http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8161578.stm
God works his wonders in the heavens. And, as usual, some people enjoy it, while others respond with a multiplicity of superstitions. Follow the link, and you'll find a video of the eclipse along with the reactions of various onlookers.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Can't quite figure out...
...what went wrong on that last post. Apparently, on some browsers, it pushed all my posts to the bottom half of the page. Note to self: when you have the time, learn more about HTML.
Abandoning the Sabbath
The Isle of Lewis, the isle of my ancestors, becomes the last island in Scotland to abandon the Sabbath: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2520862.0.When_the_boat_comes_in_first_Sunday_ferry_to_Lewis.php
Monday, July 20, 2009
The New Atlantis - Text Patterns - wait - where did it go?
Amazon advertises the Kindle as if it's better than actual books. This should make one think twice before believing it. Think you own the books you "purchased" for your Kindle? Think again.
The New Atlantis » Text Patterns » wait  where did it go?
Shared via AddThis
The New Atlantis » Text Patterns » wait  where did it go?
Shared via AddThis
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
What's So Bad About the Battle Hymn of the Republic?
Steve Wilkins gives a much needed history lesson:
http://auburnavenue.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/in-praise-of-death-and-destruction/
http://auburnavenue.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/in-praise-of-death-and-destruction/
Monday, July 13, 2009
Confessions of a Heretic by Dave Hunt: a Book Review
Growing up in a Dispensational church, I had learned of Bible teacher Dave Hunt when I was in my late teens. He himself came from a Plymouth Brethren background, and as is characteristic of Brethren teachers, spent a fair bit of time teaching on issues of the end times, the subject which seems to draw most people to him. It was only sometime after having read a fair bit of his writing in his newsletters that I was told he had once claimed to have had Charismatic experiences, such as the Baptism of the Spirit and speaking in tongues, only later to deny that these things took place. He wrote of his experiences in a book called Confessions of a Heretic, which he had let go out of print after he determined he had falsely interpreted his experiences, and now spends a fair bit of his teaching criticizing Charismatic teachers. We're currently discussing Cessationism in Bible study, so since I had picked up Confessions of a Heretic a couple of years ago, I thought I would give it a read. In the midst of reading the book, I thought I would contact Mr. Hunt's ministry, The Berean Call, to see if he had in fact come to view his charismatic experiences as false. I was surprised to receive the response that Mr. Hunt saw no Biblical evidence to suggest that the more controversial gifts, such as prophecy and tongues, had passed away. His concern, the email said, is with those who carry out practices that claim to be the Biblical gifts, but which in fact are abuses and false expressions of the gifts. I doubt that many of those who read or listen to Mr. Hunt's teaching will know that he is, in fact, a charismatic of sorts.
The book itself tells of Hunt's experiences of many business-related miracles, particularly the near failing of a business he oversaw, in which God seemed to miraculously save the business repeatedly, in spite of bad business decisions, not to mention the illegal activity by Mr. Hunt of writing checks without funds backing them, on numerous occasions. Hunt goes on to tell of experiences of laying hands on his children when they were sick, only to find them suddenly and miraculously healed; the supposed experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace; Hunt's experience of speaking in tongues in private prayer; and many other seemingly miraculous events. All of these things led to Hunt's excommunication from the Brethren Assemblies, as anyone who knows the Brethren would expect. In the end, all the events appear to lead to the Hunts' moving to Europe, where the book closes.
So far as the style of the book is concerned, it reads like the typical Evangelical biography. It was an easy read, not particularly complex in sentence or narrative structure, and I finished it in a few days. Like the standard Evangelical biography, Hunt's book seems primarily concerned with communicating a series of events in an overly simplistic way, the point of which is to convey a message. In such writing, setting usually suffers, as it is mere window dressing, present only to convince the shopper to by the product featured in the display. This is Pragmatism in all its ugliness. Beyond this but connected to it, Hunt's book falls into a category I call "polemical narrative". Not only is Hunt seeking to tell of his experiences, he is attempting to make an argument through the story, particularly a defense of himself in each of the circumstances he tells of. In "polemical narrative", the desire to make an argument overwhelms the act of storytelling to the point that the art of storytelling becomes secondary to the "message" and therefore becomes substandard. Essentially, when a writer of narrative becomes more concerned with convincing the reader of a certain set of facts than creating a good story, you end up with a poorly written story. This, I would say, is a good way of explaining why writing by Evangelicals is often so bad, especially when they attempt to write fiction. For these reasons, I didn't find Hunt's book to be especially good writing. I stuck with the book because it was a nice break from some heavier reading I had been doing, and because of my curiosity about Hunt's Charismatic past. But the writing was barely engaging, and I often found it laborious to stick with it.
When it comes to the events discussed in the book, I must confess to mixed feelings. For some time in my life I held to the traditional Cessationist viewpoint with regard to miraculous gifts, but there have been questions in my mind about this viewpoint for a number of years, questions which have gradually produced significant doubt about it. I can't say that I am a Non-Cessationist at this point; certain of the traditional Cessationist arguments still carry weight for me. Nonetheless, I would not call myself a full-blown Cessationist. Simply put, it's a matter I'm studying and thinking my way through at present. If nothing else, the way that the debate has been carried out in recent history is something I believe needs revamping. Both Cessationists and Non-Cessationists tend to carry certain assumptions with them that owe more to a Newtonian, or even a Deistic, worldview than either side recognizes, the main assumption being that God stands outside of His Creation and aloof from it, only to occasionally stick His finger in to meddle with it. But this is contrary to Scripture, as demonstrated most clearly in the Psalms, and testified to in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 5. God upholds and governs all things in history, carrying them out according to His foreordained plan and for His own glory. When a person speaks in tongues, it isn't that God all of a sudden decided to step in and do something, whereas He hadn't been acting before. He is constantly at work, and if tongues are His doing, then He is simply at that moment acting in a way different than what we are used to. And if God doesn't ordain tongues for today, that doesn't mean He is generally inactive, for He is constantly at work in every corner of His universe.
There is also the matter of Rationalism, which Cessationism tends to fall into. The assumption, probably more implied than clearly stated, is that God never works through non-verbal means to communicate to people, or, at least, that non-verbal means are substandard to the point of being nearly worthless. But this is more than dubious. While it is clear that non-verbal means are not sufficient in themselves for communication, God regularly used non-verbal means to communicate in Biblical history. Therefore, to raise an objection against all non-verbal means of communication is not merely to raise an objection against non-verbal means, but against God as the One Who has seen fit at times to work this way. And to assume that God no longer works in non-verbal modes of communication since the completion of the canon of Scripture seems very clearly to contradict Scripture's own teaching on Creation and Providence.
I have been intrigued with those in the Reformed community who have either rejected Cessationism outright, or else offered the possibility of a sort of modified Cessationist view. Certain well-known names come to mind immediately, such as John Piper, Wayne Grudem, C. J. Mahaney, and Joshua Harris. But there have been others such as Vern Poythress, James Jordan, David Chilton, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Gordon Fee. Then one encounters innumerable professions of miracles, more often from what may be called the looney Charismatic fringe, but not entirely so. I think, for instance, of the occasional claim of miracles that comes from Evangelicals on the mission field. None of these things are fully convincing in my own mind. But they should at least cause one to think carefully before pronouncing all such claims as false.
Therefore when I encounter Mr. Hunt's experiences, I'm hesitant to make a declaration about them. I wouldn't doubt Mr. Hunt's record of what actually happened. But I would doubt his interpretation of the events. While I can't claim he didn't have some sort of dramatic, post-salvation experience, to go labeling it as the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" seems to be a bit presumptuous. This is apart from the fact that Scripture seems to teach very clearly that no such "baptism" is normative in history, but rather was confined to certain circumstances in the period of transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. And if God worked miraculously in particular situations in Mr. Hunt's life, which it seems He apparently did, it makes more sense to consider it God working patiently with Mr. Hunt in the context of his immature presumptions and wrong understandings. Just because God saved the business Mr. Hunt was overseeing from bankruptcy, and that on many occasions, doesn't mean that it was right for Hunt to follow his feelings and the nebulous "what God seemed to be saying to him" in his decision making. It simply means that, as in many cases in our lives, God acts in our favor in spite of us more than we know.
So while I wouldn't claim to know exactly what was going on in every situation that Mr. Hunt tells of, I didn't find the book convincing enough to make me a Charismatic. Certainly, some of the circumstances are more easily explained than others. But it will take a Scriptural argument if I ever become completely convinced of the Non-Cessationist position, and Hunt's book, for the most part, doesn't provide that argument.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)