From their website: "Our name — The Vision Forum — points to our desire that the Lord would use this work to be a forum for communicating a vision of victory to Christian families." First of all, what's with the dashes? The humble comma would just as effectively set off "The Vision Forum" in that sentence, without all the flash and also without raising the suspicion Mr. Phillips might not know as much about punctuation as all the homeschooling propaganda would lead one to believe.
More substantively, I'm seriously concerned about the nature of the victory the Vision Forum (no, I'm not going to capitalize "the") has in mind. Victory over sin would be a good thing, of course, but flipping through their catalog, the emphasis seems to be on victory over the society and culture around us. And the way to beat the snot out of said society is to turn one's children into culture warriors through the judicious purchase and implementation of the wares hawked by the Vision Forum.
And what a great number of wares there are: 113 pages worth in the 2009 catalog. An awful lot of stuff for those who claim to be pursuing an agenda at odds with that of the world.
Only I'm not persuaded that's the case, not by a long shot. Take this sentence from the blurb for the DVD The Return of the Daughters: "This highly-controversial [again with the misused dash, hypenating what ought never be hyphenated!] documentary will take viewers into the homes of several young women who have dared to defy today's anti-family culture in pursuit of a biblical approach to daughterhood, using their in-between years to pioneer a new culture of strength and dignity and to rebuild Western Civilization, starting with the culture of the home." Let's just a take a moment to reflect on the self-congratulatory air in this ad copy (which, I admit, is a particularly egregious example, but not an uncommon representation of Vision Forum fare). Have enough people even noticed this documentary exists in order to controvert it? If that weren't enough of an overly grand sense of oneself, they're rebuilding Western Civilization.
So much for living quietly, minding one's own affairs (1 Thessalonians 4:11).
This is precisely where the presence of the Vision Forum catalog in Christian homes begins giving me, as a pastor, heartburn. There's something unnervingly worldly about the Vision Forum's anti-world vision. Again and again, one gets the impression each Christian family should be building a legacy which will endure for generations to come; not only that, they should be actively engaged in transforming the culture and reshaping it according to their liking. In other words, they are about building a name and a city for themselves and claiming a country in this world, during this age: a country which they hope, and even believe, will endure.
But this present age is passing away.
And as for me and my house, we are also seeking a country of our own, but not that country from which we came out. Rather, we desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore we are not ashamed of the Cross of Christ; for the God who became despised and nothing has called us to be likewise despised and nothing. He has invited us to live as aliens and strangers in this world. He has not invited us to build a city here because he has prepared a city for us.
But I don't suppose I'll sell much merchandise with that vision.
Monday, June 29, 2009
More on Animus Imponentis (or "It's My Blog and I'm Not [Necessarily] Here to Entertain You")
Since my last post on this topic, the Presbytery of Northern California and Nevada has posted another mp3 of their "debriefing," a discussion of their Animus Imponentis conference. There were some very interesting observations aired. Upon listening, some suspicions I've had have been confirmed.
For one, discussion of animus imponentis becomes very quickly a substitute debate over the days of creation. That is, because "animus imponentis" is so frequently invoked by those arguing for something other than 6 days of ordinary length, the two matters become quickly linked and then confused. This is highly unfortunate, since the Confessions address a much larger set of doctrines, and we ought reflect on how we interpret everything they address. For those who hold to the "6 24-hour days" view, there seems a sneaking suspicion that "animus imponentis" is invoked almost entirely to avoid a debate on the substantive question.
Not unrelated are (below the surface) questions of power. To digress a bit, it's long seemed to me that elders in the OPC fall into two basic categories: those who expect to be at General Assembly pretty much every year, and those who do not. Those in the former category have, practically speaking, far greater power and influence than those in the latter. They may not see themselves as privileged in this manner, but that can make matters worse. To return to the subject at hand, the former seem to believe (broadly speaking) that the endorsement of a report on the days of creation by a single GA has settled the matter once and for all. The latter, especially those among the latter unhappy with said report, don't have the same confidence their views have been adequately heard and may not be easily persuaded the matter has been settled. While attendance at our General Assemblies has long been numerically capped, we ought not forget that, properly speaking, every elder (teaching and ruling) is an equal to the other. When those not in attendance at Assemblies get the feeling their rights are being ignored, aggrieved sensibilities are likely to ensue.
Along the same lines, those comfortable with the status quo can easily fall into the habit of speaking of the "animus imponentis of the OPC" as though this were a final and settled matter. As John Muether noted in one of his lectures, the OPC has moved from a vague tolerance of some varieties of evolutionary theory amongst her officers to an absolute intolerance. We can and should discuss what our shared confessional interpretations have been and are. Such, however, is the beginning of doctrinal debate, not its end.
In connection with this, a brief paper by the Rev. Bob Needham made a very telling point. In my own words, he observed that tolerance of anti-confessional views in the past could be read not as a revealing of the Church's views, but as a sin of omission. Thus, one ought not argue "the animus imponentis is to tolerate anti-confessional position X."
I've said it before, and I'll no doubt say it again. So long as we refuse to amend, revise, or add to our Confessional Standards, we will argue over whether we should really believe what they say. That argument continues to strike me as silly and fruitless, while a debate as to what is and is not an essential doctrine would be anything but.
For one, discussion of animus imponentis becomes very quickly a substitute debate over the days of creation. That is, because "animus imponentis" is so frequently invoked by those arguing for something other than 6 days of ordinary length, the two matters become quickly linked and then confused. This is highly unfortunate, since the Confessions address a much larger set of doctrines, and we ought reflect on how we interpret everything they address. For those who hold to the "6 24-hour days" view, there seems a sneaking suspicion that "animus imponentis" is invoked almost entirely to avoid a debate on the substantive question.
Not unrelated are (below the surface) questions of power. To digress a bit, it's long seemed to me that elders in the OPC fall into two basic categories: those who expect to be at General Assembly pretty much every year, and those who do not. Those in the former category have, practically speaking, far greater power and influence than those in the latter. They may not see themselves as privileged in this manner, but that can make matters worse. To return to the subject at hand, the former seem to believe (broadly speaking) that the endorsement of a report on the days of creation by a single GA has settled the matter once and for all. The latter, especially those among the latter unhappy with said report, don't have the same confidence their views have been adequately heard and may not be easily persuaded the matter has been settled. While attendance at our General Assemblies has long been numerically capped, we ought not forget that, properly speaking, every elder (teaching and ruling) is an equal to the other. When those not in attendance at Assemblies get the feeling their rights are being ignored, aggrieved sensibilities are likely to ensue.
Along the same lines, those comfortable with the status quo can easily fall into the habit of speaking of the "animus imponentis of the OPC" as though this were a final and settled matter. As John Muether noted in one of his lectures, the OPC has moved from a vague tolerance of some varieties of evolutionary theory amongst her officers to an absolute intolerance. We can and should discuss what our shared confessional interpretations have been and are. Such, however, is the beginning of doctrinal debate, not its end.
In connection with this, a brief paper by the Rev. Bob Needham made a very telling point. In my own words, he observed that tolerance of anti-confessional views in the past could be read not as a revealing of the Church's views, but as a sin of omission. Thus, one ought not argue "the animus imponentis is to tolerate anti-confessional position X."
I've said it before, and I'll no doubt say it again. So long as we refuse to amend, revise, or add to our Confessional Standards, we will argue over whether we should really believe what they say. That argument continues to strike me as silly and fruitless, while a debate as to what is and is not an essential doctrine would be anything but.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Makin' purtier links
I have a friend who's a missionary in South Africa who sent me an e-mail yesterday with several suggestions as to how I might make the links in my posts shorter.
Did you get that? A MISSIONARY found my posts so cluttered he had to take the time to intervene. (Graciously, of course.) When I came home and reported this to Mrs. Curmudgeon, she agreed that, indeed, my blog looks a mess.
How long have you people been talking about this behind my metaphorical back? And you let a missionary do your dirty work? Seriously.
Turns out blogspot has had a tool in the menu bar for turning words and phrases into hyperlinks all along, and I've now learned to use it.
Everybody happy?
Did you get that? A MISSIONARY found my posts so cluttered he had to take the time to intervene. (Graciously, of course.) When I came home and reported this to Mrs. Curmudgeon, she agreed that, indeed, my blog looks a mess.
How long have you people been talking about this behind my metaphorical back? And you let a missionary do your dirty work? Seriously.
Turns out blogspot has had a tool in the menu bar for turning words and phrases into hyperlinks all along, and I've now learned to use it.
Everybody happy?
Picking on the Vision Forum
I just read a review essay, "Hold the Granola" by Gilbert Meilaender, on Rod Dreher's book Crunchy Cons in the May 2006 issue of First Things. (Oh, like you're current on your reading.) I've been working on a lengthy rant on the Vision Forum off and on (mostly in my head) for a while now, but it seems Meilaender was able to get to the heart of the matter before me (and more wittily). Go scrounge up a copy of the Vision Forum catalog, then consider the appropriateness of these observations, although originally on Dreher's "crunchy cons:"
"Child-rearing is not pottery or sculpture; the materials in our hands turn out to have ideas of their own. Most of what we know about the task we learn only too late, after our mistakes have been made. Rather than a mission of rearing countercultural children, we have the task of doing the best we can, in love, to set our children on the way in life. We teach them how to behave, we try to set them on the right path and shape their character properly, but we don't own their souls. They must for a time obey us, but they don't have to share all our likes and dislikes."
"Child-rearing is not pottery or sculpture; the materials in our hands turn out to have ideas of their own. Most of what we know about the task we learn only too late, after our mistakes have been made. Rather than a mission of rearing countercultural children, we have the task of doing the best we can, in love, to set our children on the way in life. We teach them how to behave, we try to set them on the right path and shape their character properly, but we don't own their souls. They must for a time obey us, but they don't have to share all our likes and dislikes."
"...[G]enuine nurture recognizes that we must, in various ways, hand our children over to others as well. We do not possess them. Indeed, at moments I found myself wondering whether crunchy cons, in their zeal to turn against an obsession with “things,” were not in danger of filling that need for things with children. And I shudder to learn of the children reared by crunchy cons that 'these kids are going to be rebels with a cause' when they grow up. We may all hope to bring up children with character sufficient to resist whatever is genuinely evil (and character wise enough not to brand as evil what is simply not to their liking), but to delight in rearing little rebels, who will likely think they know far more than they do, does not strike me as a helpful way to face the future."
"....To bring that child to baptism is to hand him over to God, who must be the guarantor of his existence, and to the church, which must accept responsibility for him. There is something stiflingly possessive in this account of the parent-child bond. It is, no doubt, understandable — even admirable — in a world where so many children are left simply to fend for themselves, but it sometimes strikes a disturbing note."
Monday, June 22, 2009
Decoding My Mood: Curmudgeonly
The June 15 issue of Time has an essay by Robert Wright, "Decoding God's Changing Moods," (http://tinyurl.com/pxjsu6) in which he suggests a way forward for Muslims, Jews, and Christians who just want to get along. He argues the scriptures of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity contain a "code" which shows that advantages can be gained from tolerating, and even endorsing, other religions.
As a professional reader of the Bible, I would have been surprised by the notion that the Old Testament looks favorably upon other gods and religions were I not already far more well-versed than any rational person would care to be in the "higher criticism" in which "scholars" such as Wright engage. Without a shred of evidence, he deconstructs the Biblical text ("The Bible had the logic backward."), assigns it different and mythical authors, and argues its monotheism is only apparent (really, the prophets were preaching "monolatry"). It was nice, for once, to see the same nonsense applied to the Koran as well: any religion can be victimized by this fiddle-faddle.
In fact, this opens the possibility of real unity between Jews, Christians and Muslims: sharing an extreme annoyance at people like Robert Wright who treat our scriptures like jigsaw puzzles and lecture us on how we can become better practitioners of our religions by ignoring all their foundational tenets.
As a professional reader of the Bible, I would have been surprised by the notion that the Old Testament looks favorably upon other gods and religions were I not already far more well-versed than any rational person would care to be in the "higher criticism" in which "scholars" such as Wright engage. Without a shred of evidence, he deconstructs the Biblical text ("The Bible had the logic backward."), assigns it different and mythical authors, and argues its monotheism is only apparent (really, the prophets were preaching "monolatry"). It was nice, for once, to see the same nonsense applied to the Koran as well: any religion can be victimized by this fiddle-faddle.
In fact, this opens the possibility of real unity between Jews, Christians and Muslims: sharing an extreme annoyance at people like Robert Wright who treat our scriptures like jigsaw puzzles and lecture us on how we can become better practitioners of our religions by ignoring all their foundational tenets.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Animus Imponentis
Earlier this year, the OPC's Presbytery of Northern California and Nevada held a conference on the nature of the animus imponentis in the OPC. "Animus imponentis" means (roughly) "the will of the imposing body," and refers to what the OPC, as a denomination, understands the Westminster Standards to mean, and what is then expected of the officers who subscribe to those standards as their confession of faith. As several of the speakers pointed out, animus imponentis is an important and necessary concept, as Church officers ought not be putting their own private meanings on the language of the confessions, and as these confessions are supposed to unite, not divide, us. (You can download the various sessions at http://pncnopc.org/index.php?option=com_sermonspeaker&task=singleseries&id=10004&Itemid=100008.)
I'm grateful to this presbytery for organizing the conference and making it, via the miracle of mp3, available to the broader Church. Overall, I found the various lectures thoughtful and informative, and quite helpful in developing further my own understanding of what it means to subscribe to confessional standards. One overarching weakness, however, was that the conference was very much geared to Church officers and their particular concerns as persons who must subscribe to the Westminster Standards and also approve candidates for Church office. Neglected, in my opinion, was the relationship of the average Church member to our confessions, and how the animus imponentis of the OPC affects that. Consequently, I'd like to see further discussion of at least these three areas.
1) Animus in relationship to Confessions as teaching documents
Like many presbyterian pastors, I’ve told people the advantage of confessionalism is that the prospective member knows what he’s getting into; that is, all that which we consider essential to the faith is clearly written down. But if the animus imponentis is somewhat at variance with the plain meaning of the confessional text (as the animus imponentis of the OPC is to accept "historic premillenialism" while Larger Catechism 87 and 90 seem to exclude it), then it seems to me we cannot honestly say our confessions state what we consider to be essential doctrines of the faith.
This point is related to the use of confessional standards as teaching documents. Again, if the animus imponentis is at variance with the wording of the standards, then it seems to me the standards cannot reliably be used to teach the people our faith, at least not without the caveats of an instructor. In that case, then, the oral tradition imparted by the instructor takes priority over the standards themselves, for the standards are nothing more than the words which comprise their text.
2) Animus vs. confessional revision
Where animus imponentis becomes most controversial is when it is in conflict with what seems to be the plain meaning of the confessional texts. Would it not be simpler to revise the confessions so that their wording is in line with the animus of the OPC? (No one is allowed to answer with “This is not a confession-writing age,” as that merely begs the question.)
3) Animus and Church power
Here I am not thinking of Church power as it is technically defined in our Book of Church Order; rather, I am thinking of the perspective often held by congregants that teaching elders hold all the power in the Church. The notion of animus imponentis (again, most especially when the animus is at variance with confessional language) can give the impression that while we claim our doctrines are found in the confessions, what we actually believe and teach is under the control of presbyters who are not bound by what has been written. This is perhaps an extreme response, but one to which we as wielders of Church power ought be sensitive.
I'm grateful to this presbytery for organizing the conference and making it, via the miracle of mp3, available to the broader Church. Overall, I found the various lectures thoughtful and informative, and quite helpful in developing further my own understanding of what it means to subscribe to confessional standards. One overarching weakness, however, was that the conference was very much geared to Church officers and their particular concerns as persons who must subscribe to the Westminster Standards and also approve candidates for Church office. Neglected, in my opinion, was the relationship of the average Church member to our confessions, and how the animus imponentis of the OPC affects that. Consequently, I'd like to see further discussion of at least these three areas.
1) Animus in relationship to Confessions as teaching documents
Like many presbyterian pastors, I’ve told people the advantage of confessionalism is that the prospective member knows what he’s getting into; that is, all that which we consider essential to the faith is clearly written down. But if the animus imponentis is somewhat at variance with the plain meaning of the confessional text (as the animus imponentis of the OPC is to accept "historic premillenialism" while Larger Catechism 87 and 90 seem to exclude it), then it seems to me we cannot honestly say our confessions state what we consider to be essential doctrines of the faith.
This point is related to the use of confessional standards as teaching documents. Again, if the animus imponentis is at variance with the wording of the standards, then it seems to me the standards cannot reliably be used to teach the people our faith, at least not without the caveats of an instructor. In that case, then, the oral tradition imparted by the instructor takes priority over the standards themselves, for the standards are nothing more than the words which comprise their text.
2) Animus vs. confessional revision
Where animus imponentis becomes most controversial is when it is in conflict with what seems to be the plain meaning of the confessional texts. Would it not be simpler to revise the confessions so that their wording is in line with the animus of the OPC? (No one is allowed to answer with “This is not a confession-writing age,” as that merely begs the question.)
3) Animus and Church power
Here I am not thinking of Church power as it is technically defined in our Book of Church Order; rather, I am thinking of the perspective often held by congregants that teaching elders hold all the power in the Church. The notion of animus imponentis (again, most especially when the animus is at variance with confessional language) can give the impression that while we claim our doctrines are found in the confessions, what we actually believe and teach is under the control of presbyters who are not bound by what has been written. This is perhaps an extreme response, but one to which we as wielders of Church power ought be sensitive.
Trust the Lord
From Bruce Waltke's commentary on Proverbs: "...Solomon calls on the son to trust the LORD, not his sayings per se, because his sayings are only as good as the LORD who revealed them and who inspired him."
Monday, June 8, 2009
Lord of the wing
Hebrew Biblical poetry is most notable for its (sometimes brutal) economy: the ideal verse has only six words, three for each line. Why, then, does Proverbs 1:17 refer to the "lord of the wing" (two words in Hebrew) rather than the "bird" (one word, which would have kept the line at three words)?
I could spin a couple theories, but I don't know. On the other hand, I do know this is how poetry works in general: work within established rules so they can be broken for effect.
I could spin a couple theories, but I don't know. On the other hand, I do know this is how poetry works in general: work within established rules so they can be broken for effect.
Leithart on the call to worship
Stop what you're doing and read this post from Peter Leithart: http://www.leithart.com/2009/06/07/exhortation-40/#more-5957.
I have blogger envy.
I have blogger envy.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Skeptical of the Vision Forum
For the uninitiated, the Vision Forum is an organization much-beloved by a certain segment of the home-schooling community, particularly those interested in a reformed soteriology but not a presbyterian ecclesiology. Or much of an ecclesiology at all, as, so far as I can tell, there seems an unarticulated but clearly evident conviction that the nuclear family is pretty much all- and self-sufficient, so long as the father is willing to act all patriarchal and the womenfolk wear long dresses.
I mention the latter because this, according to the pictures in the the catalog I did not ask them to send me, is the standard dress code for the fairer sex. I should mention that the blurb for a DVD on "Biblical Femininity" (only $15!) clearly states "It doesn't matter how 'girly' a girl's clothes are...." But if that's the case, then how come all the girls in said catalog are dressed more girly than the average American Girl doll?
Methinks they dost protest too much: one rather gets the impression that purchasing the sufficient number of items from the Vision Forum catalog, and, of course, dressing appropriately, is all one's family needs to do to realize the vision of reforming and reviving the American family through the wonder of one-stop shopping.
I mention the latter because this, according to the pictures in the the catalog I did not ask them to send me, is the standard dress code for the fairer sex. I should mention that the blurb for a DVD on "Biblical Femininity" (only $15!) clearly states "It doesn't matter how 'girly' a girl's clothes are...." But if that's the case, then how come all the girls in said catalog are dressed more girly than the average American Girl doll?
Methinks they dost protest too much: one rather gets the impression that purchasing the sufficient number of items from the Vision Forum catalog, and, of course, dressing appropriately, is all one's family needs to do to realize the vision of reforming and reviving the American family through the wonder of one-stop shopping.
All Richard Thompson, all the time
After Richard and Linda Thompson divorced (because Richard, the scumbag, cheated on her with, I believe, a backup singer), and then Linda Thompson lost her singing voice due to some bizarre psychosomatic thingy, Richard Thompson continued recording solo. In my opinion, these performances, while solid, lack the urgency and clarity of his work with his former wife. (I suppose that's not unlike what some people think of Paul Simon's post-Garfunkel work, but of course that's just baby-boomer "everything was better when I was young" whining, since Graceland, to give just one example, is stunningly brilliant. But I digress.)
That's why it's worth buying, and playing over and over again, the Richard Thompson tribute album, Beat the Retreat. There's not an off performance on the whole disc, largely due to his insightful and well-crafted song-writing. R.E.M.'s cover of "The Wall of Death" is compelling, and Shawn Colvin and Loudon Wainwright III's duet on "A Heart Needs a Home" is just lovely.
Which is not to say that Richard Thompson is not capable of delivering a song well all on his lonesome. His project 1000 Years of Popular Music is interesting for the amateur musicologist amongst us (and hey, who isn't looking for a recent recording of "Sumer Is Incumen In"?), but my favorite moment is his rendition of "Oops, I Did It Again." Believe it or not, he not only redeems this song, he demonstrated it has depths unknown by Miss Spears herself. It changed my life.
For real.
That's why it's worth buying, and playing over and over again, the Richard Thompson tribute album, Beat the Retreat. There's not an off performance on the whole disc, largely due to his insightful and well-crafted song-writing. R.E.M.'s cover of "The Wall of Death" is compelling, and Shawn Colvin and Loudon Wainwright III's duet on "A Heart Needs a Home" is just lovely.
Which is not to say that Richard Thompson is not capable of delivering a song well all on his lonesome. His project 1000 Years of Popular Music is interesting for the amateur musicologist amongst us (and hey, who isn't looking for a recent recording of "Sumer Is Incumen In"?), but my favorite moment is his rendition of "Oops, I Did It Again." Believe it or not, he not only redeems this song, he demonstrated it has depths unknown by Miss Spears herself. It changed my life.
For real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)