Yes, it is true. I read Harry Potter. I just finished reading the first novel, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. I had to see for myself what all that fuss was about. When these books first came out people protested and said they were anti-Christian, and it happens again every time a Potter movie comes out. So, I rented it from the Herreid, SD library, and read for myself. My conclusions is the book is harmless. I do reserve the right to change my opinion after I read more of the series because it is only book one, but so far so good.
The main objection is that it glorifies witchcraft, which it does to a certain extend, but this is a children’s fantasy book. It is just a book to make kids use their imagination, take them to another place. I do not believe that this is a bad thing. If it is then we must censor every book where magic is practiced including The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia, not to mention every book where robots talk or the mystical “Force” is used. This is needless. A child can use one’s imagination without going over to worship Satan. As long as this is not the only book one’s child reads then there is nothing to worry about. Biblical knowledge is of course the best antidote to all things, so make sure Bible reading is part of a child’s reading list and you should not have to worry about too much in the Harry Potter books.
That being said, I do believe that there are two things that should be addressed by parents, or at least things they should be aware of about Harry Potter.
1. There is a tendency to promote a ‘elitism’ of sorts. The idea of ‘muggles’ or non-magic folk could lead toward elitist attitudes. The only muggles portrayed in this book are Harry’s family, which of course are horrible people. They are self-centered, undisciplined, and mean. You have an idea that there are good muggles out there, but they are still referred to as muggles. Anytime people that are different than you have a group name, it is bad, and will lead to an elitist outlook. For example, I grew up in the South, and everyone who is not a Southerner is a ‘Yankee’. Now this promotes sectional strife, and all kinds of stereotypes, but in the end, this is a label that means ‘everyone else is worse than me’. Although I believe it is unintended, Rowlings has done just that in her novels.
2. The book promotes breaking of rules, and indeed rewards the breaking of rules. Harry Potter and his friends break the rules all the time. It is often full of good intentions, but they break them none-the-less. Not only that subtle hints show that breaking the rules is a good idea. Harry’s female friend was considered a know-it-all, and stuck up until she broke the rules and lied to a teacher. From that point on they were good friends, and she broke the rules much more often, changing her character for the better. One also finds out in the end that the headmaster of the school encouraged Potter to brake the rules by giving him an invisibility cloak. And then Potter’s ‘house’ in school is given the ‘house cup’ when the headmaster steps in at the last second and gives Potter and his friends loads of points for doing things that were against the rules, and that they were specifically forbidden from doing. This probably should be addressed with any children who read this book.
Since I have given the bad, I should also point out some good in the book. Lessons that you would want your child to learn.
1. There is a pronounced theme of good vs. evil. The ‘Dark Arts’ are bad and the rest of magic is good. One must stop the evil and promote the good. This is the conflict that drives the book. How can we stop those who are evil and are out to corrupt and ruin the good things we love, mainly the school and one’s friends? Evil must be fought, and stopped. Harry comes to realize that he must take a stand against evil, and that is a good thing. Children can learn the value of good and the necessity of stopping evil by reading these books.
2. There is a second theme that is much more subtle, but worth while. Things that are scary or fearful are made worse by our fear. The book has a story line about not saying the name of a certain evil wizard. Yet, the headmaster always makes a point of calling out the name, and in the end Harry does as well. He learns that by refusing to call something by its name only adds to the fear, and is counterproductive. I hope the other books continue on this theme. By the way, this is one that the movie left out. It probably shouldn’t have.
All in all, don’t go to any great lengths to stop your kids from reading this book. It is not that bad. It is an easy read and entertaining. It could help children love reading, which is important. While this book is not of the quality of C.S. Lewis or J.R.R Tolkien, it is still a decent book.
This is my personal blog. The main topic shall be theology, but since theology informs every area of life, one can expect a wide range of topics. I hope that all who visit find something they like. I welcome comment and discussion.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
Historical Arguments
I thought I would specifically deal with some of the arguments for doctrinal development. These men that hold to such a thing love to point to “examples” in history of doctrine developing. Their favorites are the doctrine of the Trinity, including the doctrine of Christ, and Justification, including the atonement. Sadly, one can hardly find a history book that is not polluted with this very idea. They speak of these doctrines as being ‘developed’ and finally agreed upon. In this post, I thought I would examine their arguments about the doctrine of Justification and atonement as developing.
Those who hold to development of justification and the atonement of Christ love to say, that Reformation’s idea on justification and the atonement cannot be necessary because no one held that until Luther. Thus, either one has to allow variant ideas on justification or one excommunicates every person prior to the Reformation. Yet, this is a false dichotomy. A choice that we need not make. While, people can trot out all sort of strange views from the saints of old about the sacrifice of Christ, it does not mean that the church at large understood Christ and his justifying work in such strange ways or that they had no clear understanding. For every Abelard, who believed Christ’s death was at best a moral influence upon us, there are 100 people, if not more, who rightly saw Christ’s death as a sacrifice. Athanasius states:
Augustine continues along the same lines:
Southern France and Northern Italy seemed to always hold forth Protestant theology. Ambrose held that the “justification of the sinner and the remission of the sins were not human merit, but by the expiatory sacrifice of the Cross. (J.A. Wylie. History of Protestantism. Pg.19)” It seems that the church held to a correct view of justification and atonement from the beginning. It should be noted that Ambrose, Athanasius, and Augustine are three of the biggest doctors of the church. It seems likely that their teaching was followed widely. Now like many things the final verbiage was not settled. The Reformation drew important lines of distinction to make sure error was kept out. Yet, the Reformers themselves never thought of themselves as developing doctrine. They thought of themselves are returning to original Christinaity. They saw themselves are returning to the early centuries of the church. Calvin in the his Institutes quotes everybody from Augustine to Bernard of Clairvaux to prove his doctrine of justification is not an innovation or a development, but rather it is the plain truth that the church had always held.
Those who hold to development of justification and the atonement of Christ love to say, that Reformation’s idea on justification and the atonement cannot be necessary because no one held that until Luther. Thus, either one has to allow variant ideas on justification or one excommunicates every person prior to the Reformation. Yet, this is a false dichotomy. A choice that we need not make. While, people can trot out all sort of strange views from the saints of old about the sacrifice of Christ, it does not mean that the church at large understood Christ and his justifying work in such strange ways or that they had no clear understanding. For every Abelard, who believed Christ’s death was at best a moral influence upon us, there are 100 people, if not more, who rightly saw Christ’s death as a sacrifice. Athanasius states:
He became incarnate for our sakes, so that he might offer himself to the Father in our place, and redeem us through his offering and sacrifice . . . For Christ, our passover, is sacrificed.
Augustine continues along the same lines:
He offered sacrifice for our sins. And where did he find that offering, the pure victim that he would offer? He offered himself, in that he could find no other.
Southern France and Northern Italy seemed to always hold forth Protestant theology. Ambrose held that the “justification of the sinner and the remission of the sins were not human merit, but by the expiatory sacrifice of the Cross. (J.A. Wylie. History of Protestantism. Pg.19)” It seems that the church held to a correct view of justification and atonement from the beginning. It should be noted that Ambrose, Athanasius, and Augustine are three of the biggest doctors of the church. It seems likely that their teaching was followed widely. Now like many things the final verbiage was not settled. The Reformation drew important lines of distinction to make sure error was kept out. Yet, the Reformers themselves never thought of themselves as developing doctrine. They thought of themselves are returning to original Christinaity. They saw themselves are returning to the early centuries of the church. Calvin in the his Institutes quotes everybody from Augustine to Bernard of Clairvaux to prove his doctrine of justification is not an innovation or a development, but rather it is the plain truth that the church had always held.
Media Bias and ESPN
I wanted to leave a quick note on how much I am starting to hate ESPN. Yes, I love sports, and I watch ESPN. But for those who think that bias in the media stops at CBS and CNN, think again. I am still a little bitter that ESPN actively promoted Charles Woodson for the Heisman Trophy award several years ago, but this latest outrage is even worse than that.
Sportscenter this past evening had its Major League Baseball experts come on the show and say that there is no way anyone can keep Barry Bonds out of the Hall of Fame. They even went so far as to say that there is no way anyone can take away his records or even put an asterisk next to his name in the record books. This is hands down the stupidest thing I have heard in a few years.
Assuming that the Grand Jury testimony that was leaked is accurate Barry Bonds admitted to unknowingly taking steroids the year he set the major league single season homerun record. What more does anyone need? Whether it was knowing or not, he was cheating the year he set the record (the Feds seem to imply that they have a lot more evidence on Mr. Bonds). That deserves at least an asterisk. If this happened in Track and Field or the Olympics, Barry Bonds would be disqualified, forfeit anything he won, and be suspended for two years. ESPN thinks that it is not enough to strip Barry Bonds of anything, or even make a note of it in the record books. We know that Pete Rose gambled on baseball as a manager, but that never affected any of those 2,000+ hits he recorded, and baseball rightly excludes him from the Hall of Fame. Barry Bonds admitted to cheating. ESPN obviously thinks that cheaters should get to keep all that they won by cheating. It seems obvious to me that ESPN knows it makes more money, gets more viewers, and has higher ratings if people tune in to watch Barry try to set new records. Yet, if people think that Barry is a cheater, and his records illegitimate, then no one watches. It is sad to see news organizations sell out, even if that organization is sports news.
Sportscenter this past evening had its Major League Baseball experts come on the show and say that there is no way anyone can keep Barry Bonds out of the Hall of Fame. They even went so far as to say that there is no way anyone can take away his records or even put an asterisk next to his name in the record books. This is hands down the stupidest thing I have heard in a few years.
Assuming that the Grand Jury testimony that was leaked is accurate Barry Bonds admitted to unknowingly taking steroids the year he set the major league single season homerun record. What more does anyone need? Whether it was knowing or not, he was cheating the year he set the record (the Feds seem to imply that they have a lot more evidence on Mr. Bonds). That deserves at least an asterisk. If this happened in Track and Field or the Olympics, Barry Bonds would be disqualified, forfeit anything he won, and be suspended for two years. ESPN thinks that it is not enough to strip Barry Bonds of anything, or even make a note of it in the record books. We know that Pete Rose gambled on baseball as a manager, but that never affected any of those 2,000+ hits he recorded, and baseball rightly excludes him from the Hall of Fame. Barry Bonds admitted to cheating. ESPN obviously thinks that cheaters should get to keep all that they won by cheating. It seems obvious to me that ESPN knows it makes more money, gets more viewers, and has higher ratings if people tune in to watch Barry try to set new records. Yet, if people think that Barry is a cheater, and his records illegitimate, then no one watches. It is sad to see news organizations sell out, even if that organization is sports news.
China
I normally don’t venture into the realm of world politics because so many other blogs out there are better at politics than I am. But, I thought I would share my thoughts on European Union probably lifting of the embargo on arms sales to China. This is a monumental shift in the thinking of the entire world. I don’t think that his can get enough press. This decision is not just reflective the politics of power, but of a new religious mindset that controls the world.
Western Europe formed NATO with America in order to combat the Communistic threat of Russia, China, and Eastern Europe. This was not just a military strategy. It was a common denunciation of communism as evil. Russia was commonly called the ‘Evil Empire’. It was during this time that America added the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance because we wanted to mark the major difference between communism and America. Communism was a godless system that oppressed the people more than they had ever been repressed before. As we know Reagan helped bring Russia to its knees. But China remains. The world continued the pressure on China, but now they are considering lifting that pressure. Why? The only conclusion is because the world no longer sees issues as ‘good vs. evil’. The moorings of the Western world in Christianity have been set aside and undermined. Countries like France desire the EU to be a godless secular society and no longer have any real problems with Communism. Communism may have failed as an economic system, but as a philosophy about man, the state, and god, it is alive and kicking.
President Bush should be applauded for not wanting this arms embargo lifted. It is a credit to him that he can still evil for what it is, and stand up against evil even though it may cost America a few arms sales. How quickly the world has forgotten the horrors of godless Communism. It has forgotten the bloody revolution of Marx, the murders done by Lenin, the systematic eradication of all who stood in Stalin’s way, the ruthlessness of Mao. How quickly the world has forgotten that the last time China used its military might, it was to run over and gun down college age demonstrators in broad daylight. This is the sort of behavior that godless systems promote, and this impending decision by the EU shows just how far the world has moved away from its Christian roots.
Western Europe formed NATO with America in order to combat the Communistic threat of Russia, China, and Eastern Europe. This was not just a military strategy. It was a common denunciation of communism as evil. Russia was commonly called the ‘Evil Empire’. It was during this time that America added the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance because we wanted to mark the major difference between communism and America. Communism was a godless system that oppressed the people more than they had ever been repressed before. As we know Reagan helped bring Russia to its knees. But China remains. The world continued the pressure on China, but now they are considering lifting that pressure. Why? The only conclusion is because the world no longer sees issues as ‘good vs. evil’. The moorings of the Western world in Christianity have been set aside and undermined. Countries like France desire the EU to be a godless secular society and no longer have any real problems with Communism. Communism may have failed as an economic system, but as a philosophy about man, the state, and god, it is alive and kicking.
President Bush should be applauded for not wanting this arms embargo lifted. It is a credit to him that he can still evil for what it is, and stand up against evil even though it may cost America a few arms sales. How quickly the world has forgotten the horrors of godless Communism. It has forgotten the bloody revolution of Marx, the murders done by Lenin, the systematic eradication of all who stood in Stalin’s way, the ruthlessness of Mao. How quickly the world has forgotten that the last time China used its military might, it was to run over and gun down college age demonstrators in broad daylight. This is the sort of behavior that godless systems promote, and this impending decision by the EU shows just how far the world has moved away from its Christian roots.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
A Review of the MVP Report
It is my turn for a little discussion on the controversial Mississippi Valley Presbytery report. In general, I found it to be useful. The summary statements are well documented in the footnotes, and the need for such a study is defended in the opening of the report. Yet, I do have a few points to quibble about.
First the minor points. These are just small points that really don’t detract from the quality of the report. Mostly they are my little pet peeves.
1. More contrast of the views in question with the Westminster and the Bible would have made this report invaluable, but they left it out. They admit it up front and state that it laid outside the commissions given guidelines. One can understand that, but I still wanted to see it.
2. They only name names in the footnotes. The committee also tells us that they only named names in the footnotes because of the outcry of misrepresentation from the copy that did not have footnotes. I hate it when they fail to name names. This is an old Presbyterian trick that dates back to Gilbert Tennent. Go present a paper that attacks the doctrine and/or Christian life of fellow ministers, and then refuse to name names, or bring charges. It was wrong in the 1700’s and it is wrong now. If they truly believe that these men are teaching anti-confessional, misleading, confused and confusing doctrine, and have dangerous tendencies, then the next step for this Presbytery had better be charges against someone.
3. They need to mention the RCUS more. We got one small note. We did not even make the list of all the denominations and presbyteries taking action. That hurts.
Now for the things that I think are a little more serious defects.
1. They tried to take on too much. This report examines The New Perspectives on Paul, Bishop N.T. Wright, Norman Shepherd, and the Federal Vision. This would have better been split into several papers. One of the chief complaints made by the Auburn Avenue Church is that the report does not recognize the nuances of their argumentation, and it does seem to overlook some. The report does state on a few occasions ‘they attempt to qualify this statement, but . . .’ This is the sort of overlooking that the proponents of these views complain about. It is very possible and often true that their qualifications don’t change the logical outcomes of their beliefs, but those qualifications need to be dealt with head-on.
2. No mention or condemnation is made of Theological and Historical Development, which most of these men promote. I admit that this is one of my hobby horses, but I believe it to be important. Without destroying this foundation the impetus to innovate in doctrine will continue. But even more importantly, the PCA will not be ready for the next step in this debate.
Let me elaborate further. The proponents of the Federal Vision and the other views entailed in the report are always discussing the "diversity within the Reformed tradition." This is one of their main defenses. They claim to represent just another acceptable line of theology. The can quote people from history to prove this point, mainly men from Mercersburg, but there are others. The place that this argument leads, and I believe it will be the place the PCA ends up, is in the necessity, usefulness, and place of creedal subscription as a whole. When one holds to doctrinal development what use can a creed that does not develop have? Why should one be bound to such an old formula? When one sees that history move and doctrine does as well (as they claim) creeds must be abandoned. The key phrase will be ‘liberty of conscious’ to choose the ‘historic tradition’ that best fits you. This is where Mercersburg took the RCUS. The RCUS merged with a Lutheran church and where the two creeds conflicted everyone was allowed to choose the tradition that best suited them. It is where the Presbyterian church went in beginning of the 1900’s. They changed the confession, they declared such outmoded beliefs like the Virgin Birth to be non-essential, and weakened the faith to keep up with the times (Schaff had a role in that as well from his post at Union Theological Seminary).
If churches do not actively denounce this idea of doctrinal development, and defend the Biblical nature of the confessions, then they will be one step behind and one step late when the debate shifts to the role of creeds. Just one man’s opinion.
First the minor points. These are just small points that really don’t detract from the quality of the report. Mostly they are my little pet peeves.
1. More contrast of the views in question with the Westminster and the Bible would have made this report invaluable, but they left it out. They admit it up front and state that it laid outside the commissions given guidelines. One can understand that, but I still wanted to see it.
2. They only name names in the footnotes. The committee also tells us that they only named names in the footnotes because of the outcry of misrepresentation from the copy that did not have footnotes. I hate it when they fail to name names. This is an old Presbyterian trick that dates back to Gilbert Tennent. Go present a paper that attacks the doctrine and/or Christian life of fellow ministers, and then refuse to name names, or bring charges. It was wrong in the 1700’s and it is wrong now. If they truly believe that these men are teaching anti-confessional, misleading, confused and confusing doctrine, and have dangerous tendencies, then the next step for this Presbytery had better be charges against someone.
3. They need to mention the RCUS more. We got one small note. We did not even make the list of all the denominations and presbyteries taking action. That hurts.
Now for the things that I think are a little more serious defects.
1. They tried to take on too much. This report examines The New Perspectives on Paul, Bishop N.T. Wright, Norman Shepherd, and the Federal Vision. This would have better been split into several papers. One of the chief complaints made by the Auburn Avenue Church is that the report does not recognize the nuances of their argumentation, and it does seem to overlook some. The report does state on a few occasions ‘they attempt to qualify this statement, but . . .’ This is the sort of overlooking that the proponents of these views complain about. It is very possible and often true that their qualifications don’t change the logical outcomes of their beliefs, but those qualifications need to be dealt with head-on.
2. No mention or condemnation is made of Theological and Historical Development, which most of these men promote. I admit that this is one of my hobby horses, but I believe it to be important. Without destroying this foundation the impetus to innovate in doctrine will continue. But even more importantly, the PCA will not be ready for the next step in this debate.
Let me elaborate further. The proponents of the Federal Vision and the other views entailed in the report are always discussing the "diversity within the Reformed tradition." This is one of their main defenses. They claim to represent just another acceptable line of theology. The can quote people from history to prove this point, mainly men from Mercersburg, but there are others. The place that this argument leads, and I believe it will be the place the PCA ends up, is in the necessity, usefulness, and place of creedal subscription as a whole. When one holds to doctrinal development what use can a creed that does not develop have? Why should one be bound to such an old formula? When one sees that history move and doctrine does as well (as they claim) creeds must be abandoned. The key phrase will be ‘liberty of conscious’ to choose the ‘historic tradition’ that best fits you. This is where Mercersburg took the RCUS. The RCUS merged with a Lutheran church and where the two creeds conflicted everyone was allowed to choose the tradition that best suited them. It is where the Presbyterian church went in beginning of the 1900’s. They changed the confession, they declared such outmoded beliefs like the Virgin Birth to be non-essential, and weakened the faith to keep up with the times (Schaff had a role in that as well from his post at Union Theological Seminary).
If churches do not actively denounce this idea of doctrinal development, and defend the Biblical nature of the confessions, then they will be one step behind and one step late when the debate shifts to the role of creeds. Just one man’s opinion.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Sectarianism?
Andrew Sandlin has posted his thoughts on the Mississippi Valley Presbytery report. He believes it to be a sectarian document, which of course goes against Christian catholicism, and unity in general. He makes the statement that :
While he has a point that we, the Church, should never get so inward focused as to overlook evangelism and interaction with pagans outside the church, I disagree that this means we ought to be seeking peace and acceptance of such divergent views from Christians. Sandlin assumes that both views of the gospel (the Federal Vision view and the Old Reformed View) are the same, or at least both acceptable. Yet, it seems to me that is precisely what is in debate. Is the Federal Vision, or Shepherdism, or whatever name you want to insert, a different gospel?
Sandlin is right that we should always remember those without Christ and war with them in the arena of culture, but if we can’t get the gospel right, then we really don’t have anything to say to people outside the church?
The real enemies populate abortion clinics, Hollywood, Ivy League universities, seats in the U. S Senate, and Islamic terrorist training camps. We do well to note this crucial distinction.
While he has a point that we, the Church, should never get so inward focused as to overlook evangelism and interaction with pagans outside the church, I disagree that this means we ought to be seeking peace and acceptance of such divergent views from Christians. Sandlin assumes that both views of the gospel (the Federal Vision view and the Old Reformed View) are the same, or at least both acceptable. Yet, it seems to me that is precisely what is in debate. Is the Federal Vision, or Shepherdism, or whatever name you want to insert, a different gospel?
Sandlin is right that we should always remember those without Christ and war with them in the arena of culture, but if we can’t get the gospel right, then we really don’t have anything to say to people outside the church?
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Power Struggles
I have been thinking recently on our wonderful Constitution, and wondering what the founders would do if they lived today. I suspect that they would take up arms and lead a rebellion. Just kidding, but now that I have your attention and no one is sleeping through this history post, I shall continue.
American history has always fascinated me, but recent events have led me to ponder our founders wisdom all over again. In addition to the formation of a fledgling government in Iraq, a recent West Wing episode promoted me to think over the Constitution. In the episode, the White House was hosting the leaders of Belaruse who were trying to form a constitution. A White House staffer argued for a Parliamentary system as opposed to one that had a chief executive. According to him, only four executive systems made it past 20 years, the rest descended into tyranny. An interesting proposition, but one that I believe misses the point of the American Constitution. It misses the mark on at least two points.
First, the true beauty of the Constitution is that the National Government is ‘supposed’ to be weak. It has very little power according to the Constitution. It taxes, it provides for the defense, interstate commerce, and delivers the mail. But other than that, it does not do too much. The 10th amendment specifically states that if the power is not in the Constitution, then the National government does not have it, and can’t take it. It is not the chief executive that the founders feared as being oppressive, it was the whole national system they feared being oppressive. A Parliament can trample rights just as easy as a President, something the founders had just lived through.
Second, our government is designed to have conflict. It is not about running things smoothly. It is about power struggles. That is how they designed it. If there is no power struggle, then someone is hoarding all the power, and that is trouble. In a Parliamentary system, that power is hoarded by the Legislative branch. Our forefathers wanted a government filled with strife. They made it so that if the President got too far out of line, he could be removed. They made it so that if laws were passed that the President did not like, he could veto. Our history is story about this power struggle. Right off the bat the Judicial branch tried a power grab that led to Congress and the States passing the 11th Amendment. Later President Jackson thought they overstepped their bounds again and he just ignored Chief Justice Marshall’s decision. Jackson marched the Indians to Oklahoma anyway (a move that probably saved more lives than it lost). The States protested the Alien and Sedition Acts of John Adams. The National Bank was outlawed by some states and finally squashed by Jackson. Presidents have taken power and they have lost power. Congress has taken power and they have lost power. The latest Judicial Activism is an attempt to take more power and strip Congress, which grew powerful after forcing out Nixon, who inherited a powerful executive from JFK and LBJ. Our American history is a rich story of people fighting over power, and I would not have it any other way.
American history has always fascinated me, but recent events have led me to ponder our founders wisdom all over again. In addition to the formation of a fledgling government in Iraq, a recent West Wing episode promoted me to think over the Constitution. In the episode, the White House was hosting the leaders of Belaruse who were trying to form a constitution. A White House staffer argued for a Parliamentary system as opposed to one that had a chief executive. According to him, only four executive systems made it past 20 years, the rest descended into tyranny. An interesting proposition, but one that I believe misses the point of the American Constitution. It misses the mark on at least two points.
First, the true beauty of the Constitution is that the National Government is ‘supposed’ to be weak. It has very little power according to the Constitution. It taxes, it provides for the defense, interstate commerce, and delivers the mail. But other than that, it does not do too much. The 10th amendment specifically states that if the power is not in the Constitution, then the National government does not have it, and can’t take it. It is not the chief executive that the founders feared as being oppressive, it was the whole national system they feared being oppressive. A Parliament can trample rights just as easy as a President, something the founders had just lived through.
Second, our government is designed to have conflict. It is not about running things smoothly. It is about power struggles. That is how they designed it. If there is no power struggle, then someone is hoarding all the power, and that is trouble. In a Parliamentary system, that power is hoarded by the Legislative branch. Our forefathers wanted a government filled with strife. They made it so that if the President got too far out of line, he could be removed. They made it so that if laws were passed that the President did not like, he could veto. Our history is story about this power struggle. Right off the bat the Judicial branch tried a power grab that led to Congress and the States passing the 11th Amendment. Later President Jackson thought they overstepped their bounds again and he just ignored Chief Justice Marshall’s decision. Jackson marched the Indians to Oklahoma anyway (a move that probably saved more lives than it lost). The States protested the Alien and Sedition Acts of John Adams. The National Bank was outlawed by some states and finally squashed by Jackson. Presidents have taken power and they have lost power. Congress has taken power and they have lost power. The latest Judicial Activism is an attempt to take more power and strip Congress, which grew powerful after forcing out Nixon, who inherited a powerful executive from JFK and LBJ. Our American history is a rich story of people fighting over power, and I would not have it any other way.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Reactions to Report
Joel Garver makes my point for me. In his criticism of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery’s (PCA) report about the Federal Vision and New Perspectives on Paul he states that one of the major disagreements is about Theological Development. He states:
In the many discussions that will take place over the next months and maybe years, one that should take place is about theological and historical development. This underlying belief drives people to innovation in doctrine.
Here are a few other thoughts about the report from Federal Vision proponents or at least those who think the report is bad:
Mark Horne
Paul Owen
Doug Wilson
Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church
And some who enjoyed the report:
Okay so I have not yet found any on the web. I will keep looking, and after I read this report, maybe I will comment on it. And maybe it will be positive.
The question here is, in part, one of theological development within a tradition--some of that development looking back to parts of our heritage and confessional tradition that have been neglected, some of it trying to speak the Reformed faith to a world in which certain historically-conditioned and limited categories are no longer as meaningful, and some of it attempting to grow and develop our tradition in light of fresh insights into aspects of the biblical Gospel.
In the many discussions that will take place over the next months and maybe years, one that should take place is about theological and historical development. This underlying belief drives people to innovation in doctrine.
Here are a few other thoughts about the report from Federal Vision proponents or at least those who think the report is bad:
Mark Horne
Paul Owen
Doug Wilson
Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church
And some who enjoyed the report:
Okay so I have not yet found any on the web. I will keep looking, and after I read this report, maybe I will comment on it. And maybe it will be positive.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
More Biblical vs. Systematic Theology
I have done as many of you have suggested and examined Vos concerning the Kingdom of God. Then I read similar sections in various Systematics. I read Turretin (where it is under the Kingdom of Christ), Hodge and Berkhof. One can easily see the influence of Vos on Berkhof, but the other two are pre-Vos, and thus have a different discussion of the Kingdom of God (or Christ). This may get me in trouble, but I prefer Turretin and Hodge.
Vos emphasizes the eschatological aspect of the kingdom of God. He teaches an "already and not yet" emphasis on the word, but gives the primary spot to the eschatological aspect. Berkhof following Vos gives an even larger role to the eschatological or the "not yet". Hodge and Turretin emphasize the spiritual aspect of the Kingdom, along with the role of Christ. Turretin even calls it the kingdom of Christ. They view the kingdom as ‘progressive’ rather than ‘already and not yet’. This reading to me seems to fit many passages better, including the parables, and avoids the idea of mistaking the culmination of the kingdom as a commencement of the kingdom.
It should be noted as well that Vos goes outside of the Bible to aid his reasoning of the phrase. At the bottom of page 1 he states, "In the Jewish literature which lies between the Old and New Testament we also find the Kingdom of God spoken of." So, my worries that Biblical Theology require one to go outside of the Bible have not found much solace with Vos.
So some questions remain:
1. Does Biblical theology require one to go outside of the Bible to aid understanding of the Bible? If it does not, how then does it differ from Hermeneutics, which Systematics has always used?
2. How has Vos’s focus on the eschatological kingdom of God aided the older Systematic view of a progressive spiritual kingdom?
3. Does the search for one main thrust or point, which seems to define Biblical Theology, end up coloring the reading?
Vos emphasizes the eschatological aspect of the kingdom of God. He teaches an "already and not yet" emphasis on the word, but gives the primary spot to the eschatological aspect. Berkhof following Vos gives an even larger role to the eschatological or the "not yet". Hodge and Turretin emphasize the spiritual aspect of the Kingdom, along with the role of Christ. Turretin even calls it the kingdom of Christ. They view the kingdom as ‘progressive’ rather than ‘already and not yet’. This reading to me seems to fit many passages better, including the parables, and avoids the idea of mistaking the culmination of the kingdom as a commencement of the kingdom.
It should be noted as well that Vos goes outside of the Bible to aid his reasoning of the phrase. At the bottom of page 1 he states, "In the Jewish literature which lies between the Old and New Testament we also find the Kingdom of God spoken of." So, my worries that Biblical Theology require one to go outside of the Bible have not found much solace with Vos.
So some questions remain:
1. Does Biblical theology require one to go outside of the Bible to aid understanding of the Bible? If it does not, how then does it differ from Hermeneutics, which Systematics has always used?
2. How has Vos’s focus on the eschatological kingdom of God aided the older Systematic view of a progressive spiritual kingdom?
3. Does the search for one main thrust or point, which seems to define Biblical Theology, end up coloring the reading?
Saturday, February 05, 2005
the Federal Vision as Anti-creedal
The Federal Vision Theology is also inherently anti-creedal. This again, stems from the belief in Historical and Theological Development. Philip Schaff and John Nevin were no friends to creeds either. The Mercerburg Theology eventually led to a merger between the Evangelical Lutheran church and the RCUS and then later with Congregational Churches to form the United Churches of Christ. The differences between the creeds of the churches were ignored and left up to a liberty of conscience. James I. Good states that Nevin and other Mercerburg proponents mistranslated the Heidelberg Catechism on purpose so that it supported their ideas. Philip Schaff argued for changing the Westminster Confession of Faith toward the end of his life. In the end, John Nevin states clearly the Mercersburg position on creeds:
Nevin states that creeds are an evil of the most serious magnitude. Creeds violate the principle of Theological development because people adhere to them, and thus are reluctant to move along when the next stage of truth arrives.
Sadly, this same attitude can be found in the Federal Vision men of today. Confessions are a barrier to catholicity, unity with all churches, both Protestant and Roman. Rich Lusk states his view on the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
The very idea of defining justification is seen as a barrier to unity and goes against the very foundations of Theological Development. A definition does not change, and that is the root of the problem. John Barach agrees and apparently so does Andrew Sandlin. Christianity is not to be defined in the Federal Vision Theology. Creeds may have a purpose, but they are ultimately evil or at least in the way.
A new denomination has grown up over the last several years called the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches. If you browse their church constitution, member churches must adhere to a Reformed creed, and just about any from the 16th or 17th century will do. The Westminster is allowed in both its original and American forms, the Three Forms of Unity, or even the London Baptist Confession. What about where these creeds disagree, such as on such important questions as baptism? Each church is to be respected and trouble with creeds is not to be adjudicated above the local church level. This seems to follow nicely the path blazed by Schaff and Nevin. If the creeds contradict, then just do whatever feels right to you. Who needs creeds anyway?
In admitting moreover the necessity of confessional distinctions, we do not allow them to be good and desirable in their own nature. They are relatively good only, as serving to open the way to a higher form of catholicity than that which they leave behind; whilst in themselves absolutely considered, they contradict and violate the true idea of the Church, and are to be bewailed on this account as an evil of the most serious magnitude
Nevin states that creeds are an evil of the most serious magnitude. Creeds violate the principle of Theological development because people adhere to them, and thus are reluctant to move along when the next stage of truth arrives.
Sadly, this same attitude can be found in the Federal Vision men of today. Confessions are a barrier to catholicity, unity with all churches, both Protestant and Roman. Rich Lusk states his view on the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
Nevertheless, the Catechism can serve as a barrier to Reformed catholicity. The Shorter Catechism essentially reduces the biblical story to a set of propositions. It treats theology in a highly analytic way, as a matter of defining terms (e.g., "What is justification?", "What is sanctification?”, etc.).
The very idea of defining justification is seen as a barrier to unity and goes against the very foundations of Theological Development. A definition does not change, and that is the root of the problem. John Barach agrees and apparently so does Andrew Sandlin. Christianity is not to be defined in the Federal Vision Theology. Creeds may have a purpose, but they are ultimately evil or at least in the way.
A new denomination has grown up over the last several years called the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches. If you browse their church constitution, member churches must adhere to a Reformed creed, and just about any from the 16th or 17th century will do. The Westminster is allowed in both its original and American forms, the Three Forms of Unity, or even the London Baptist Confession. What about where these creeds disagree, such as on such important questions as baptism? Each church is to be respected and trouble with creeds is not to be adjudicated above the local church level. This seems to follow nicely the path blazed by Schaff and Nevin. If the creeds contradict, then just do whatever feels right to you. Who needs creeds anyway?
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Biblical vs. Systematic Theology
One aspect of this controversy is a strong dislike of systematic theology. Insted they desire a Biblical theology. It has caused me to wonder about the legitimacy of of Biblical Theology.
Systematic theology approaches subjects. If one wanted to understand sin, then the entire bible would be examined for uses and treatment of sin. All the data would be compiled and then the doctrine of sin would be discovered. This, in a nut shell, is systematic theology.
Bibilical theology approaches books of the bible in segments. It says if you want to understand sin, then you begin at the beginning of the Bible, make a meaning and then when you get to a new book, start all over again. Sometimes this is done by authors of the Bible, such as Paul or Moses, but one should not examine both, just one or the other. It
Systematic Theology was around first, by my understanding, but the Dutch helped popularize Biblical theology. The two groups wared for a while, but soon they made peace. Today seminaries teach both side by side.
So I have the following questions about Biblical theology, and I hope to get everyone's thoughts.
1. Does Biblical theology violate the principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture? Since in discovering Pauline theology one is not allowed to look in John or the gospels, it is in violation.
2. Does Biblical theology have an inerrant tendency to create unorthodox readings?
3. Is there a real need for Biblical theology?
I hope we can get some good discussion on this.
Systematic theology approaches subjects. If one wanted to understand sin, then the entire bible would be examined for uses and treatment of sin. All the data would be compiled and then the doctrine of sin would be discovered. This, in a nut shell, is systematic theology.
Bibilical theology approaches books of the bible in segments. It says if you want to understand sin, then you begin at the beginning of the Bible, make a meaning and then when you get to a new book, start all over again. Sometimes this is done by authors of the Bible, such as Paul or Moses, but one should not examine both, just one or the other. It
Systematic Theology was around first, by my understanding, but the Dutch helped popularize Biblical theology. The two groups wared for a while, but soon they made peace. Today seminaries teach both side by side.
So I have the following questions about Biblical theology, and I hope to get everyone's thoughts.
1. Does Biblical theology violate the principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture? Since in discovering Pauline theology one is not allowed to look in John or the gospels, it is in violation.
2. Does Biblical theology have an inerrant tendency to create unorthodox readings?
3. Is there a real need for Biblical theology?
I hope we can get some good discussion on this.