusions to Shakespeare. I am fairly unread in Shakespeare, but I'm knowledgeable enough to pick up on some of the allusions. After watching the film again, I skimmed through the IMDB discussion board about the film and learned that it is essentially based off of A Midsummer Night's Dream, though there are references to several other Shakespeare plays present.
The film is full of absurd moments, intended in part to highlight the eccentricities of L. A. life. And it is also full of details that only emerge upon repeated watchings, which make it a much richer film.
There are aspects that one should beware of. There is some profanity, a moment of brief nudity, and a couple of sexual scenes, though not graphic. So it's a film for adults. But if one is okay with these, the film is well worth the watching.
Sometimes you think back with fondness on a movie that you enjoyed at an earlier point in your life, but upon watching it again, realize that your enjoyment was determined by and confined by the point you were at in your life when you saw it. One can grow out of a movie, just like one grows out of other things.
I found this wasn't the case for me with L. A. Story. It was released in 1991, and so the clothes and music are dated. But if one can get past this, the film is brilliant. It is essentially a comedic love story set in Los Angeles, but it is far deeper than most films that would fit into that category. The first thing I noticed in re-watching the film was the many quotes and allusions to Shakespeare. I am fairly unread in Shakespeare, but I'm knowledgeable enough to pick up on some of the allusions. After watching the film again, I skimmed through the IMDB discussion board about the film and learned that it is essentially based off of A Midsummer Night's Dream, though there are references to several other Shakespeare plays present.
The film is full of absurd moments, intended in part to highlight the eccentricities of L. A. life. And it is also full of details that only emerge upon repeated watchings, which make it a much richer film.
There are aspects that one should beware of. There is some profanity, a moment of brief nudity, and a couple of sexual scenes, though not graphic. So it's a film for adults. But if one is okay with these, the film is well worth the watching.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
The Anniversary of My Father's Death
Today is Epiphany, as I mentioned before, though the day is almost over. It didn't occur to me until a year or two ago, however, that Epiphany, January 6th, is also the anniversary of my father's death. Having grown up without the church calendar, I always thought of it as the anniversary of my father's death rather than Epiphany. He died on January 6, 1985, which happened also to be Sunday, the Christian Sabbath. To add even further to significance of the dates of his life, I might note that he was born on St. Valentine's Day.
I sure there are plenty of fortune tellers and mystics that would love to read things into the convergence of these dates. I note them simply as a matter of curiosity. Nonetheless, they are a God-ordained curiosity, and an illustration of how strangely, from our perspective, God works at times.
And were it not past eleven o'clock, I'm sure I would have more to say about that. But I can't seem to muster any more energy by which to do so.
I sure there are plenty of fortune tellers and mystics that would love to read things into the convergence of these dates. I note them simply as a matter of curiosity. Nonetheless, they are a God-ordained curiosity, and an illustration of how strangely, from our perspective, God works at times.
And were it not past eleven o'clock, I'm sure I would have more to say about that. But I can't seem to muster any more energy by which to do so.
The Hornes on AFV?
So I was just flipping around on the TV and passed by America's Funniest Home Video when, lo and behold, there was a picture of Mark & Jennifer Horne with their little ones on the screen. I think maybe they won some contest or something - they cut to a commercial just as I passed the show. Anyway, I've seen their pictures online before, but I didn't expect I'd see them on my TV screen any time soon:
http://www.hornes.org/mark/
http://www.hornes.org/jennsblog/
http://www.hornes.org/mark/
http://www.hornes.org/jennsblog/
Saturday, January 03, 2009
It's Still Christmas
It is now January 3, and most people are glad to be able to forget the busyness of Christmas, and to get on with life, whatever "getting on with life" may mean. But contrary to popular conception, we're still in the Christmas season. According to the traditional Western Church calendar, this is the Tenth Day of Christmas (you know, with those Lords a-Leaping). Christmas officially ends with January 6th, which is Epiphany, the celebration of the visitation of the Wise Men to Jesus.
There are, in our time and place, two ways of ordering time. One is the secular calendar. It begins its calendar year on January 1st, and is a blending of sacred and secular holidays, all of which exist to serve the interests of the State. Then there is the traditional Church calendar. It begins with Advent, the season preceding Christmas.
It is commonly thought that Christmas season is the time after Thanksgiving, leading up to Christmas Day, and ending with December 25. Accordingly, it is common for radio and TV stations broadcasting special Christmas programming to cease doing so the day after Christmas. But this approach to the season has been dictated by the marketing gurus of our society. Their interests intersect our own only insofar as they can benefit monetarily off of us.
Sadly, the church calendar has at times been used in a similar way. Rather than educating the laity in Scripture's teaching on Christian devotion, sub-Biblical devotional practices often arose, sometimes merely as a way to keep the people in line. It's much easier to control people when they are ignorant, after all. Some teachings contrary to Scripture, such as the notion of the canonization of certain individuals as saints, supererogatory works and the treasury of merits, linked closely with a faulty notion of salvation, were tied in to the idea of days devoted to certain saints. Observance of certain days were required for salvation, and observance of other days served as an aid for a quicker escape from Purgatory.
Let me state clearly that I oppose all such notions. As a son of the Reformation, the observance of the church calendar is something I consider to be optional. But I also believe throwing the baby out with the bath water is out of order here, too. There are certain benefits to observing a church calendar that I think should be preserved. And it is perfectly possible to observe the calendar on some level without resulting in the false teachings of the medieval church. It is even possible to observe days dedicated to certain godly men and women of church history without holding to the false notions of salvation linked to them. We celebrate birthdays, not only of those who are living, but also of those who are dead (such as Presidents' Day). Why is it not even more appropriate to celebrate the history of those saints who have died before us?
One of the key questions in my mind has to do with what defines us as individuals. Am I, first and foremost, a servant of the State? Or am I, above all else, a child of God, and therefore united to all saints, in both heaven and earth? To the Christian, this should be an easy question. Why, then, do we allow the Civil calendar to be the primary way our consciousness is shaped regarding time? Nations rise and fall, but the kingdom of our God and of his Christ will last forever. And our enjoyment of this kingdom begins now, for realm over which Jesus reigns includes both heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18).
Another key question is this: why do we let those who market their wares to us dictate our lives? Now, it's true that we need things to survive. And there's nothing wrong with desiring something we don't have, so long as it doesn't become an idol and so lead to covetousness. But our approach to the Christmas season has come to be largely determined by material possessions, such that Christ birth becomes an appendage to the season. Buying gifts for others is a good Christmas practice, and a demonstration of Christ's love. But we have become enslaved by greedy corporations, and this is something I think we need to examine more carefully.
And both these masters - the State and Corporate America - cooperate with one another in order to benefit off of us. As sales increase, so do the tax revenues that pour into the pockets of the State. And as the Government is benefited, so it makes decisions that benefit the executives of Corporate America. If recent events in our economic crisis hasn't made that obvious, then we haven't been paying attention.
So one of the best ways we can counter those that would seek to enslave us, I would suggest, is to observe the Church calendar. In so doing, we proclaim that Christ has authority over all things. He owns me, both body and soul, and that includes my time.
Lastly, one other practical outworking of observing the Church calendar, it would seem to me, would be as a means of creating, for lack of a better term, "psychological well-being". I think of this particularly with regard to the sort of "post-Christmas depression" that many struggle with. We are creatures bound by time, and as such are defined in our identity in part by the succession of time and the meaning of those days which we inhabit. When one observes a truncated calendar, such as is done in secular America, it isn't surprising when a person finds himself looking for purpose after investing so much time and emotion in a holiday. But if all of time is sacred, and this fact is manifested in regular church calendar, then one may find comfort in the practical celebration of this reality. And one may practically celebrate this reality, I would suggest, in the observance of the Church calendar.
There are, in our time and place, two ways of ordering time. One is the secular calendar. It begins its calendar year on January 1st, and is a blending of sacred and secular holidays, all of which exist to serve the interests of the State. Then there is the traditional Church calendar. It begins with Advent, the season preceding Christmas.
It is commonly thought that Christmas season is the time after Thanksgiving, leading up to Christmas Day, and ending with December 25. Accordingly, it is common for radio and TV stations broadcasting special Christmas programming to cease doing so the day after Christmas. But this approach to the season has been dictated by the marketing gurus of our society. Their interests intersect our own only insofar as they can benefit monetarily off of us.
Sadly, the church calendar has at times been used in a similar way. Rather than educating the laity in Scripture's teaching on Christian devotion, sub-Biblical devotional practices often arose, sometimes merely as a way to keep the people in line. It's much easier to control people when they are ignorant, after all. Some teachings contrary to Scripture, such as the notion of the canonization of certain individuals as saints, supererogatory works and the treasury of merits, linked closely with a faulty notion of salvation, were tied in to the idea of days devoted to certain saints. Observance of certain days were required for salvation, and observance of other days served as an aid for a quicker escape from Purgatory.
Let me state clearly that I oppose all such notions. As a son of the Reformation, the observance of the church calendar is something I consider to be optional. But I also believe throwing the baby out with the bath water is out of order here, too. There are certain benefits to observing a church calendar that I think should be preserved. And it is perfectly possible to observe the calendar on some level without resulting in the false teachings of the medieval church. It is even possible to observe days dedicated to certain godly men and women of church history without holding to the false notions of salvation linked to them. We celebrate birthdays, not only of those who are living, but also of those who are dead (such as Presidents' Day). Why is it not even more appropriate to celebrate the history of those saints who have died before us?
One of the key questions in my mind has to do with what defines us as individuals. Am I, first and foremost, a servant of the State? Or am I, above all else, a child of God, and therefore united to all saints, in both heaven and earth? To the Christian, this should be an easy question. Why, then, do we allow the Civil calendar to be the primary way our consciousness is shaped regarding time? Nations rise and fall, but the kingdom of our God and of his Christ will last forever. And our enjoyment of this kingdom begins now, for realm over which Jesus reigns includes both heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18).
Another key question is this: why do we let those who market their wares to us dictate our lives? Now, it's true that we need things to survive. And there's nothing wrong with desiring something we don't have, so long as it doesn't become an idol and so lead to covetousness. But our approach to the Christmas season has come to be largely determined by material possessions, such that Christ birth becomes an appendage to the season. Buying gifts for others is a good Christmas practice, and a demonstration of Christ's love. But we have become enslaved by greedy corporations, and this is something I think we need to examine more carefully.
And both these masters - the State and Corporate America - cooperate with one another in order to benefit off of us. As sales increase, so do the tax revenues that pour into the pockets of the State. And as the Government is benefited, so it makes decisions that benefit the executives of Corporate America. If recent events in our economic crisis hasn't made that obvious, then we haven't been paying attention.
So one of the best ways we can counter those that would seek to enslave us, I would suggest, is to observe the Church calendar. In so doing, we proclaim that Christ has authority over all things. He owns me, both body and soul, and that includes my time.
Lastly, one other practical outworking of observing the Church calendar, it would seem to me, would be as a means of creating, for lack of a better term, "psychological well-being". I think of this particularly with regard to the sort of "post-Christmas depression" that many struggle with. We are creatures bound by time, and as such are defined in our identity in part by the succession of time and the meaning of those days which we inhabit. When one observes a truncated calendar, such as is done in secular America, it isn't surprising when a person finds himself looking for purpose after investing so much time and emotion in a holiday. But if all of time is sacred, and this fact is manifested in regular church calendar, then one may find comfort in the practical celebration of this reality. And one may practically celebrate this reality, I would suggest, in the observance of the Church calendar.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Obama Plans to Meet With Presidents
According to news reports, Barack Obama, in his plan to visit with congressional leaders in Washington in the next few days, is also planning to meet with George W. Bush and the three living former presidents. Rumor has it that an intern suggested also bringing in the remains of Peyton Randolph for the meeting, but neither the current president, the incumbent, nor the former presidents knew who Peyton Randolph was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)