Reusable bags mean the terrorists have won

Apparently, al-shabaab has banned plastic bags. You know what to do, America.

What happens when you decorate for Halloween too early

'Decapitated man' Halloween display in Tennessee sparks 911 calls

Respect the seasons, people. It's not even the vernal equinox yet.

At last! A white man comments on race & gender relations

I've been listening to Pass the Mic (I believe on the recommendation of Mrs. Curmudgeon), the podcast of the Reformed African-American Network for a couple years now. It was thus that I heard the now-infamous "Gender Apartheid" episode, a crossover with the Truth's Table podcast. I won't bother recounting the sturm und drang which ensued; if you're blissfully unaware, the Google will tell you more than you need to know.

The kerfuffle gave me another occasion to reflect (as it seems I have had many occasions of late) on white people and what is wrong with them, especially the male ones who hold positions of influence and power in confessionally reformed circles. Anyone who knows me will freely tell you I have no idea what it would be like to hold a position of influence or power (despite the fact that every once in a while dozens [literally, dozens] of people read one of my blog posts), but I imagine that were I in one I would feel secure and self-confident. Instead, many of these men act like snowflakes (to coin a term) when they hear someone using terms which make them uncomfortable and describing reality in a manner to which they are unaccustomed.

Take, for example, R. Scott Clark, a professor at Westminster Seminary California, who recently commented on the original podcast at his Heidelblog in a two-part analysis. For the sakes of space and propriety, I will put aside the utter offensiveness and insanity of a late-middle-aged white Nebraskan taking umbrage at black women a decade or so younger than he using the term "apartheid" and presuming to lecture them on its historical context. (I am not making this up.) Instead, I will note that the first segment of his analysis focuses entirely on the terms "gender apartheid" and "toxic masculinity" without any engagement whatsoever with how the hostesses of Truth's Table defined those terms in their discussion. Notable also is a failure to interact with the problems they describe as occurring in confessionally reformed circles. Here's the closest Clark gets:

The question remains: Is there systematic oppression of females in NAPARC churches? Again, definitions are essential. In our late-modern subjectivist culture, recognition of sexual differences and of a creational pattern is regarded as “systematic oppression” but Christians may not simply adopt cultural categories and use them to leverage Scripture and nature. Christians recognize that there is such a category as nature, that there are such things as “givens.” There are laws of nature and there is a God who made nature. Properly defined, we should conclude that no, there is not a systematic oppression of females. Are there quarters within the NAPARC world in which females are told, in effect, to “sit down and shut up”? Yes. This is part of the problem. In reaction to the various iterations of feminism, some congregations do not allow females to vote in congregational meetings on the grounds that voting is an exercise of authority and therefore a violation of 1 Timothy 2:12. This strikes me as an unlikely inference and application of this passage.

I read this paragraph (and its broader context) several times, and am still confused. On the one hand there is no systematic oppression of females, apparently because on Clark's definitions there cannot be. On the other hand, there are "quarters within the NAPARC world in which females" are oppressed. Eh?

In the second section of his analysis, Clark presents an unobjectionable view of sexual relationships within the Creation order, but doesn't actually touch on anything in the podcast except in one paragraph. There, he states "When the podcasters spoke about qualifications for special office (e.g., elder) in the church they mocked the idea that only men are permitted to hold special office by reducing the qualifications to male anatomy." Actually, they said no such thing. Instead, they noted that opportunities for non-ordained persons to participate in a Church's ministries are often restricted to non-ordained persons who are "ordainable," which in practice often means nothing more than "male." (I will note that this is a complex issue worthy of much discussion by itself, and so I will not comment here.) At least in this regard, it appears Clark failed to listen carefully to that which he presumed to critique before presuming to critique it.

Sadly, Clark's response exemplifies most of the reformed white male responses to the "Gender Apartheid" podcast which I've encountered. (For the record, I am not a reformed white male, but a presbyterian white man.) To me, they read something like, "I am terribly offended by your recasting the discussions in terms which the people like me have not previously authorized, and will therefore excuse myself from paying any heed to the actual arguments you are making." The bitter irony, of course, is that many (although probably not all) of these middle- to late-middle-aged reformed white males have criticized today's young people for being overly delicate snowflakes.

Honestly, I listened to the original podcast and found nothing objectionable about it. The comments, particularly from the ladies, are trenchant, but that's what makes for entertaining listening. They were having an open and honest conversation, not attempting to educate me or reformed white males comfortable in their privilege: something which they have every right, before God and man in these United States, to do. Why would I bother to take offense?

And now I have given you just what everyone has been waiting for: a white man's opinions on race and gender relations. At long last.

Very reasonable packaging

Yup. This was all for a few pairs of girly socks. 

Regarding the clownpocalypse

So yesterday there was this news story regarding Ronald McDonald's decision to forego public appearances for a while lest he inadvertently traumatize youngsters sensitized to the ongoing "creepy clown" epidemic. Then I read in this morning's paper how several Colorado school districts are banning clown costumes this Halloween. 

Brighton 27J has also decided to ban clown costumes. “We believe it is the best way to avoid perpetuating any clown fear or paranoia in our schools,” superintendent Dr. Chris Fielder wrote in a letter to parents in the district.

Right. Because how better to tamp down paranoia over creepy clowns than by FORBIDDING SMALL  CHILDREN TO WEAR CLOWN COSTUMES FOR HALLOWEEN?

Good call, educators.

The screen and the book

In his essay "The Screen and the Book" (First Things, May 2015), Marc Barnes argues for the metaphysical superiority of the printed-and-bound-book to the e-book.

This is the phenomenology of the screen: It could be otherwise.

This is the primary reason we feel the book to be solid in comparison to the screen. The screen is saturated with possibilities. The screen is fluid.

I read it on my Kindle.

1st day with solar panels

Over the last two days, our new solar panels were installed and set up.

Today the weather is overcast and rainy.

Nat's revenge

Since my teen years, when his column "Sweet Land of Liberty" was still widely syndicated, First Amendment and jazz scholar Nat Hentoff has been my personal Jiminy Cricket, my secular conscience always reminding me that I must read the text of the United States Constitution rather than think it follows my sometime fickle inclinations. As the newspaper industry has undergone massive contractions over the last decade, the unthinkable occurred and The Village Voice laid him off. Nonetheless, he keeps writing for the Cato Institute and continues to stir up outrage over the practical suspension of the rule of law in these United States.

I've been reading newspapers as long as I've been reading, and insisted we subscribe to The Denver Post here at the Curmudgeon household. However, Mrs. Curmudgeon has been questioning the value gained for the expense, and I was shocked to learn the monthly difference between a print subscription and a digital subscription (which includes a subscription to The Washington Post and Time magazine) is about $17. In about 10 months after switching to digital, we'll have saved enough to pay for the used iPad we're now using to read the news"paper."

Just as we were making the switch, Nat Hentoff published "How Much Digital Reading Stays inside You?," in which he cited some recent research to tout the superiority of print reading over digital forms of delivery. I can't argue with him: even though I own a Kindle, I write out all my exegetical notes for sermon preparation with a pencil and read hard copies of all my commentaries. Even though I already owned a digital collection of John Calvin's complete works, I bought a printed set when I found it on sale. I know full well that we were meant to read words printed on paper, and Nat Hentoff reminded me that I had once again betrayed the cause.

Or at least I tried to. Mrs. Curmudgeon and I have called Honduras, where The Denver Post's call center is located, countless times. We've been assured our subscription has been switched over to digital-only and we will not be charged for the print edition. Nonetheless, every morning it's there at the end of my driveway, a reminder of all that is true and good in this fallen world, a solidified phantasm of the more genteel ways under which I came of age. Nat Hentoff would be pleased: I just can't get rid of the actual, physical newspaper.

And so in tribute to Nat, I read the printed comics section first. But then I turn on the iPad, because I have to admit I prefer The Washington Post app's countless supply of comic strips, even though I know I will never be able to light my grill with it, wadded up or not.

Regarding "A Critic of Contemporary Christian Music Reviews the OPC Psalter-Hymnal"

Given my inclination to advocate for singing Psalms in worship, several persons have asked why I ran B. Censorious's "A Critic of Contemporary Christian Music Reviews the OPC Psalter-Hymnal." Simply put, I thought it a fine example of the "criticizing worsip music" genre of which reformed writers of the last several decades seem so fond, and further thought it would be a shame were I the only one to enjoy it.

When I first began reading works of this genre a couple decades ago, it occurred to me that many of the criticisms leveled against whatever kind of worship song the writer did not like (whether classic hymns or contemporary worship music) were presented as though they were careful theological conclusions despite the writer failing to give Scriptural backing for his arguments, and I wondered whether these were actually expressions of aesthetic and personal preference. It further seemed to me that the Psalms themselves could be faulted along the same lines that, say, "Shine, Jesus, Shine" is so widely criticized. In that light, Mr. Censorious's review article represents the natural conclusion of a reflexive urge to condemn uninspired worship songs.

I do believe there are any number of reasons to reject songs of any vintage as inappropriate for Christian worship. At the same time, I believe those who are quick to reject songs ought to be sure none of their reasons for so doing could not equally well be applied to the Psalter.

A Critic of Contemporary Christian Music Reviews the OPC Psalter-Hymnal

(The Presbyterian Curmudgeon is proud to present a guest post by his slightly less well-known cousin, B. Censorious.)

Now that the Committee on Christian Education has made available for public comment its proposed Psalter-Hymnal, I find I can no longer stay my pen from its consideration. However, and perhaps to the surprise of some, I shall not review the musical arrangements of the Psalms, and this because to do so would be to distract from the more foundational question which should concern any who would undertake to press a Psalter into the unsuspecting hands of a worshiping congregation. That is, are the Psalms appropriate for Christian worship?

The answer, of course, is no. The reasons for said answer are perhaps innumerable, but I shall here undertake to enumerate at least a few.

Firstly, one finds no intelligent reflection on the fullness of Trinitarian revelation made known in the New Testament in the Psalter, let alone any mention of our Savior’s name. No doubt some will protest that the Lord’s “Anointed” is mentioned in Psalm 2, but really? Why such reluctance? Why the resort to vague euphemism, and why only the one reference? Are the psalmists embarrassed by basic Christian doctrine, or are they perhaps ignorant of it? And while one hates to cast aspersions, one must wonder if something more than ignorance of orthodoxy is at work here; perhaps one finds a latter-day resurgence of Arianism in texts like Psalm 110?

No doubt the partisan adherents of this new Psalter will protest that we read error where, at worst, there is mere omission. Sadly, this is the least of the Psalms’ faults. Too many of them emphasize, if not adulate, the Law while utterly neglecting the Gospel, as exemplified right at the beginning in Psalm 1. (I shall not mention the giddy excesses of Psalm 119 in this regard.) One wonders whether the uninvited push for Psalm-singing is not intended to make  neonomian endeavors such as “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” more palatable to the reformed community.

While the occasional Psalm does make mention of the broader Church and the worshiping community, these welcome respites are buried in a virtual tide of individualism and man-centeredness. Consider the barrage of Psalms 3 through 7, in which David goes on as if the Lord of the universe were preoccupied with nothing more than petty slights to this man’s reputation. Hardly better is the schizophrenic moodiness of the “Yahweh-is-my-boyfriend” genre, exemplified by Psalms 40 and 42. Then when the needs of the community are finally considered, as in Psalm 137, the immature psalmist concludes with an unchristian call for a violent vengeance which includes infanticide. Are these songs really the best the OPC can do?

Sadly, no review of the Psalms would be complete without a consideration of their (for lack of a better term) literary merit. One thinks immediately of Psalm 136 with its droning, mantra-like repetitiveness, which has surely (if unwittingly) been influenced by Eastern religion. A less obvious, but equally troubling, repetition of theme can be found throughout the Psalter, as, for example, in Psalms 146-150. Really, do Psalms 147-150 say anything substantial which has not already been said in Psalm 146? Given the relatively small number of songs the editors could include in the Psalter, one wonders why they did not exert themselves to gather a more comprehensive range of subject matter. 

Still worse is the Psalms’ use of imagery. Take Psalm 110, in which David lurches from one image and location to another so rapidly as to induce whiplash, concluding with a metaphor unrelated to anything which has gone before and utterly inscrutable in itself. Equally confusing is Psalm 32, in which David appears to be addressing God until verse 8, at which point the reader has no way of knowing whether the speaker is still David or has become God or someone else still, let alone who is being addressed. While one does not wish to condescend, this is what one might expect when the serious work of writing sacred poetry is left to a man trained in animal husbandry and combat rather than one with a sound seminary education.

All these problems, we should note, belong to the Psalms as originally written. The Committee on Christian Education assures us the proposed Psalter-Hymnal uses only the most accurate translations and the best available musical settings, but one cannot make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. We must have songs for worship services, but surely there are better places to find them than in the Bible.

Netflix offers help to the graduate student

It turns out those mid-90s Disney cartoon films were so boring because they were biographical documentaries. If only they had hired Ken Burns...

An odd confluence on abortion availability

One doesn't expect Time and First Things to agree on much regarding abortion rights. However, this week I read articles in both magazines which discussed how the pro-choice movement has declined since the passage of Roe vs. Wade.

The Time piece, "What Choice?," notes that the Roe decision not only energized abortion opponents, it also instilled complacency in the pro-choice movement. In Kate Pickert's narrative, this allowed abortion opponents to chip away at the national abortion-on-demand license with various restraints passed by state legislatures, such as 24-hour waiting periods or mandatory information on prenatal development. As one might expect, the article evokes in the reader a faint but definite taste of moral repugnance as it recognizes that each passing year brings more irrefutable scientific evidence of the fetus' humanity, and simultaneously strikes the standard liberal pose that there is something inherently distressing about a decrease in the number of abortions in this country.

In "Roe's Pro-Life Legacy," Jon A. Shields begins with the same observation as Kate Pickert. From there, however, he attributes the decline in abortion numbers not to legislative triumphs, but to the ever declining acceptability of abortion itself among the American public. This he attributes to the pro-life movement's commitment to moral argument and care for individual women and their families.

The confluence of topic is no doubt the result of the Roe decision's upcoming anniversary. The divergence of analysis is attributable to a more fundamental difference in worldview. The modern American liberal regards the state, and in particular the national government, as society's primary, and in some senses only, institution which can mediate among individual citizens. Liberals thus believe gaining control over legislatures and courts will enable them to steer society according to their liking. Sadly, this blinds them to the fact human society has any number of mediating institutions, and that most people organize their lives not primarily with regard to the state, but instead toward other people. Relationships open the door to genuine conversation, and conversation to the possibility of conversion to other points of view.

Returning to the subject at hand, the primacy of individual relationships in ordinary life forces us to recognize our shared humanity; and once you start recognizing human beings, it's hard to stop at those who have already been born.

Big Man in Presbytery

This last summer, the 40th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America came down solidly against the practice of intinction; that is, partaking of the Lord’s Supper by dipping the bread into the cup rather than eating the bread and then drinking from the cup. In an essay entitled “Adiaphora and Intinction” found on byFaith, the Rev. Terry Johnson argues against intinction not on Biblical grounds, but because it is out of accord with our inherited presbyterian and reformed practice.

While many might find this line of argument of objectionable, preferring only Biblical arguments, I do not. I suspect Mr. Johnson agrees with the PCA’s 40th GA that intinction fails on Scriptural grounds because our Lord prayed over and distributed the two elements separately; I myself find that observation compelling. Appealing to our presbyterian tradition is a subordinate form of argumentation, but is entirely legitimate when one wishes to find support for a main point. As Mr. Johnson notes, in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, the Apostle Paul himself presents precisely this form of argument: a practice is unlawful according to Biblical revelation, and is also out of conformity with the custom of the Churches.

Mr. Johnson goes on to suggest intinction is motivated by an unwise desire to celebrate the Lord’s Supper weekly, counter to Puritan and Scottish Presbyterian practice of less frequent “communion seasons,” in which the sacrament is preceded with a week or so of special services in which the preaching exhorts listeners to prepare themselves to receive the elements. This is in fact his main point, as he concludes, "Attempts to alter established practices in order to rush the administration of the Lord’s Supper are, from the perspective of Reformed Protestantism, both theologically and pastorally dubious." This comes as no surprise from a pastor who has made his reputation as something of an Old School presbyterian and strong proponent of the regulative principle of worship.

So far, so much to be expected, until one reads the biographical note after the essay’s conclusion: “Terry Johnson is senior pastor of Independent Presbyterian Church in Savannah, Ga.” Mr. Johnson serves a congregation which has made an oxymoron its very name. How is it, then, that he can admonish the readers of byFaith to adhere to traditional reformed practices when he has evidently failed to persuade his own congregation to abandon the manifestly anti-presbyterian custom of independency?

Very simply, because Mr. Johnson is a Big Man in the PCA. "Big Man Syndrome" is not peculiar to the PCA (although it sadly is a celebrated feature of the culture of those native to the American South), as any number of Big Men can be found in the assemblies of all reformed and presbyterian communions. The Big Man, by virtue of his position, is above criticism and so can freely, and without any apparent sense of irony, admonish others for failing to live by standards he himself would appear to be unacquainted with in personal practice. In Mr. Johnson's case, he is so convinced that weekly communion is unwise that he appeals to a traditon which more vigorously anathematizes his own pastoral position than it does intinction, and byFaith, not The Onion, runs the article.

With Mr. Johnson, I'd like to see presbyterians more self-consciously maintain our traditions (although I believe the regulative principle of worship favors weekly communion over less frequent celebrations). But first, we have to recognize and repent of the corruption introduced into the Church by deferring to the Big Man. Until we do, the traditions of men will continue to triumph over the traditions received from the apostles.

Don't drive at night in Norway

A Norwegian driver who tried to avoid crashing into a moose hit a bear instead, a wildlife official said.

 This is why so many Norwegians moved to the American midwest over the last couple centuries: lots of ruminants, but not so many bears.

A little trouble staying on message

Note to my neurotypical readers: we're looking at the text, not the faces. Specifically:

 

A question only foster parents ask

At a recent foster parent training seminar, Mrs. Curmudgeon and I had Baby #4 in tow, then exactly four weeks old. Several people approached us during the breaks, asking some variation of "So how old was she when she was placed in your home?"

Harold Camping is a clever man

Harold Camping has been deservedly subject to ridicule because May 21, much like May 20 and May 22, was notably free from apocalypse. Sometimes, the best way to deal with heretics isn't to argue with them from Scripture, but instead to giggle at their arguments supposedly taken from Scripture. Nonetheless, I give the man credit for how he explained away this present age's stubborn refusal to come to an end: the judgment was "spiritual."

This explanation has some plausibility because most people, including most Christians, tend to think "spiritual" = "having nothing to do with real life." Hence, Christians can be spiritual (i.e., religiously-minded) without having to give God ten percent of their money or one-seventh of their time because time and money are real, and God is spiritual. Contrast that common gnostic attitude, however you see it manifested, with the Apostle Paul's insistence in 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5 that the spiritual/resurrection body is very much corporeal.

Camping, obviously, is trying to dodge accountability. Still, it's a clever, even an insightful, dodge.

When will the madness end?

Flash-mob singers spark California mall evacuation

The singers were performing Handel's Hallelujah Chorus.

A spontaneous musical concert at a California shopping mall ended with the entire complex being evacuated after some 5,000 people turned up to sing.

In defense of pedantry

As do all right-thinking persons, I've got George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" in my web browser's main bookmark menu (just under Mapquest, actually). In this inspiring manifesto for clear writing, he does note brevity is not the same thing as clarity; nonetheless, I think one might be forgiven for confusing them. That's particularly the case when reading the works of many members of my guild, who often give the impression of being paid by the word. Very likely, they write like they preach, and they preach by going on and on, giving three examples when one will do and quoting two dead theologians when no quotation was necessary. This too-prevalent pedantry, this insistence on flogging dead oratories with word upon tedious work, has produced in me a paranoid obsession with brevity in my own writing and speaking.

I bring this up because I have just completed two essays which were so pedantic I actively detested the act of writing them. Again and again, I brought up points of only tangential relevance, and went to ridiculous lengths to clarify that which was already transparent. These may be (and this is saying something) the most boring pieces I've ever written.

And it's not my fault.

I've come to realize pedantry is sometimes dictated by one's subject, or, more precisely, one's audience. If said audience is impressed by an awesome flow of verbiage, if it tends to accept every example in support of an argument as entirely sound of itself, then the person addressing it must argue similarly. Leave a single illustration unanswered, and the audience, having never learned to think through the arguments for themselves, will think the defeated proposition still stands. In other words, sometimes the only way to fight erroneous pedantry is with informed pedantry.

Relieved and concerned

As a semi-regular bicycle commuter, I'm relieved that a new bike safety law, which went into effect today, makes it illegal to throw an object at a cyclist from a passing car. At the same time, I'm a tad concerned to learn that until now, attempted assault or manslaughter was perfectly legal so long as the intended victim was a cyclist.