tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-58054947621857901892024-03-12T19:47:22.180-06:00The Presbyterian CurmudgeonMatthew W. Kingsbury has been a minister of Word and sacrament in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church since 1999. At present, he teaches English and social studies at a juvenile detention facility in Cincinnati, Ohio. He longs for the recovery of confessional and liturgical presbyterianism, the reunification of the Protestant Church, the restoration of the American Republic, and the salvation of the English language from the barbarian hordes.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger796125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-23034763849664397672022-11-13T14:51:00.009-07:002022-11-13T14:51:47.480-07:00Sea of Tranquility<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhchBHoIkN5xIBuWVfESRfvkeujZQG3BHT0ikjr4-GuPUNqYj24RxKKtFPIIsTaxbB-YNtGhfhZGaWQgIjeQrc3EVvh28HZQ1ok4MKb2WZUFLiYFz9v4SNL6c9FDKN-2DhdSswerWvrh-LQZbGA3AbbPsqEX4k-Le4JYi9SuJvZNX2JyPLtfIYDgyxV5A" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1497" data-original-width="1000" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhchBHoIkN5xIBuWVfESRfvkeujZQG3BHT0ikjr4-GuPUNqYj24RxKKtFPIIsTaxbB-YNtGhfhZGaWQgIjeQrc3EVvh28HZQ1ok4MKb2WZUFLiYFz9v4SNL6c9FDKN-2DhdSswerWvrh-LQZbGA3AbbPsqEX4k-Le4JYi9SuJvZNX2JyPLtfIYDgyxV5A" width="160" /></a></div> I'm surprised reviewers haven't made more of the book's chiastic structure, which, upon reflection, is just about the perfect design for a story built on the premise of time travel. Like Robert Heinlein's "All You Zombies," it ties up every plot point into a very neat bow at the end, and in that sense satisfies. Mandel's characteristic attention to character makes the entire experience wonderful.<p></p><p>Beyond the structure and simple reading experience, "Sea of Tranquility" seems to be Emily St. John Mandel's attempt to interrogate her own writing career. One of her main characters, Olive Llewellyn, is her doppelgänger, filling the same role Garp did for John Irving in "The World According to Garp." Perhaps some of my pleasure from reading this book came from how Mandel was able to draw in her previous novels, especially "Station Eleven" and "The Glass Hotel," and capitalize on all the good will stored up by them.</p><p>I don't know how "Sea of Tranquility" ranks in Emily St. John Mandel's bibliography: I thoroughly enjoyed every moment of reading it. I won't even invoke the "I was disappointed when it ended" trope because part of its triumph is its precisely crafted conclusion.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-344637676159397562022-07-17T21:45:00.004-06:002022-07-17T21:45:57.032-06:00Grace to you & peace<p style="text-align: justify;"> Between leaving full-time ministry and moving to another state, I've worshiped at a dozen or more confessionally reformed/presbyterian Churches over the last few years and have been surprised by how few include the apostolic salutation in their liturgies. For those who'd like a reminder, the apostolic salutation is that bit at the beginning of services when the preacher raises his hand in greeting and says something like "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ." This greeting is modeled after the apostolic practice of beginning their New Testament letters with a salutation on behalf of the God who was inspiring the epistles they were writing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(The apostolic salutation which is most often used is the one favored by the Apostle Paul, but can have as much variety as does the benediction, or blessing, which concludes the worship service.)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Simple ignorance of the historic practice of the apostolic salutation may explain its absence, but I think another factor could be confusion between it and the call to worship. The call to worship is a sentence (or more) from Scripture which commands the hearers to enter into God's presence and praise him. For those who don't give it too much thought, this divine command may seem interchangeable with a greeting from God.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Of course, even when it's practiced, the apostolic salutation can be confused with the benediction. I have seen it described in a bulletin as "God greets us with a blessing," and many pastors raise both hands when extending it. This is a fairly obvious error, sadly: a statement of greeting is not a blessing unless it contains the word "bless" or some synonym thereof.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjG0lMZ0wcjKG48ya4zfPm-IcFlc1MY_rYDSPCSwAxUrKQtXfz5F6mu2OzkyUbW3HSF3QUNIarf2Jqw1OWjtL1sp1i-bgkzkxRH-_ayl235L9YuPBBXdRhPO1HD2O8xfsCWXK9hJvpGO6A0_whR8tRTLoRw1gwbOLmzfulDxlrfyC47whp-ef4XT4U5Tg/s421/1fb1f5c82d6259ad02f1c83535908dac-sticker.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="421" data-original-width="421" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjG0lMZ0wcjKG48ya4zfPm-IcFlc1MY_rYDSPCSwAxUrKQtXfz5F6mu2OzkyUbW3HSF3QUNIarf2Jqw1OWjtL1sp1i-bgkzkxRH-_ayl235L9YuPBBXdRhPO1HD2O8xfsCWXK9hJvpGO6A0_whR8tRTLoRw1gwbOLmzfulDxlrfyC47whp-ef4XT4U5Tg/w200-h200/1fb1f5c82d6259ad02f1c83535908dac-sticker.png" width="200" /></a></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Now that I've rather belabored the point and tried the gentle reader's patience, said reader may wonder whether a practice so frequently ignored and so easily confused with other elements of worship really deserves inclusion in every service. It can be supported by any number of arguments, but I am compelled by the nature of the office of Word and sacrament. In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul writes of his pastoral office, which he shares with his coauthor, Timothy, when he writes,</p><blockquote><p style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. (2 Corinthians 5:18-20)</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">Over the years, I've come increasingly to recognize the extent to which the minister of Word and sacrament is Christ's ambassador, particularly when leading worship. In prayer, he brings the message of the people to their God, and in preaching he brings the words of God to his people. This, quite obviously, is what ambassadors do. Therefore, the apostolic salutation is the ambassador from the Kingdom of God bringing a word of grace and peace from his King to the hostile world to which Christ the King has laid claim.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This brings to the fore another distinction between the benediction and the salutation. The benediction is a proclamation of God's blessing on his people, and therefore should only be pronounced in the context of Christian worship when the people of God are gathered together. The salutation is God's greeting, and as such it may be given to anyone and everyone. In Luke 2, the angelic messengers announced peace to the world in the birth of Jesus Christ; now Christ's ambassadorial messengers bring greetings of grace and peace through Jesus Christ to the entire world.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Whenever I am acting in my capacity as a minister of Word and sacrament, I greet my hearers with grace and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. After all, I am an ambassador of reconciliation and would be most glad if our encounter led to their embrace of the good news of Jesus Christ and his Cross. I hope all my ambassadorial brethren will likewise return the apostolic salutation to the beginning of every worship service.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-70889740101961928802022-06-05T04:32:00.000-06:002022-06-12T14:57:00.425-06:00Two houses (being the reason I wrote the first & second parts)<p style="text-align: justify;"> As <a href="https://presbyteriancurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2022/04/two-houses-being-second-part.html">I wrote previously</a>, the <a href="https://www.opc.org/ga.html">OPC's General Assembly</a>, with its delegated representation, has the structural and institutional weaknesses of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate">the United States Senate</a>: this poses a great danger to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Meanwhile, <a href="https://pcaga.org">the PCA's General Assembly</a>, which permits (at least nominally) a practically universal membership of all the Church's congregations and teaching elders, has the structural and institutional weaknesses of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives">the United States House of Representatives</a>: this poses a great danger to the Presbyterian Church in America.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Since the United States Congress was deliberately designed so that the weaknesses of each of its two Houses are compensated for by the other House's strengths, and since I have flogged ecumenism whenever and wherever I've been able, one might expect me to facilely suggest the two denominations merge and let their two General Assemblies balance each other out. However, the structure of presbyterian Church government will not allow for this simple solution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Presbyterian governmental structure, gleaned from Acts 15 and other bits and scraps of relevant Scripture, is rather simple. It calls for a graded, or hierarchical, series of Church courts. A council of ruling and teaching elders governs each level, or manifestation, of the visible Church. (For what I mean by "the visible Church," see <a href="https://www.opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_25">Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 25</a>.) In both the OPC and the PCA, a session governs the local congregation, a presbytery governs the several congregations of a designated geographical region (also known as a "Regional Church"), and a general assembly governs the entire denomination. These courts necessarily relate to each other in a hierarchical fashion; to do otherwise would simply not be presbyterian. Therefore, a faithfully presbyterian form of Church government has no room for two Church courts which must cooperate with each other after the manner of the Houses of the United States Congress.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaqKnJ32z1uCGyxM0T_1I565gbK2yBRt2Nw9zZLbDP0bR7im_dEHa58-lZnzl_fMawQ9b8EkZ_fA1IXtAA2PIxXsWXI9eDnKOBnXnASXgmEKwYQYz-8K8O76UPf1WmJd9c7di8iEiDSA00T4H3d-_U9gTjQGsnfa9hMH_ybuWDf8vqPgfhZQUvfJvCtA/s1023/6015065713_3e662e4ee7_b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="685" data-original-width="1023" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaqKnJ32z1uCGyxM0T_1I565gbK2yBRt2Nw9zZLbDP0bR7im_dEHa58-lZnzl_fMawQ9b8EkZ_fA1IXtAA2PIxXsWXI9eDnKOBnXnASXgmEKwYQYz-8K8O76UPf1WmJd9c7di8iEiDSA00T4H3d-_U9gTjQGsnfa9hMH_ybuWDf8vqPgfhZQUvfJvCtA/s320/6015065713_3e662e4ee7_b.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p style="text-align: justify;">Nonetheless, there's a rather simple way to draw on the institutional strengths of the systems of representation of both the OPC and the PCA. Historically, and in several contemporary cases, presbyterian denominations have had another level of Church court: the synod. The synod is an intermediary court between the presbytery and the general assembly. It functions much as a presbytery does in overseeing the affairs of a designated geographical region within that of the larger denomination. Unlike a presbytery, however, the synod is not a court of original jurisdiction. Local sessions are responsible to oversee (and discipline when necessary) members of the congregation, and presbyteries oversee (and discipline when necessary) ministers of Word and sacrament. (Ministers are members of the regional Church, not the local Church.) Thus, in matters of Church discipline, synods are appellate courts only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I suggest, then, that both the OPC and the PCA institute synods in their respective communions. These synods could have the universal membership of the PCA's General Assembly: every teaching elder and two (for the sake of argument) ruling elders from every congregation. On the one hand, this would broaden the range of perspectives of those overseeing the work of presbyteries, something the OPC desperately needs. On the other hand, the number of members at any given synod would not be so large as to make genuine debate impossible, which would address the problem of the PCA's General Assembly. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under my proposed system, commissioners to the General Assembly would be drawn from presbyteries according to some formula set forth in a Form of Government. This would bypass both the risk of synods bottlenecking representation and the risk of presbyteries favoring only a few particular men as their (virtually) permanent commissioners. This system would allow for easier practical functioning of the General Assembly (due to more manageable numbers) and providing for lighter dockets if more disciplinary cases can be resolved by synodical courts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Our national government's structure is remarkably robust, designed to restrain untoward ambition and encourage healthy cooperation. Its genius is perhaps best demonstrated by the little-celebrated fact that it has endured despite the often foolish choices of legislator the American people make. While the general structure of presbyterian Church government is dictated by Scripture, presbyterians have a great deal of freedom to order its institutions according to the light of nature and Christian prudence. The institutional designs of the OPC and the PCA emerged at their foundings and were based on assumptions because the founders were focused more on doctrinal problems. Now is an opportune moment to take a deep breath and consider how better to order our two houses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="caret-color: rgb(48, 39, 46); color: #30272e; font-family: Inter, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: start;">"</span><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/7349253@N06/6015065713" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-text-opacity: 1; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid currentcolor; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(197 43 155 / var(--tw-text-opacity)); font-family: Inter, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: start; text-decoration: inherit;" target="_blank">two houses</a><span style="caret-color: rgb(48, 39, 46); color: #30272e; font-family: Inter, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: start;">" by </span><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/7349253@N06" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-text-opacity: 1; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid currentcolor; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(197 43 155 / var(--tw-text-opacity)); font-family: Inter, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: start; text-decoration: inherit;" target="_blank">buckshot.jones</a><span style="caret-color: rgb(48, 39, 46); color: #30272e; font-family: Inter, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: start;"> is licensed under </span><a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/2.0/jp/?ref=openverse" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="--tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-text-opacity: 1; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; border: 0px solid currentcolor; box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(197 43 155 / var(--tw-text-opacity)); font-family: Inter, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: start; text-decoration: inherit;" target="_blank">CC BY-NC-ND 2.0</a><span style="caret-color: rgb(48, 39, 46); color: #30272e; font-family: Inter, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: start;">.</span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-33814576928163189822022-05-29T14:44:00.000-06:002022-05-29T14:44:17.773-06:00Providing for one's household<p> Legalism is a funny thing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the Christian context, "legalism" is the creation and enforcement of rules which are not grounded in the Bible. We often think of the legalist as a person who creates and imposes rules on others, but there is another legalist who is much more difficult to expose and reform. That is the legalist of the tender conscience, who sees no room for grace in God's Law and constantly fears he has fallen short of its measure. Either through reading the Bible as a stricter taskmaster than it is, or by falling prey to legalistic preaching, this Christian often seeks, but rarely finds, assurance of salvation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Since shortly after ordination, I have served as a doctrinal correspondent for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's website. People submit questions at <a href="http://opc.org">opc.org</a>, and one or the other of us is assigned to answer it. While nearly all of the questions we get are about Christian doctrine or how to exegete some point of Scripture, many of them have, as a subtext, a concern as to whether one has fallen short of God's commands. What follows is one such recent example.</p><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> I’ve been asked to respond to this question you posted to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s website:</div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><blockquote class="" type="cite">In 1 Timothy 5:8, the apostle Paul stated, "But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."<br class="" />Would this passage apply to a man unable to provide health insurance for his family? The man is able to provide for the basic necessaries of life such as housing, food, and clothing, but doesn't make enough money to provide for health insurance. Should such a man consider himself worse than an unbeliever?</blockquote><br class="" /></div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> This is a case where context is extremely important. 1 Timothy 5:8 is just one sentence in a much longer passage which, for the sake of clarity, I quote in part:</div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:3</span> Honor widows who are truly widows.</div><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:4</span> But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God.</div><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:5</span> She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day,</div><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:6</span> but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives.</div><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:7</span> Command these things as well, so that they may be without reproach.</div><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:8</span> But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.</div><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:9</span> Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband,</div><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:10</span> and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.</div><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:11</span> But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when<span class=""> </span>their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry</div><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:12</span> and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith.</div><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:13</span> Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.</div><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:14</span> So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander.</div><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:15</span> For some have already strayed after Satan.</div><div class="" style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span class="" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-decoration: underline;">1Tim. 5:16</span> If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows.</div></div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br class="" /></div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> In 1 Timothy 5:1-2, Paul introduces his subject by talking about our 5th Commandment duty to honor every person according their several statuses in life and their relations to us (see the Westminster Shorter Catechism questions 63-64, <a class="" href="https://opc.org/sc.html">https://opc.org/sc.html</a>). In 1 Timothy 5:17-21, he talks about how to relate to elders in the Church and those who persist in sin. It’s important to see that Paul is dealing here primarily with how we are to keep the 5th Commandment by treating everyone around us appropriately.</div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br class="" /></div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> In 1 Timothy 5:3-16, Paul talks about the Church’s duty to widows in the Church who do not have relatives who can provide for them (1 Tim 5:3, 8, 16). Apparently, the Church in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) kept a roll of widows the deacons would take care of (1 Tim 5:9), and Paul wanted to help Timothy make sure the congregation’s finances would not be overwhelmed (1 Tim 5:16). Indeed, he goes so far as to say that widows who can still remarry ought to: explicitly to guard themselves against idleness but implicitly to not burden the Church (1 Tim 5:11-15). So the context of 1 Timothy 5:8 is that Paul is telling Timothy that he and his congregation must be faithful to care for those who truly are needy; from that follows the necessary implication that Christians who are able to take care of needy relatives must also do so. (These are very important principles for any congregation with a healthy diaconate. My first ordained service was as a deacon, and this passage helped guide our work.)</div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br class="" /></div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> As in 1 Timothy 5:11-15, in 1 Timothy 5:8 Paul is not addressing <i class="">ability</i><span class=""> as much as he is </span><i class="">willingness</i>. In other words, the man who is able to provide for a needy widow in his near or extended family (and it seems to me Paul particularly has in mind a man’s own mother or mother-in-law) but will not has denied the faith by refusing to carry out the 5th Commandment in one of its most obvious applications. Lest that seems a harsh judgment, we can make a comparison to the 7th Commandment (“thou shalt not commit adultery”), where the parallel sin would be to hire prostitutes. I believe most Christians would agree that such a person is “worse than an unbeliever” because he calls himself a Christian while refusing to repent of a remarkably obvious and heinous sin.</div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br class="" /></div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> I write all of that in order to say that I believe the premises of your question are incorrect. A man who is doing his best to provide for his family but falls short has demonstrated he is <i class="">willing</i><span class=""> even though he is </span><i class="">not able</i>. Just as a godly widow who neither could provide for herself nor had family members who could help her could go to her Church’s deacons for help, so a family suffering from financial hardship should go to their Church’s deacons for help. This is right, Godly and Biblical. I am grateful to the Lord for making the office of deacon an ordinance for his Church; it has always been dear to me because it is a tangible expression of God’s love for his people.</div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br class="" /></div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> While this has been lenghty, I hope it’s been helpful to you. Please feel free to follow up if anything I’ve written requires clarification. I pray our God who provided his own Son as the atonement for our sins will provide you and yours with all that is needful for this life.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-43842199488602236752022-04-24T18:12:00.003-06:002022-06-12T14:57:12.798-06:00Two houses (being the second part)<p style="text-align: justify;"> The United Stated Congress is made up of two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The number of Senators is set by the United States Constitution: at two per state, there are 100. The number of Representatives was set by statute in the early 20th century, when it was realized things were getting out of hand and was accordingly capped far too late at an entirely unwieldy 435 (441 if you include non-voting delegates). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This vast numerical disparity has led to very different styles of operation. The Senate, due to its relatively small size, gives each member opportunities to speak, debate and serve on important committees even while new to the institution. (In theory, this also allows senators to pursue regional agendas as avidly as ideological ones, but this feature has been waning as the type of candidate elected has tended to be increasingly partisan over the last couple decades.) In the House, seniority is everything and parties strive to maintain strict control over their members. There are just too many Congresspersons running around to let everyone have an equal voice in the chamber's operations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Each house and its manner of doing business has its own strengths and weaknesses, most of which are dictated by necessity. The particular genius of the bicameral legislature is to ensure that those weaknesses never prove fatal because both houses must agree in order for legislation to pass. This system therefore allows us to benefit from each house's strengths without (necessarily) falling victim to its weaknesses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8ANnUVyhYtyL-IFPNLXLZGM-3B6OYEZFJJqYrcgQKBDqDPB6iL9mKpv9qULbFs635B-_e9jSSnp34gccSPQ8SgiePuhDeT5Z7enEuqPLU71PhjhRh6NA4d64LoVA1472tw9OTrcv-Q9M46Ko5D0GK47Gz0CTMFtf_uKt7NN7UvRH51tJztoztIDK2xA/s225/images.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8ANnUVyhYtyL-IFPNLXLZGM-3B6OYEZFJJqYrcgQKBDqDPB6iL9mKpv9qULbFs635B-_e9jSSnp34gccSPQ8SgiePuhDeT5Z7enEuqPLU71PhjhRh6NA4d64LoVA1472tw9OTrcv-Q9M46Ko5D0GK47Gz0CTMFtf_uKt7NN7UvRH51tJztoztIDK2xA/s1600/images.png" width="225" /></a></div>This is all fairly elementary stuff that should have been covered in your high school civics class, if American high schools still taught civics. I bring it up not because I think you ignorant (after all, you're a reader of this blog, demonstrating thereby rare taste, refinement, education and, almost certainly, above-average height and physical attractiveness) but because it offers insight into the general assemblies of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America.<p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p>The OPC's General Assembly is strictly capped at 155: its debate (supposedly) mirrors that of the U.S. Senate with lengthy speeches and much freedom for individual commissioners to pursue idiosyncratic agendas. Not so the PCA's General Assembly, which <i>may</i> include all teaching elders and two ruling elders from each congregation. (The "may" is emphasized because each commissioner must pay his own way and so it's never been the case that everyone who is eligible to serve at the PCA GA has actually registered to do so.) Given this rule, along with the fact that the PCA is over twelve times the size of the OPC, the PCA's GA is much larger than the OPC's and so tends to mirror many of the operational tendencies of the U.S. House of Representatives: commissioners voting according to group affiliation (however defined), less allowance given to debate, low tolerance for idiosyncratic agendas.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1pWUIaS9tFeZxoYQ51LOLQnn9ghf-GU5ZKsN96NMs6A5YY6MqrpQKTlTC2_7qxlOcdgF7hNXbDmVTmDM5YGmXegRPz-OYxVtQxWmtAZRmhTBCXaPT66MLtegRzZYI6Mn41O_FABLsN4N7WEFagCkbkrmrKg5T-kI4DhBfVvwoQoi3JF0E2l89Ukw8wg/s291/210px-OrthodoxPresbyterianChurchlogo.png.webp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="291" data-original-width="210" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1pWUIaS9tFeZxoYQ51LOLQnn9ghf-GU5ZKsN96NMs6A5YY6MqrpQKTlTC2_7qxlOcdgF7hNXbDmVTmDM5YGmXegRPz-OYxVtQxWmtAZRmhTBCXaPT66MLtegRzZYI6Mn41O_FABLsN4N7WEFagCkbkrmrKg5T-kI4DhBfVvwoQoi3JF0E2l89Ukw8wg/s1600/210px-OrthodoxPresbyterianChurchlogo.png.webp" width="210" /></a></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">As with the two Houses of the United States Congress, each assembly's approach to its membership, and the concomitant operational style of each, has its own strengths and weaknesses. However, while we hope (often against hope, bitter experience and reason itself) that the weaknesses of each House of Congress <span style="text-align: left;">will be negated by the strengths of the other, no such hope exists for the two General Assemblies. Because each is the highest court of its respective denomination, the rulings of the one cannot impact the other, and so each General Assembly, and the denomination it serves, may eventually fall victim to its own weaknesses.</span> </p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I offer this analysis for two reasons: first, I've not seen anyone else draw this comparison; and second, I have thoughts, to be offered at another time.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-71251261747217954892022-04-10T16:40:00.002-06:002022-06-12T14:57:28.581-06:00Two houses (being the first part)<p style="text-align: justify;"> In one sense, all history is revisionist history in the sense that every new piece of historiography seeks to revise our understanding of that which we previously knew. There would be no point in writing a new biography of Abraham Lincoln, for instance, if one had absolutely no original insights to offer (other than as a cynical ploy to gain tenure at a university, but we will not speak of such things).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In that manner, and as one long exhausted by my homeland's willful ignorance of the felt experience of racism on our shores, I was intrigued by <i><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html">The 1619 Project</a></i>'s stated goal of reframing American history through the lens of the black experience. I found much of its contribution to the American historical project rewarding, but sadly, some of its least helpful arguments seem to have gained the most traction. The one which most irks me is the contention that the creation of a Senate alongside a House of Representatives was primarily a scheme to permanently invest political power in slave-holding interests.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLKLkAqkuLFDjZI6SL4u4Lu5nBSEEQRuXRestuIc5xDHWHoQ16AhPOIhgZMuxsZn601rdy5QvTe7bbmDGMWzZeH877Qxonuwje94h7lhSjxNcHk4Gcfpcyb-tALQKANV1BkgrOGRKNvc2K6HW-LnQWUQzPImkVXIwWbsjBW4xpKzuBMtYx7nuKqJ5Yxw/s1200/1533113690961.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="560" data-original-width="1200" height="149" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLKLkAqkuLFDjZI6SL4u4Lu5nBSEEQRuXRestuIc5xDHWHoQ16AhPOIhgZMuxsZn601rdy5QvTe7bbmDGMWzZeH877Qxonuwje94h7lhSjxNcHk4Gcfpcyb-tALQKANV1BkgrOGRKNvc2K6HW-LnQWUQzPImkVXIwWbsjBW4xpKzuBMtYx7nuKqJ5Yxw/s320/1533113690961.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Really? A bicameral legislature because racism? Not because every European nation, including and especially Great Britain, which just happens to have been the nation of which the original 13 States were a part, has a bicameral legislature? (Not to mention Virginia, whose form of government was basically copied wholesale by the 1787 Constitution, which I am obliged to mention because I graduated from a Virginian public high school and university.) At this point, <i>The 1619 Project</i> goes from completely reasonable lower-case-r revisionism to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole" target="_blank"><i>1984</i> memory hole</a> upper-case-R Revisionism which is plausible only to those operating with utter ignorance of the foundations of our form of government. Which is to say, Americans who have attended elite private universities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I am particularly irked because this narrative seems to have gained a great deal of traction with a class of Americans (i.e., Americans who live in overpopulated cities on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts) who are dismayed that states with remarkably few residents (looking at you, Wyoming) get just as many Senators as do California and New York. While my listening habits may be unusual, I'm hearing an increasing number of complaints that this arrangement is not only suspect (because racism), it is anti-democratic.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">To which I can only say: That's the point.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The peculiar genius of the American experiment in self-government is not a bicameral legislature: everybody has one of those (except for Nebraska, about which the less said the better). Instead, it is in composing its upper legislative house not from a political/social class (as in Great Britain, about which the less said the better), but from a conscious recognition that political decisions are driven as much by lived experience as by ideology. Westerners understand the value of water in a way that easterners never can. (Having recently relocated from Colorado to Ohio, I am constantly appalled by how much water the locals here waste. It's as though they think it falls from the sky.) The House of Representatives gives full weight to our nation's massed populations, but the Senate exists to ensure that the majority cannot unilaterally impose its will on States in which they do not live.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">That might frustrate those with majoritarian instincts, but as a citizen who remains sympathetic to my friends in the West, I think it a good thing. Along with the separation of powers, it not only makes us a republic, but the greatest Republic which this sad world has yet seen. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">And that is a very good thing.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-43547505156035187002022-03-28T15:54:00.000-06:002022-03-28T15:54:14.184-06:00His tithes & our offerings<p style="text-align: justify;">I am not the first to note that the recent pandemic did a number on Churches and their worship services. Much attention has been paid to the problem of getting people back into sanctuaries and rebuilding relationships which became attenuated over months of social isolation. Equally of interest, in my opinion, is how concern about the 'rona impacted liturgical practices themselves. Ushers and greeters stopped shaking hands and passing out bulletins. Bulletins got bulked up with photocopies of songs because hymnals were put away to eliminate a point of contact. In many cases, celebration of the Lord's Supper was either suspended or traditional elements were replaced with itsy-bitsy factory-sealed personal-size portions of saliva-dissolvable styrofoam and purple-dyed sugar water. Passing the offering plate was replaced with exhortations to give online or drop one's tithe in a basket in the back of the auditorium.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Presbyterians understand that the sacraments are a primary means of grace (Shorter Catechism #88 uses "Word, sacrament and prayer" as shorthand for all the means of grace) and so communion has made a comeback right along with the return of "in-person worship" (a redundancy I never thought I'd utter with a straight face). However, passing the plate or bag or upturned baseball cap has not yet returned in many places. I think this is a mistake: the public and corporate offering of gifts is also an important means of grace, and we miss an element of worship when it is absent.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgvFvP6-4im7gmrppon2Gwzxu6mcCuPPqQtoMGG85v1Fcq2O3C21ZwvgTFDt07_P3wwAbHFDux07bel7UXFXNxs4x5EJbrSKOoXZtwDc8peOEpkbDdCQVBm1sc7753-3_idJZssHcEi4UxVs60xbRBSdJnqtllryh2pGTK-9TuBzxNgEXCPCmNyppV_g/s612/istockphoto-171582219-612x612.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="612" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgvFvP6-4im7gmrppon2Gwzxu6mcCuPPqQtoMGG85v1Fcq2O3C21ZwvgTFDt07_P3wwAbHFDux07bel7UXFXNxs4x5EJbrSKOoXZtwDc8peOEpkbDdCQVBm1sc7753-3_idJZssHcEi4UxVs60xbRBSdJnqtllryh2pGTK-9TuBzxNgEXCPCmNyppV_g/w200-h133/istockphoto-171582219-612x612.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Orthodox Presbyterian Church had a different iteration of our Directory for Public Worship when I was ordained as a pastor late in the last century; although the wording was different, the point was similar to the current "<span style="font-family: BaskervilleMT; text-align: left;">The bringing of offerings in the public assembly of God’s people on the Lord’s Day is a solemn act of worship to almighty God. The people of God are to set aside to him the firstfruits of their labors; in so doing, they should present themselves with thanksgiving as a living sacrifice to God</span>" (OPC DPW II.B.4.a). When I was reading through the Directory in my early days of my pastorate, I realized that the giving of tithes and offerings fulfills a specific role in the liturgy's structure: it is the congregation's especial opportunity to give thanks. Since that realization, I usually inserted the offering after the confession of sin and declaration of pardon, as thanksgiving to God for Jesus Christ and his gifts is most appropriate at that point in the service. I now feel that a service without an offering lacks this note of thanksgiving.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Yes, one can have a thankful heart even if the liturgy does not include an offering. But by the same token, we always enjoy some sort of fellowship with God in Christ: that does not render unnecessary the Lord's Supper. It's time for sessions to bring back the offering so that we may all, as part of the worship service and with thankful hearts, present to God his tithes and our offerings.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-37847833747617474812022-03-13T14:37:00.002-06:002022-03-13T14:37:18.789-06:00Travel narrows the mind<p style="text-align: justify;"> An oft-unmentioned benefit of travel and living in a variety of regions and climes is the opportunity to <span style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">have one's prejudices and biases reinforced with new anecdotal and statistical evidence. Of course, one must first have worked oneself into an appropriately curmudgeonly state of recalcitrant grouchiness, which, thankfully, I have. Indeed, when I ask "How are you?" and the reply is "Can't complain," I usually respond "I bet you could if you tried."</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: justify;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEggbYhp1DkCu3pR7qBgVnBSzoyl94o0kSDXxIMGFBhn4uvHoKbRU0PYoCjfWZu98lCov8Jyo0nbNGWPICRW_tQ3dIx1Qp7IWyXdiAz4fmpea9VoJpd41ttCpAdXwF8CMNofunlG9jsTtTNhGxZFqWd32BRteKSLLJOIV7hq0-cNKMhTQ_6P3DF47yHrfw=s1015" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="571" data-original-width="1015" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEggbYhp1DkCu3pR7qBgVnBSzoyl94o0kSDXxIMGFBhn4uvHoKbRU0PYoCjfWZu98lCov8Jyo0nbNGWPICRW_tQ3dIx1Qp7IWyXdiAz4fmpea9VoJpd41ttCpAdXwF8CMNofunlG9jsTtTNhGxZFqWd32BRteKSLLJOIV7hq0-cNKMhTQ_6P3DF47yHrfw=s320" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Shortly after moving to the Greater Cincinnati Metropolitan Area, Thing 2 and I noticed something wrong with the sunrise: namely, it came much later in the morning than we expected. Studying a map, I eliminated being further north as a cause because Cincinnati and Denver are at roughly the same latitude. However, I suddenly realized that Cincinnati is relatively closer to the western edge of the Eastern Time Zone than is Denver to the western edge of the Mountain Time Zone. (Reread that last sentence until it makes sense; I promise it does.) Therefore, the sun rises and sets later in the day in Cincinnati than it does in Denver. A series of interviews with the native population of Ohio confirmed my hypothesis (because in this house, we believe in science).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This means, of course, that the Birthplace of Aviation most definitely does not need "more daylight at the end of the day," the oft-cited justification for Daylight Saving Time. Indeed, the pitiful schoolchildren attempting to cross busy streets every morning are in need of sunlight lest they lay down their lives for public education, but it has again been denied to them by the bolshevik scheme to mess with the nature of reality itself through mandating that all clocks "spring ahead" (even though it's still winter). If any of these United States should do away with this annual insanity, it's Ohio.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Stop the madness, save the children, and never again. Ohioans unite! You have nothing to lose except showing up an hour late to worship services once a year.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-84548371628769752592022-02-12T13:32:00.004-07:002022-02-27T14:43:31.522-07:00The danger facing the OPC today<p style="text-align: justify;"> Because teaching the humanities at a juvenile detention facility is not nearly as lucrative as one might hope, I continue to look for other employment, particularly as a presbyterian pastor. Search committees frequently ask some version of "What are the greatest theological dangers facing the (insert name of confessional presbyterian denomination here)?" This is one of my responses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><div class="page" title="Page 6"><div class="section" style="background-color: white;"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhZ6vaDYOFPHjmDVpfUaQUXEaAOYsRkhdmfpRZAnsK96oZc8PC05ut1iJRhyO8LyR9U6mGtLetmxdLzjC3NsKJx4D5fKpNN3TQCDYWJKiDPUzHmkIir5ubZO5ysy8Gtk_iFA48malQXilOnKevKUTt-snxOgdgD8iqRCixOtZOgDBXhOclOVmTmRC5V-A=s282" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" data-original-height="178" data-original-width="282" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhZ6vaDYOFPHjmDVpfUaQUXEaAOYsRkhdmfpRZAnsK96oZc8PC05ut1iJRhyO8LyR9U6mGtLetmxdLzjC3NsKJx4D5fKpNN3TQCDYWJKiDPUzHmkIir5ubZO5ysy8Gtk_iFA48malQXilOnKevKUTt-snxOgdgD8iqRCixOtZOgDBXhOclOVmTmRC5V-A" width="282" /></span></a></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">I believe the greatest theological problem facing the Orthodox </span><span>Presbyterian</span><span style="font-size: small;"> Church today is the failure on the part of too many Church officers, especially ministers of Word and sacrament, to fully inhabit the Westminster Standards as their personal confession of faith, the main instrument by which to organize instruction of Church members, and the form by which unity within the OPC and with brethren in Churches of like faith and practice may be maintained. Several inextricably linked problems emerge from this failure.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Absent a confessional mooring, pastors seek out tools and frameworks with which to organize their preaching and teaching. This can exacerbate the temptation to follow one’s most charismatic seminary professor or the current fashions of the blogosphere, whether or not these conform closely to presbyterian doctrine and tradition. In fact, the man who looks to these as his guides may well fall into the hole of online controversy and mistake a momentary fashion for a question critical to the Church’s very existence.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">A teaching and preaching ministry preoccupied with transient controversy will have little time to dedicate to the fundamental doctrines of the faith, summarized in the Westminster Standards. Consequently, Church members may become more acquainted with recent trends in seminaries than with the Catechisms.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Perhaps worst of all, neglect of historic presbyterian doctrine almost necessarily leads to indifference toward presbyterian polity and discipline. Over the years, I have become ever more dismayed by how many Church officers seem entirely unaware of the presbyterian doctrine of Church power (ex. <br />OPC Form of Government III). Such Church officers tend to think their prerogatives are vast and they do not need to make sure they never infringe on members’ liberty of conscience (</span><span>Westminster</span><span style="font-size: small;"> Confession of Faith chapter </span><span>20). Church power is abused, which is to say members are spiritually abused. (In the Church, spiritual abuse always precedes any other kind of abuse or misuse of power by Church officers.) As confessional presbyterians, our theology is sound. Many of the dangers we face come from the failure of many Church officers to humbly submit to this truth.</span></span></p></div></div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-44347493367993273462022-01-30T14:15:00.005-07:002022-01-30T14:17:28.491-07:00The sense of sickness<blockquote><p>I suggest that, for us, the sense of sickness has replaced the sense of sin, to which it was always near allied, and that while we are acutely aware of the difficulties surrounding notions of good and evil, we ignore, though they are manifest, the equally great difficulties surrounding notions of sickness and health, especially as these judgments are applied to behavior. Antebellum doctors described an illness typical of enslaved people sold away from their families, which anyone can recognize as rage and grief. By medicalizing their condition, the culutre was able to refuse the meaning of their suffering. I am afraid we also are forgetting that emotions signify, that they interpret the world to us and us to other people. Perhaps the reality we have made fills certain of us, and of our children, with rage and grief – the tedium and meagerness of it, the stain of fearfulness it leaves everywhere. It may be necessary to offer ourselves palliatives, but it is drastically wrong to offer or to accept a palliative as if it were a cure.</p></blockquote><p>–Marilynne Robinson, "Facing Reality," in <i>The Death of Adam</i> </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-11941871634990104072021-11-21T15:16:00.000-07:002021-11-21T15:16:11.257-07:00The problem with comedies<div class="separator"><div class="separator" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1165" data-original-width="1536" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnULsSpSlo1Hdo2_-9mXHt0AxXDmmidTpdCJlvVxU2SQld3sfeF_VTA7an2mb1fU2gUhP4LgmAv8MOQ2DVyqgvV82ePmqyRBxOtrBOrABrNvw-K0wtgBZWepQkrdWAtiL-uls-1MjsJv-6/w200-h152/First-page-first-folio-measure-for-measure.jpg" width="200" /> </span></div></div><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> I did a close reading of Shakespeare's <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_for_Measure">Measure for Measure</a></i> in college when I was assigned a scene from it for an acting class, and decided that it really shouldn't be a comedy. Like most Americans, I like my comedies to be funny: I've never really accepted the classic definition of a comedy as a story with a happy ending (preferably a wedding or two). In the case of <i>Measure for Measure</i>, I thought the story so grim (a major <span style="text-align: center;">plot point has a young woman pressured to have sex with Vienna's ruler to save her brother's life) that its happy ending seemed forced and inappropriate. A more consistently written </span><i style="text-align: center;">Measure</i><span style="text-align: center;">, I thought, would have turned out tragically, perhaps with a </span><i style="text-align: center;">Hamlet- </i><span style="text-align: center;">or </span><i style="text-align: center;">Macbeth-</i><span style="text-align: center;">style bloodbath.</span></span></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">When we know everything will turn out all right, it's hard to credit the emotional struggles through which characters must journey on their way to that happy ending. That's clearly the case with the Hebrew midwives whom Pharaoh told to kill all baby boys (Exodus 1:15-16). In just a few verses, they deceive Pharaoh by turning his own deceitful premise against him and so are rewarded by God (Exodus 1:17-21). I'm tempted to think of them as plucky, clever and indefatigable, but upon reflection I'm not sure why. Their bravery is remarkable, but is made remarkable because they didn't know they were living in a comedy: for all they knew, Pharaoh would kill them when he discovered they hadn't killed any babies.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In some sense, of course, this wasn't a comedy because Pharaoh simply takes his genocidal impulses public in Exodus 1:22: "<span>Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, '</span><span>Every son that is born to the Hebrews</span><span> you shall cast into </span><span>the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live.'</span>" I can't imagine anything about the episode seemed comic to Shiphrah and Puah. From the beginning, they must have been terrified that Pharaoh would see through their paper-thin deception. Then they had to live with even greater fear of what he might do to them once he had made his murderous intentions known to the world. Yes, God had given them families, but how long would they keep their own heads?</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Perhaps that's the root of all anxiety: we don't realize we're living in a comedy. Jesus tells us anxiety is the sin of unbelief in Matthew 6:25-34, and it's one of the sins from which repentance is particularly difficult and signally uncommon. That may be because our time horizon is too short. We worry about tomorrow and the day after, forgetting that the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina">deus ex </a></span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina">machina</a> which literally saved many a Greek hero and figuratively rescued the cast of <i>Measure for Measure</i> is an overly literal foreshadowing to the comedic end to this cosmic drama which we are all acting out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Maybe we need more unfunny comedies. Life in a fallen world is rife with dread and struggle, and all too often we think that means it must therefore end badly. American Christians are particularly loathe to acknowledge the immense suffering of living in a fallen world because they fear that portends a tragic end. This is wrong, of course: I can say that God is good and my life is bad without any tension or contradiction. The Bible does have a few funny bits, but overall it's extremely unamusing. Nonetheless, its account of history is entirely comic.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Read this way, we can understand the experience of all believers from Shiphrah and Puah to our fellow congregants to ourselves, and how to survive that experience. We can get through the horrors of this life not on a reserve of innate cheerfulness, but on the basis of a Christian hope in the truths of comedy.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-7633574888698046702021-11-07T12:55:00.000-07:002021-11-07T12:55:10.130-07:00Iconoclasm is a virtue<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> I suppose I'm thankful R.R. Reno's essay "<a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/11/shared-loves-and-strong-loyalties">Shared Loves and Strong Loyalties</a>" is on the <i>First Things <br /></i>website. He helpfully clarifies just how I think both he and <i>First Things</i>, under his editorship, have drifted away from waters in which a Protestant can swim. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;">Reno argues that the liberal political tradition has enervated our society and we need instead love, and in particular shared loves. Those shared and efficacious loves are inspired by and directed toward the strong gods of justice, nation, family and blood. He concedes that the strong gods are dangerous gods who may become idols, but</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx0A149kdLjHPbXP8_oJK3c_4Rr0gViiadJiD8EfaSDbqcR3QJESLsu0Kq1aVmnuPMzil8wSkBnegKuwCgDx7NqUcrMgH_BQcD-ivf2wD0PiIu20dzTcL3ddRxdeuhcvdGj691IQZsfKhO/s161/tn-120-issue_61659bb37702a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="161" data-original-width="120" height="161" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx0A149kdLjHPbXP8_oJK3c_4Rr0gViiadJiD8EfaSDbqcR3QJESLsu0Kq1aVmnuPMzil8wSkBnegKuwCgDx7NqUcrMgH_BQcD-ivf2wD0PiIu20dzTcL3ddRxdeuhcvdGj691IQZsfKhO/s0/tn-120-issue_61659bb37702a.jpg" width="120" /></a></span></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fcfcfc; caret-color: rgb(77, 78, 78); color: #4d4e4e; text-align: start;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: #fcfcfc; caret-color: rgb(77, 78, 78); color: #4d4e4e; text-align: start;">Misjudging lesser goods as the highest good (the essence of idolatry) always remains a danger. But the unstated premise behind </span><em style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: rgb(77, 78, 78); color: #4d4e4e; text-align: start;">Return of the Strong Gods</em><span style="background-color: #fcfcfc; caret-color: rgb(77, 78, 78); color: #4d4e4e; text-align: start;"> [the book to which this essay is a preface] is that life without love is a greater evil than life in which finite loves are made absolute.</span></span></blockquote><span style="background-color: #fcfcfc; caret-color: rgb(77, 78, 78); color: #4d4e4e; text-align: start;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">To this claim, the Christian might well respond that if both are evil, better to avoid both rather than merely the greater. Apparently anticipating this response, Reno goes on,</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: #fcfcfc; caret-color: rgb(77, 78, 78); color: #4d4e4e; text-align: start;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: inherit;">Let me issue my own theological warning: Beware iconoclasm. It is a heresy born of the fantasy that we can eliminate the possibility of idolatry by destroying every object of love other than the highest, which is God. </span></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This, in my view, the natural endpoint both of Reno's way of thinking and of the Roman Catholicism to which he converted some years ago: an obviously Biblical virtue is called a heresy. For what is iconoclasm but the smashing of idols, and what is the smashing of idols but sanctified obedience to the Second Commandment? </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Iconoclasm swept Europe as it entered its Christian Era, and the boldest fathers of presbyterianism, Ulrich Zwingli and John Knox, were iconoclasts in word and deed. As I have argued repeatedly in my own <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-new-whore-of-babylon/id1493873238">dialogues with Roman Catholics</a>, iconoclasm is necessary to Protestantism. On the other hand, iconolatry and idolatry have overwhelmed Roman Catholicism as, for example, disordered love for glorified saints such as the mother of our Lord has crowded out all-consuming love for her son.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Life without love is evil, and life consumed by disordered love is evil. For love to be rightly ordered, it must be directed toward Jesus Christ. Europe entered its Christian era when the princes became Christian and the Church supplanted empire as the continent's great unifying power. Our culture indeed needs strong love: a love which hates false gods, strong or otherwise, and is monomaniacally preoccupied with the only truly worthy object of all love, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.</span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-14925300458317131892021-10-21T19:22:00.000-06:002021-10-21T19:22:23.624-06:00Carl Trueman gets weird<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> If the Gospel Coalition's website is a reliable indicator, Carl Trueman's recent "<a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2021/11/the-failure-of-evangelical-elites?fbclid=IwAR1J-TuTPiUb-jatnJ0AsJmDCE-XHqbXYwPs5K9AfgATZtsgj1kRKVA5aDQ">The Failure of Evangelical Elites</a>" in <i>First Things </i>has garnered <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/evangelical-history/carl-trueman-and-the-evangelical-mind/">thoughtful attention</a>. I'm not sure why.</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF0B56SSckeDTB_5jWzfgeQkVW2jnWoqujTd8tViBc14y08cy3pdgq33ttgn1poSwjPkoKmzaKSBeC54KnELOtRqOF6h5ifuYTEPqO7s7YJiACw1pnW9xkL-C5g7fhqyvQ10oX0SNcY87E/s161/tn-120-issue_61659bb37702a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="161" data-original-width="120" height="161" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF0B56SSckeDTB_5jWzfgeQkVW2jnWoqujTd8tViBc14y08cy3pdgq33ttgn1poSwjPkoKmzaKSBeC54KnELOtRqOF6h5ifuYTEPqO7s7YJiACw1pnW9xkL-C5g7fhqyvQ10oX0SNcY87E/s0/tn-120-issue_61659bb37702a.jpg" width="120" /></a></span></div><span style="text-align: justify;">Trueman's thesis appears in the essay's second paragraph: "</span><span style="caret-color: rgb(77, 78, 78); color: #4d4e4e; text-align: justify;">accommodation appeals to those who seek a </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">seat at the table among society’s elite." "Those" are the university-educated elites of evangelicalism who, as he puts it later on, "<span style="caret-color: rgb(77, 78, 78); color: #4d4e4e;">[talk] in an outraged voice about racism within the boundaries set by the woke culture.</span>" From these statements and from the rest of the essay, Trueman clearly suspects their motives. Is he being fair or reasonable?</span><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Trueman begins his discussion with Friedrich Schleiermacher, who made a great show of challenging liberal protestantism while conceding, upholding and endorsing all its tenets. While "On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers" is a truly awesome polemical title, the actual content was the exact opposite. From Schleiermacher, Trueman moves on to Mark Noll and George Marsden, who in the 1990s made a compelling argument for the recovery of Christian intellectualism in these United States. On the one hand, Trueman affirms the legitimacy and orthodoxy of that project ("<span style="caret-color: rgb(77, 78, 78); color: #4d4e4e; text-align: left;">And unlike Schleiermacher’s, I find their arguments convincing.</span>"), but with the other he denies it ("<span style="caret-color: rgb(77, 78, 78); color: #4d4e4e; text-align: start;">Nevertheless, a sociological comparison of their project with Schleiermacher’s is legitimate.</span>") With this move, evangelical intellectuals "<span style="caret-color: rgb(77, 78, 78); color: #4d4e4e; text-align: left;">committed to a thoroughgoing supernatural Christian orthodoxy</span>" are nonetheless associated with protestant liberalism, a counterfeit of the Christian faith.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This is guilt by association. Not only is it not nice, it's a logical fallacy.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Trueman makes a valid point when he considers the example of Francis Collins, the evangelical scientist who is head of the National Institutes of Health. Indeed, one might reasonably hope an agency headed by a faithful Christian would not so enthusiastically sponsor the use of genetic material taken from aborted babies in research and development. However, the pointedness drifts when he begins writing about "evangelical elites" and "Christian leaders." He may have specific persons in mind, but by not naming names, one is unable to check whether certain persons are actually the mealy-mouthed compromisers he implies they are.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Rhetorically, we call this a "glittering generality," which also happens to be a logical fallacy.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Trueman seems very annoyed by evangelicals who call for repentance from America's original sin of racism without simultaneously denouncing abortion and gender dysphoria affirmation. The money line in this piece comes toward the close.</span></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="caret-color: rgb(77, 78, 78); color: #4d4e4e; text-align: start;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Let me put it bluntly: Talking in an outraged voice about racism within the boundaries set by the woke culture is an excellent way of not talking about the pressing moral issues on which Christianity and the culture are opposed to each other: LGBTQ+ rights and abortion.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">That sounds really good, until one remembers that Carl Trueman is a confessional presbyterian writing for a journal which toes the most <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent">Tridentine Roman Catholic</a> line possible without drifting into outright <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Lefebvre">Lefebvrism</a>. To illustrate, I suggest a rewrite.</span></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #4d4e4e; font-family: inherit;"><span style="caret-color: rgb(77, 78, 78);">Let me put it bluntly: Talking in an outraged voice about evangelicals who oppose racism within the boundaries set by a<strike>n apostate Anglican</strike> conservative Roman Catholic editor is an excellent way of not talking about the pressing theological issues on which Protestantism and Romanism are opposed to each other: justification by faith alone and the sole authority of Scripture.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">In other words, Carl Trueman finds working with papists a rewarding and helpful way to promote ideas near and dear to him; he doesn't need to prosecute the material causes of the Protestant Reformation (i.e. the doctrines on which the faith stands or falls) at every turn. Good for him! Is it not possible that some of his coreligionists find working with secularists a rewarding and helpful way to promote ideas near and dear to them?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">If I may point out the obvious, Mr. Trueman's lived experience in these United States is in the suburban outposts of Pennsylvania's two largest cities. His concerns about these United States, gathered from that lived experience, are entirely valid. At the same time, so are the concerns of those of us who have lived in parts of the United States which are not Pennsylvania. In fact, I tend to agree with many "evangelical elites" who think it is possible, and even necessary, to make inroads against systemic racism even if one is not directly addressing abortion on demand.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">In sum, Carl Trueman's argument is just plain odd: anti-Trump evangelicals are posers petitioning for worldly acceptance because they argue against racism without, in the exact same breath, denouncing abortion on demand and LGBTQ+ rights. To put it mildly, I am not persuaded.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">While I am a natural-born U.S. citizen under color of law, I was not born on American soil and so try to believe that other late-comers to our shores may understand our great country and her citizens, Christian or otherwise. At the present moment, Carl Trueman is not making that easy.</span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-13601492924215425492021-10-03T13:38:00.000-06:002021-10-03T13:38:34.287-06:00How to Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj84rtH44Zohcw3EFpBAxym20KAVmfMlJBs3W0otZo9dhGtrINVTuG1k6zHPgcMAz2MXo-1Tjxr6O6DQuAo0R83CTQ7aAOMHlan8X6YmtQWlZJT54LIHNDU2or_kBP29oMZAE_LiX7O6fFy/s499/51I4RZ9EZoL._SX322_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="324" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj84rtH44Zohcw3EFpBAxym20KAVmfMlJBs3W0otZo9dhGtrINVTuG1k6zHPgcMAz2MXo-1Tjxr6O6DQuAo0R83CTQ7aAOMHlan8X6YmtQWlZJT54LIHNDU2or_kBP29oMZAE_LiX7O6fFy/w130-h200/51I4RZ9EZoL._SX322_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg" width="130" /></a></div>It's been a week, and I've pretty much decided that Charles Yu never meant for <i>How to Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe</i> to be taken at face value as a time travel novel. It is, instead, a novel on memory and loss in which the tropes of science fictional time travel, and especially world-building, are referenced but never truly centered. Yu's ultimate theme is the son's longing for his father, which he evokes elegiacally and unashamedly.<br /><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Science fiction fans may be disappointed because Yu has written an allegory which exploits science fiction conventions, not a science fiction novel. Those steeped in said conventions who are open to explorations of the chasms between parent and child will be rewarded.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-3144083272206207202021-09-12T13:57:00.001-06:002021-09-12T13:57:16.872-06:00And the Scripture preached<p style="text-align: justify;"> I am sure that someone, somewhere has written on the implications of Galatians 3:8 for our understanding of inspiration. In fact I'm pretty sure that I've read someone, in some place, write on said implications, but my theological library is, at present, in boxes in my garage and I'm not going to do literal heavy lifting in order to write a blog post.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJQPhgK6p6mAT_vAMarEHotBnhWNgcdGSMK1lF1aWjuBBTW1brbKlPuHeyfWKfSQFHdiy7AKDLRw1TS4YxcmFjVxLoTsUc0tOKKXV96nUyAQblYRP8ZucAk1MRU0xTK-apJImh6pOyqjWQ/s1362/Abraham_Lilien.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1362" data-original-width="1125" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJQPhgK6p6mAT_vAMarEHotBnhWNgcdGSMK1lF1aWjuBBTW1brbKlPuHeyfWKfSQFHdiy7AKDLRw1TS4YxcmFjVxLoTsUc0tOKKXV96nUyAQblYRP8ZucAk1MRU0xTK-apJImh6pOyqjWQ/w156-h200/Abraham_Lilien.jpg" width="156" /></a></div>The Curmudgeon family was listening to a sermon one Sunday evening when I was struck by the first part of Galatians 3:8: "<span style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;">And the Scripture, foreseeing that </span><span style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;">God would justify</span><span style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;"> the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham….</span>" The subject of that sentence is "the Scripture," not "God;" Paul asserts that the Scripture preached. Moreover, the Scripture even foreknew the eternal plans of God: Scripture is the mind of God. For all intents and purposes, "Scripture" is another name for "God" in Galatians 3:8.<p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I can't think of a clearer example of the Bible's understanding of itself as literally the divine voice itself. Galatians 3:8 is the necessary consequence of 2 Timothy 3:16, "<span style="font-family: "Lucida Grande"; font-size: 13px; text-align: left;">All Scripture is breathed out by God….</span>"</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-58944019730710671132021-05-13T20:22:00.000-06:002021-05-13T20:22:32.099-06:00Attack on American Christendom<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> The more you agree with someone, the more interesting your disagreements with that person become. Your disagreements are no longer so broad and sweeping that they barely scratch the surface; instead, they are about the innermost nuts and bolts which make the whole thing work.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">As a rule, I tend to agree on most things with David French, the lawyer/journalist who writes and podcasts for <a href="https://thedispatch.com" target="_blank">The Dispatch</a>. His take on constitutional law is close enough to my own Nat Hentoff-inspired strict constructionism that most of the time I can't tell the difference, and I certainly appreciate his membership in the <a href="https://pcanet.org" target="_blank">Presbyterian Church in America</a>. But while I'm sure he's a faithful Church member, I suspect (unlike me) he is more evangelical than presbyterian in his sensibilities. This came out in <a href="https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/how-american-christendom-weakens?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo4MDk2MDQzLCJwb3N0X2lkIjozNjIwNDEwMiwiXyI6IkZibDRRIiwiaWF0IjoxNjIwOTUyOTkwLCJleHAiOjE2MjA5NTY1OTAsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0yMTc2NSIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.kkbkTQC4lY4pEy50xSJB7rXyFLWsqzky1lbDZf4k7J0" target="_blank">his most recent Sunday edition</a> of <i>The French Press</i>.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Consider his use of Kierkegaard's <i>Attack on Christendom</i>, from which this newsletter's title ("How American Christendom Weakens American Christianity") is drawn. French summarizes Kierkegaard's</span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO-S_fRpHLTPMrZVwI6aOMTEmw00kXd7gSoxzMSrFscAfAy16zoCvcwBLgprceRh8cpuMTJfnV61OhH_CObVuK0d49pBzkVQyqyoaEB120V0lXy8jog4cbf4qOYYkdPqmSJUOzVZlVv2of/s944/soren.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="528" data-original-width="944" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO-S_fRpHLTPMrZVwI6aOMTEmw00kXd7gSoxzMSrFscAfAy16zoCvcwBLgprceRh8cpuMTJfnV61OhH_CObVuK0d49pBzkVQyqyoaEB120V0lXy8jog4cbf4qOYYkdPqmSJUOzVZlVv2of/s320/soren.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: inherit;">categories this way:</span><p></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(26, 26, 26); color: #1a1a1a; text-align: start;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Think of the distinctions roughly like this—Christianity is the faith, Christians are believers in the faith, and Christendom is the collective culture and institutions (universities, ministries) of the faith.</span></span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Did you notice the missing institution? </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">French then quotes Matt McManus's summary of Kierkegaard's argument: "<span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(26, 26, 26); color: #1a1a1a; text-align: left;">In many ways, it was far better to see Christendom shrunk down to a few genuine believers than to see it ballooned and enforced into a parody of itself.</span>" </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Like David French, I haven't read much Kierkegaard since college, and I do not want to treat the entirety of his philosophy dismissively. Nonetheless, ever since college I've found this aspect of Kierkegaard's thought rather adolescent. It seems to assume Christianity can exist outside of an institutional structure. This is both naïve and impossible.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">To put the matter simply: how will Christians learn the faith? How will persons learn about the faith in order to become Christians in the first place? The obvious answer is through teachers, evangelists and preachers. But these do not arise of themselves, unbidden. Common sense and bitter experience have taught all of us not to rely on anyone who credentials himself: authority to teach and preach must be legitimized by others. As soon as we bring in legitimation, authority and credentialing, we must have an institution.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">To put the matter still more simply: you can't have the faith without an institution to inculcate and propagate it.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">French begins with Kierkegaard in order to develop his thesis that the institutions of evangelical Christendom are at odds with Christianity. This is a profoundly true insight; as he writes, "<span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(26, 26, 26); color: #1a1a1a; text-align: left;">the institutions of Christendom should model the way of the cross if they’re going to preach the way of the cross.</span>" Instead, they focus on their own survival even if that survival means crushing reeds and smoldering wicks; the institutions continue even though they can no longer sincerely fulfill the ministry they allegedly exist to carry out.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">(French points to Ravi Zacharias Ministries and Camp Kanakuk, but I can't help but think of the Boy Scouts of America. While it's not a Christian organization, it the perfect example of an institution which has abandoned, by admitting girls, the very constituency [boys] which it was formed to serve. Apparently, it's more important for the Boy Scouts of America to continue than for a scouting program for boys to continue.)</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">By pointing to the way of the Cross, French suggests it would be better for some parachurch ministries to die than to continue as a symbol of Spiritual, physical or sexual abuse. Here again, I cannot agree with David French more. In fact, I'm content to see all the institutions of evangelical Christendom wither away and/or die. That's also where French seems to end up:</span></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(26, 26, 26); color: #1a1a1a; text-align: start;">As Kierkegaard reminds us, it’s an old crisis. There are times when the great enemy of Christianity is Christendom itself. But Christendom isn’t Christianity. Indeed, the collapse of the institutions of Christendom does not mean the collapse of Christianity. And their collapse may be necessary for people to see through doctrine, through celebrity, and through politics to catch at last a glimpse of the man who</span><em style="caret-color: rgb(26, 26, 26); color: #1a1a1a; text-align: start;"> is</em><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(26, 26, 26); color: #1a1a1a; text-align: start;"> the faith, the man who carried a cross and now commands us to do the same. </span></span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">To which I can only respond, "</span><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;">How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?</span><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;"> And how shall they preach unless they are sent?</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">" (Romans 10:14-15) I think David French has forgotten about the </span>institution<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Christ founded to send preachers.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The problem with American evangelical Christendom is that, with all its ministries bearing the names of their charismatic founders, it is not centered on the one Biblical ministry: the Church. The Church is not one amongst many ministries. She alone is the household of faith and the Kingdom of Christ in this world. And "the Church" is not another generic label for "Christians" or even "Christian ministries." Because the Church has officers and members (Hebrews 13:7, 17), the Church is an institution. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Yes, the time has come for evangelical Christendom to go the way of the Cross. In its place, Christians need to return to the Church so that they can hear of the man and God who is the faith.</span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-45422761061517366932020-12-18T10:47:00.001-07:002020-12-18T10:47:16.119-07:00I wish you a merry Christmas album<p style="text-align: justify;">Why am I not already a fan of Andrew Bird? He chose one of my favorite Bible words, "Hark!," as the title for his first Christmas album.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR1kgg8axRrh0aBmM-msshb2hVPIGCd4Ca-1h0GIirK96q3usWCnc7zYQJ0s2PfCxI2VD0ccHSXOnWHU4YMJkjmi7nYFBRd77gYPojPHUdh-JKCmDOL29oF6VzMLMsmdVkxD20Y_xWoO4l/s700/hark.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="700" data-original-width="700" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR1kgg8axRrh0aBmM-msshb2hVPIGCd4Ca-1h0GIirK96q3usWCnc7zYQJ0s2PfCxI2VD0ccHSXOnWHU4YMJkjmi7nYFBRd77gYPojPHUdh-JKCmDOL29oF6VzMLMsmdVkxD20Y_xWoO4l/w320-h320/hark.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>[Excursus: Words such as "hark" and "lo" are amongst the most wonderful of all Bible words because they mean something like "Hey! Pay attention! I am about to announce glad tidings of great joy!" Amongst the crimes of recent Bible translations is the indefensible choice to not translate these terms from the Greek or Hebrew, and instead simply drop them from the text. Only good things follow when someone says, "Hark!"]<p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">As Christmas albums go, it's a relatively low-key affair. There's a slight note of melancholy, but in my opinion lands pretty well on the "quiet joy of a snowy Christmas morning with a hot cup of coffee before the children wake up screaming" mark. A few of Bird's covers and originals are atypical (ex. John Cale's "Andalucia"), but all are emotionally evocative. I don't know what John Prine's "Souvenirs" is doing on a Christmas album, but Andrew Bird renders it pretty cheerful.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I don't know whether this qualifies as a cover or an original: Bird has written his own lyrics to the tune of "Greensleeves." Maybe "Greenwine" will become a new standard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Bird also makes one of the bravest moves possible on a Christmas album: he covers two Vince Guaraldi compositions from the latter's legendary <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Charlie_Brown_Christmas_(soundtrack)">A Charlie Brown Christmas</a></i> ("Christmas Is Coming" and "Skating"). He's respectful, yet avoids falling into the trap of slavish imitation and puts his own spin on the pieces.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Hark!</i> deserves to go into heavy rotation as you're doing your Christmas baking. Ho ho ho and all that.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-45654857303223605022020-11-14T13:59:00.000-07:002020-11-14T13:59:37.119-07:00Recalled to Life<p></p><blockquote><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJUSEGPlPsrILblOFggUmMR93iLo442hpj6U2PAraZa0U7JDui87SDaeByf3T9LnUfk9m-eLUVZVd2zvH0ogTH8oFVGScBC6yilW7pGm2HxeGPQUgHFVEVh0ZXMxQmZ4QoJPLAFucYOimP/s355/read-without-limits.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="256" data-original-width="355" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJUSEGPlPsrILblOFggUmMR93iLo442hpj6U2PAraZa0U7JDui87SDaeByf3T9LnUfk9m-eLUVZVd2zvH0ogTH8oFVGScBC6yilW7pGm2HxeGPQUgHFVEVh0ZXMxQmZ4QoJPLAFucYOimP/w200-h145/read-without-limits.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Yes, there are people on whom suffering is not wasted. Yes, the effect of suffering, properly absorbed, does, at times, sensitize us, motivating us to act more faithfully and attentively towards other people. Not always, of course: Suffering often makes one more callous and self-centered. And if insight is forthcoming, more often than not it is not required in the day-to-day situations we confront. As a young "existentialist" I, like others in my generation, tended to assume, uncritically, that suffering is inherently ennobling and valuable. Life and study have brought me to a more discriminating and, one hopes, a more discerning position.</div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">This brings me back to my aunt. By the standards of the world, and by her standards, I was a good nephew. Today, do I better understand her plight than I did decades ago? I probably do. Did the degree of my empathy or compassion matter to her? I doubt it, mainly because she almost certainly took it for granted. What she wanted and needed from me was not profound sympathy but sympathetic presence; she wanted me to be with her. Would she have valued my efforts to explain her to the world? Yes, though I can't imagine she thought this required heavy reflection or rhetorical skill beyond sincerity and love.</p></blockquote><p></p><p> -Shalom Carmy, "Recalled to Life," <i><a href="https://www.firstthings.com">First Things</a></i> December 2019</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-405729554359349772020-10-18T16:36:00.006-06:002020-10-18T16:37:25.470-06:00Diotrephesism<p style="text-align: justify;">When I took ancient Church history in seminary, I had a hard time keeping all the heresies straight. (Not straightening out my own heresies: that's another story.) In historical theology, heresies are not identified by their doctrinal content, but instead by the names of the persons most identified with them. Therefore, instead of modalism (the belief that the three persons of the Trinity are not distinct, but instead are really just one person appearing in three different modes), we have Sabellianism. When I was asked to identify Nestorianism, Manicheanism, Arianism, Montanism, ad infinitism, I had to remember the historical figure, then remember what he taught, and then explain why it was wrong. While I have no problem explaining what's wrong with modalism, I'm not entirely sure what Sabellianism even is.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Since I've learned I can't fight the historical theologians, I've decided to join them and thereby go to my grave satisfied to have made life more difficult for future seminarians. Centuries from now, the twentieth century will be known for Diotrephesism, in recognition of him who desired preeminence and so would not receive the Apostle John (3 John 9). </p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In my opinion, at the root of many of the controversies which consume confessional presbyterianism today is the fact that in the 20th-century struggle with liberalism, presbyterians lost their sense of denominational identity along with a grasp on the historical and Biblical reasons for our distinctives. That absence has led to a sort of faddishness, in imitation of the sin of Diotrephes, which emerges in two different ways.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrz21mMJ-AYFvO7046ElX6lnUg0yjcxMGyzT6QridQgKKJR7Rkt8Ts7BpZ_KmCfrvZ0SnGHQevLL_s_zCL6EMqQnQD4fv1gGMcJ-yVQSBCGV36WnMqr__W1FyXrBATphxCwaFCdxePODVo/s800/Cantankerous.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="390" data-original-width="800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrz21mMJ-AYFvO7046ElX6lnUg0yjcxMGyzT6QridQgKKJR7Rkt8Ts7BpZ_KmCfrvZ0SnGHQevLL_s_zCL6EMqQnQD4fv1gGMcJ-yVQSBCGV36WnMqr__W1FyXrBATphxCwaFCdxePODVo/s320/Cantankerous.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Certain elders (especially teaching elders) do not see themselves as guardians and teachers of the presbyterian tradition. Because many of them came to a reformed understanding of the Christian faith from other traditions, they see themselves as set apart by virtue of study and continue to seek to set themselves further apart by further study. These tend to maintain traditional worship practices, but the liturgy becomes merely a setting in which they can use the sermon to position themselves as experts on all things "reformed." Wishing to be preeminent in the eyes of their peers, they keep up with the latest theological controversies emerging from the seminaries and set these issues before their congregations as though they were as essential as the doctrines on which our Confessions focus. This obsession with “theology,” when it comes over and against a focus on the simple Gospel of the Cross, stokes up much furor on the interwebs and feeds division in the Church.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Others in leadership, who have never been taught why our traditions are our traditions in the first place, worry that presbyterianism is about to become irrelevant. These keep a watchful eye on the latest developments in evangelicalism and seek to imitate them while keeping the preaching Calvinistic. In these circumstances, members are deprived of the riches of our presbyterian inheritance and the blessings of catechetical instruction. As evangelicals drift ever further into worldliness (in all its forms), this group may drift right along with them.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;">The discerning reader will observe that this faddishness does not necessarily lead to heresy, but it certainly produces division. Athanasius fought the heretic Arius with Biblical doctrine. In imitation of John, the beloved disciple, we must fight Diotrephesism with Biblical charity.</p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I believe we should respond by learning our confessional standards along with our government, discipline and worship, and the Biblical warrant for them. I believe we should be extremely careful in preparing men for ordained office and not be too hasty to lay on hands (1 Timothy 5:22). I believe we should strive to present and live out presbyterianism for what it is: the most Biblical form of the Church and the one which should most demonstrate to the world the Church as our Lord formed her to be.</span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-31022008732692946042020-09-22T20:08:00.001-06:002020-09-22T20:08:17.994-06:00Regarding "The Bible and Black Lives Matter"<p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF78lNE7pbBlDmgrcsEeCxdFacWoVSXMPn5sNQv_WNxeYKMLseDymBOyHsmJvtoMflBKLTLkB2ZLxxCW06kyP2K42oN00pJpADkuBQZHJrD9CbfIr75UMMuMsxMBOp3PHqAaq2SYUzRkI5/" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 238); font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img alt="" data-original-height="149" data-original-width="339" height="141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF78lNE7pbBlDmgrcsEeCxdFacWoVSXMPn5sNQv_WNxeYKMLseDymBOyHsmJvtoMflBKLTLkB2ZLxxCW06kyP2K42oN00pJpADkuBQZHJrD9CbfIr75UMMuMsxMBOp3PHqAaq2SYUzRkI5/" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue"; font-size: 11px;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">I was extremely disappointed by the article “<a href="https://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=1040">The Bible and Black Lives Matter</a>” in the September 2020 issue of <i>New Horizons</i>. The author writes to explain BLM to Orthodox Presbyterians, but as he introduces his theme he demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issues and terminology which inform it. In discussing whether the death of George Floyd represents an instance of “systemic racial injustice,” he objects that we cannot know the heart of the police officer who killed Floyd and, therefore, whether that man was racially motivated. At the article’s very beginning, then, there is a confusion between “systemic racism” and “individual racism.” This is unfortunate because the two are very different things: as all the relevant literature notes, systemic racism can exist in institutions and societies even when the individuals in them have no racist beliefs.</span></div><p></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This error is distressing because it undermines the reader’s confidence in the author’s ability to explain BLM. If he does not understand a concept central to the movement, can he be relied upon to clearly represent anything else about it? This problem is doubly distressing because the reader looks to <i>New Horizons</i> for pastoral guidance on social, ethical and theological issues. Pastoral guidance founded on ignorance may be well-intentioned, but neither can nor should be trusted.</span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-52247393897174727492020-09-13T18:51:00.000-06:002020-09-13T18:51:45.990-06:00Towards a theory of Church names<div style="text-align: justify;">
I remember the day in seminary when Scott Clark introduced the chapel speaker, a Lutheran pastor whose congregation was called "Beautiful Savior." "Why do the Lutherans have all the good Church names?" Professor Clark asked rhetorically, and I have wondered frequently. Confessionally presbyterian Churches are notorious for pulling from an extremely short list of names. Leaving aside those with geographic or numerical indicators (i.e. "First," "Greater Sandusky"), there's "Covenant," "Faith," "Grace," Trinity" and "Providence." For those hoping to project a softer image, there's "Harvest," "Emmanuel," "Redeemer" or "Hope." Honestly, that's about it. Despite literally years of my campaigning for it, there's still not one "Big Happy Rainbow Church (OPC)."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKRm2Q2uKaxvs8JgHjLewSayk_-Q1-CVibDfCTJZpWHN6Z9I4-qfcrNJ7PX2BmTQ_mXFefKqrEDiMGX0iqCVk3TySCJoTIXc-KmkZ0b1oABVPQIlVvrDCIZGHilAv62H248LK4xWtEibfp/s1600/mount-of.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="333" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKRm2Q2uKaxvs8JgHjLewSayk_-Q1-CVibDfCTJZpWHN6Z9I4-qfcrNJ7PX2BmTQ_mXFefKqrEDiMGX0iqCVk3TySCJoTIXc-KmkZ0b1oABVPQIlVvrDCIZGHilAv62H248LK4xWtEibfp/s200/mount-of.jpg" width="200" /></a>This relentless monotony makes sense when one considers the place of confessional presbyterianism in the broader ecclesiastical landscape. While that landscape is littered with Lutheran congregations, there's relatively few from the Presbyterian Church in America or one of her sister denominations. When new OP Church plants are launched, an extremely common reason given is that there are no nearby reformed congregations. While a new evangelical Church can just be itself in all its own idiosyncratic glory, any given OPC congregation feels a burden to represent the entirety of the presbyterian and reformed stream of the Protestant Reformation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This sociological reality prompts a conservative approach to naming. Employing a "traditional" (i.e., "boring") name sends a clear, if unstated, message to the potential visitor: "You can trust us to be safe: nothing too flashy or evangelicalish here! Just good old hymns and reliable Calvinist doctrine!" Even as I've been openly crusading for more interesting names, I am suspicious of the outlier congregations which use them. Before my family recently visited "Means of Grace Church," I couldn't help wondering what they were trying to say and what potential weirdness lay ahead of us. (Thankfully, it was just as boring as any other presbyterian congregation. We all breathed a sigh of relief!)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One obvious solution is to plant so many confessionally presbyterian congregations through vigorous evangelism and discipleship that individual names won't seem so weighty. Unfortunately, that would require leaving the house and talking to people, so it will be a while until we get there. In the meantime, I suggest a new name which should immediately reassure any presbyterian looking for a new Church home: "Boring Conservative Presbyterian Church (OPC)."</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-69338208431323384182020-05-17T17:16:00.000-06:002020-05-17T17:16:54.811-06:00Ahab's peace<div style="text-align: justify;">
When he was my pastor, <a href="https://gpts.edu/about/faculty-staff/pipa/">Joseph Pipa</a> would sometimes greet me with "Is that you, oh troubler of Israel?" He meant it (and I took it) as a back-handed compliment, as that is how Israel's king, Ahab, greeted the prophet Elijah. Especially during seminary, I had a tendency to question everything about presbyterian doctrine and practice, which meant I challenged Dr. Pipa with some frequency. Far from bothering him, I think this rather pleased him. Dr. Pipa was, and remains, supremely confident in the Biblical fidelity of the Southern Presbyterian tradition and so was more than happy to give its answers to a pesky seminarian. He also believed that if the tradition really had a problem, it could be reformed according to Scripture. The system could not be troubled, for even its most serious challenge would merely be an opportunity to reform and improve.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIunimitQvRLJ5ge1G3wTaZITpsZrRSLkD8PTC6Bs5uDYkzQ6Mbzo2bIrtzYYO3-zi6oAI8gn_7AbLJXlOBQffeHQj7Uv7hd2_5r5hmRxyYfKIy0mOXG8ALEBQFFSzxdpL0bV3j_dRaei1/s1600/309px-Jezabel-and-Ahab-Meeting-Elijah-in-Naboth-s-Vineyard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="309" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIunimitQvRLJ5ge1G3wTaZITpsZrRSLkD8PTC6Bs5uDYkzQ6Mbzo2bIrtzYYO3-zi6oAI8gn_7AbLJXlOBQffeHQj7Uv7hd2_5r5hmRxyYfKIy0mOXG8ALEBQFFSzxdpL0bV3j_dRaei1/s1600/309px-Jezabel-and-Ahab-Meeting-Elijah-in-Naboth-s-Vineyard.jpg" /></a>That, of course, was not Ahab's attitude toward Elijah. By the time of 1 Kings 18, Israel had long been suffering the drought Elijah prophesied in 1 Kings 16. Elijah had ruined things for Ahab and Israel, destroying the peace for which any king might hope. We can all imagine Ahab's immense irritation when Elijah replied, "<span style="font-family: inherit;">I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father’s house have, in that you have forsaken the commandments of the LORD and have followed the Baals</span>" (1 Kings 18:18). From Ahab's point of view, the problem wasn't Israel's idolatry: it was a prophet who couldn't leave well enough alone and kept ruining his peace of mind.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I've been saddened to realize that Ahab's idea of peace is shared by any number of presbyterian pastors and elders. Take, for example, Jennifer Greenberg's "<a href="https://jennifergreenberg.net/2020/04/04/an-open-letter-to-the-orthodox-presbyterian-church-opc-regarding-abuse/">Open Letter to the OPC</a>." While her account of neglect and indifference in response to her attempts to report physical and sexual abuse was met with sympathetic concern in many circles, reactions in private and on the Twitter and other social media were mixed. I've seen attempts to minimize ("she's exaggerating; she's taking things out of context") and to condemn ("whatever may have happened, she's at fault for airing her concerns in the wrong way and should apologize"). These responses echo those of sessions and presbyteries on other occasions: the problem isn't the abuse which is being reported, but that the report of the abuse troubles the Church's peace.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, too many in presbyterian circles enjoy Ahab's peace and become quite upset when it's disrupted.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I learned a great deal from Dr. Pipa, especially when disagreeing with him. A system which is founded on Scripture and continually strives for greater fidelity to it enjoys a peace which cannot be disrupted by a report that it has failed because such reports indicate that the system is working and can be improved. I think I share Dr. Pipa's confidence in confessional presbyterianism.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I wonder why those who cling to Ahab's peace do not.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Image courtesy of <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page">Wikimedia Commons</a>: "Jezebel & Ahab Meeting Elijah in Naboth's Vineyard" by Francis Dicksee</i></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-36937614488510045472020-05-03T16:02:00.000-06:002020-05-03T16:02:00.683-06:00Blame the shepherds<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was ordained and installed as an OPC pastor in 1999. A few years in, I started getting calls from members of other congregations.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm not sure why I got these calls, or if it's common for most pastors to get them. (One time, it was because I was serving as moderator of my presbytery.) These members (a few of them ruling elders) were concerned about their pastors' conduct. The issues were varied: the quality and doctrinal soundness of the preaching; a high-handed leadership style; an inability to resolve conflict; dishonesty; general manner of spiritual abuse. In all these cases, the individuals had already spoken to their pastor and/or session, but felt their concerns weren't being addressed. In a few cases, the individuals felt targeted for reprisals. Sometimes they wanted to know what to do; on a couple occasions, they wanted to know whether it would be sinful to transfer to another congregation. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If I remember correctly, concerns were raised about five or six pastors. Nearly everyone who reached out to me wanted me to take their concerns to the presbytery so it could take action regarding the pastor in question. Each time, I had to tell them that I could not do anything on the basis of one person's report (because, as an individual presbyter, I lack the authority to launch an investigation, especially on the basis of a single testimony) and encouraged them to contact a presbytery officer or committee directly. To the best of my knowledge, no one ever did and they all eventually left their congregations. I found this frustrating, if for no other reason than that if their allegations were correct, other members would also suffer under these pastors.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Through these years, I also got calls from ministers in other OPC presbyteries about pastors in my presbytery. (Again, I'm not sure why they reached out to me in particular.) Once it was about a distressing visit to a worship service while in the area on vacation, another was because of controversial comments made on the interwebs and podcasts. The bad manners and lack of common decency of one man in my presbytery were frequently commented on throughout the denomination: an older minister once advised me, "You'll have to forgive him; that's just the way he is." In most of these cases, I was asked, "Is your presbytery doing anything about him?" In each case, I asked the minister to communicate his concerns in writing to the session of the pastor in question and/or to the presbytery so that these bodies would not be asked to rely on a second-hand account from me. To the best of my knowledge, no one ever did.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ1Z_shnXmyMlAeh_CnyKWB8XkXzdqIfz21LddQ7WstckVuns_W3R9O2PZVQfDZ7om7O9ygO5NqpJqeyT01pgshyphenhyphenaUVwpCqQgV9NYrkJXwhOsOUC_eQd6VMGCu1oY18DsbisNhGY5j7Bvu/s1600/Cacoo-Venn-Diagram-Blog-680x450.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="680" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ1Z_shnXmyMlAeh_CnyKWB8XkXzdqIfz21LddQ7WstckVuns_W3R9O2PZVQfDZ7om7O9ygO5NqpJqeyT01pgshyphenhyphenaUVwpCqQgV9NYrkJXwhOsOUC_eQd6VMGCu1oY18DsbisNhGY5j7Bvu/s320/Cacoo-Venn-Diagram-Blog-680x450.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the Venn diagram of the fellow presbyters in question, the two circles overlap considerably but not entirely. What unites them completely, of course, is the unwillingness of those who called me to take formal action, and this I blame on the OPC presbyters. Presbyters, especially ministers of Word and sacrament, are far better-equipped than ordinary Church members to raise concerns in the Church courts and get inquiries begun. Members, especially those who have suffered under spiritual abuse, are naturally timid around those with greater expertise and often feel that their voices will not be heard. Before they speak up, they need to see that allegations of abuse are taken seriously by those with authority and that presbyteries will respond wisely and justly to them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If presbyters will not act to protect the sheep of other congregations, we should not be surprised when those sheep act to protect themselves without taking necessary and appropriate action regarding shepherds who do not conduct themselves in a manner worthy of their office. Don't blame the sheep for not reporting abuse: blame the shepherds.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-58711784876227338502020-04-26T20:02:00.001-06:002020-05-03T15:21:24.327-06:00The heart is deceitful above all things<div style="text-align: justify;">
A couple years ago, my presbytery was debating whether to proceed with the trial of a minister who had been charged with what amounted to tax fraud. (In presbyterianism, Church courts also function as judicial courts in which allegations of sin are tried in order to determine whether Church discipline is necessary.) For at least a few men, it seemed that before they could weigh the evidence, they first had to grapple with whether it was possible for the accused to commit such a sin. In fact, another pastor made a speech stating, "We all know in our hearts that [X] couldn't do this thing."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This episode is now being writ large for the entire Orthodox Presbyterian Church because of Jennifer Greenberg's recent "<a href="https://jennifergreenberg.net/2020/04/04/an-open-letter-to-the-orthodox-presbyterian-church-opc-regarding-abuse/">An Open Letter to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Regarding Abuse</a>." Amongst other things, Mrs. Greenberg explains how she was abused by her father and (as a teenager) propositioned by an OPC minister. In this letter, her concern is less with the abuse itself and more with how her reports of it to pastors were met with inaction, excuses or milquetoast attempts at sympathy. There were no (to the best of her knowledge) reports to civil authorities or initiations of Church discipline. She finds this grievously offensive.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the OPC as a denomination, it seems her officers and members are wondering to themselves (and out loud to others) whether such behavior and inaction is possible amongst our elders and presbyteries. I don't know whether anything Mrs. Greenberg has written is entirely accurate, since I've only read her side of the story. But I have been a minister of Word and sacrament in the OPC for twenty years, and I know from experience that everything she has written is entirely plausible: this is the denomination I have come to know reasonably well.<br />
<br />
I hope those who interact with Jennifer Greenberg's blog won't get hung up on whether or not such things as she reports can happen. I don't know my own heart or the heart of any other person, but I do know the heart is wicked and deceitful and capable of all things (Jeremiah 17:9-10). What she reports could very well occur in the OPC: for those of us who are this denomination's officers, it is for us to determine what exactly occurred, what redress is necessary, and how to do much better in the future.<br />
<br />
I know that anyone, even another pastor in my presbytery, is capable of great sin. Every presbyterian should not only confess the same, but act accordingly.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5805494762185790189.post-77838941736029390352020-01-23T17:45:00.001-07:002020-01-23T17:45:26.883-07:00SkipGeorge Scipione died yesterday.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
He was my counseling professor in seminary and let me sit in on sessions one summer even though I wasn't enrolled in the official program. Skip had a strong personality and was kind of a piece of work, but he was always kind to me (which is not universally true of my seminary professors). Not just me, but as far as I could tell, to everyone. He had a natural gift for rubbing people the wrong way, but that was never his intention.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The last time I talked to him was a couple months ago, when he called me out of the blue. (This was before the cancer diagnosis; he was talking about plans for starting a retreat center for pastors in his retirement.) He had heard the rumors about the train wreck which is my pastoral career and just wanted to encourage me and pray for me. I wasn't surprised because that was Skip. I wish everyone knew that about him.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was praying for him yesterday morning. I knew he was suffering, but I also knew he had spent much of his life struggling with various physical ailments. Suffering was something he knew how to bear. I thought about what I might tell people about him, and I realized the most obvious and important thing about him was that he loved Jesus. Really, really loved Jesus. At that moment, I was sad he was suffering, but even more I was happy for him because pretty soon he would be seeing Jesus in person. For Skip, I knew that would be as good as it could possibly get.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am so happy for him now.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1