Judicial Restriant vs. Originalism

I hate to say it but I am opposed to John Roberts. I hope that I am wrong, but until I am proven as such I think the country lost in the trade of Reinquist for Roberts. The reason, judicial philosophy. I do not think that Republicans took seriously the need to find Roberts’s judicial philosophy. I am fairly certain that Roberts will not be a Judicial Activist, but that does not mean he therefore is an Originalist. We cannot mistake Judicial Restraint with an Originalist position. Philologous or James Solis, a friend of mine who will eat me alive for this post, recently said this about Roberts:

I for one was satisfied by the only real answer Roberts could give on the question of his judicial philosophy. When asked if we would be for the little guy of the big guy, Roberts replied, "If the Constitution says that the little wins, then the little guy wins. If the Constitution says that the big guy wins, then the big guy wins."

While it is good he sees the Constitution as the deciding factor, what he does not say is whose view of the Constitution gets to speak. Currently five Justices think the Constitution says city governments can take your land and give it to other private citizens. It is pretty clear that the authors of the Constitution would not have agreed. Currently at least five Justices think the Constitution says people can kill their babies. Five Justices think that the Constitution says putting to death Washington D.C. sniper, who is under 18, is cruel and unusual punishment. What I want to know is Roberts going to view the Constitution through the eyes of precedent or through the eyes of Madison and the other framers. Roberts constantly said that he respected the precedent. He even respected the precedent of Roe v Wade and the privacy cases leading up to it too. I did not see much in his answers to convince me that he is going to stand with Thomas and Scalia and fight for an Originalist interpretation of the Constitution. His view of Restraint will stop him from returning America to the goverment of the Constitution.

Philologous has also suggested that the Senate should not use its "advice and consent" powers to stop a judicial nominee. He effectively quotes Madison. However, we currently have several Justices who base decisions on Foreign Law. If a President put up a nominee who stated they would do such a thing, should the Senate confirm him or her? That is only his/her judicial philosophy? Can the Senate exclude on such bounds? Yes, I believe so. Would Madison? Yes, I bet he would. It does not take long to see in the writings of Washington to see the dangers of foreign encroachments to American sovereignty. Madison’s record as President brings out the same point. The Senate has always been allowed to reject things they believe are wrong in other matters where only consent is asked of the Senate. Treaties for example. Henry Cabot Lodge rightfully led the rejection of Woodrow Wilson’s treaty to end WWI and the League of Nations because it violated American sovereignty. It put the Constitution in jeopardy. The Liberal judicial philosophy of the Constitution as a “living breathing” document and use of foreign courts is the same. It puts the Constitution in jeopardy. The Senate cannot consent to such things.

Now, I freely admit that Roberts will probably not further the damage done by Liberal Judicial Activism in the past, but he also will not undo it. He will not return the power to the states stolen by Federal corruption. He will not return our free speech by striking down Campaign Finance Reform. He will not do many things because he believes more in Judicial Restraint than the Constitution, in my opinion at least.

Robespierre

Admittedly, I started Robespierre: The Fool as Revolutionary a long time ago. I put it down because I thought it would be a biography of Robespierre, but it really is a tour of the French Revolution as a whole. Not much personal information about the Butcher of France, but it still is a decent book. It really should have decided whether or not it wanted to be about Robespierre or the French Revolution for the book follows many of the leaders of the Revolution and begins long before Robespierre arrives on the scene. Yet, it ends with Robespierre’s death and leaves the reader wondering what happened in the rest of the Revolution, and how did Napoleon arrive on the scene. It should have been one or the other.

Other than that disappoint point, Otto Scott does a wonderful job of exposing the horrors of the French Revolution by simply retelling how it happened. He does not try to analyze the Revolution, he just tells the story. It is enough to make one hate the French all over again. I must say I came out of the book feeling very sorry for the pitiful Louis 16th not to mention his son Louis 17th who died, not by the losing his head, but by sheer neglect. The guards just stopped feeding him, and stopped coming to check on him after they had killed both of his parents. He died of neglect. Barbaric. I learned a great deal of names and events that I will probably soon forget, but it was probably still worth it.

One thing I did learn that I found a great stroke of divine justice is that the event that brought Robepierre’s leadership of the Revolution to an end is a festival held by the Assembly to celebrate the existence of the Divine. Robespierre hated Christianity, but hated atheism as well since “the people believe there is a god.” Thus, for Robespierre it was an act of aristocracy to deny God existed. They held a giant festival where everyone was forced to wear their best suits, and the Assembly all bought new blue uniforms for “blue was a virtuous color.” Speeches were made, food eaten, it was just like old times in Paris, which is apparently what made people think Robespierre had become a “tyrant in the name of anti-tyranny.” Robespierre tried to kill himself to avoid the guillotine, but was too afraid and only shot his jaw off. So he ended up with his head in the basket like all of the people he had condemned before.

“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death!” France’s gift to the world.

James Jordan on the attack

Dr. James Jordan has made some provocative comments in his Biblical Horizons newsletter. I do agree with Jordan on one point. It is a shame that great theological works are not being turned out as they may have in years past. When was the last great Systematic Theology written? I do wish that more of the great thinkers of our day would look to put their thoughts in print; however, I disagree with Jordan’s conclusion on such a matter. He states,

It seems no longer so. The controversies over the so-called "federal vision" and "new perspective on Paul" are but two examples of the closing of the Calvinistic mind, at least in many parts of the Reformed world. Men with little knowledge of history, evidently incapable of thinking presuppositionally, and sometimes (not always) rather obviously motivated by political concerns (if not by sheer envy), have not hesitated to distort and even lie about this thing called "federal vision" (which, as they discuss it, is largely a product of their own minds).

This is a bold claim with no support. Who is attacking the Federal Vision merely of political concerns? Point them out! Instead Jordan cowers under mere innuendo. There are people attacking the Federal Vision, but to say that men like Dr. Joseph Pipa and Morton Smith know nothing of history and can’t think presuppositionally is preposterous. I had both of these men in seminary, and I can personally attest to their knowledge of history and presuppositional thinking.

Jordan in the next article continues his blatant attack on all who oppose him and his thinking. After chastising all who oppose the Auburn Ave. Theology, he tells us all "to grow up." He then continues,

Having said that, I’m going to take the gloves off and point out that those critics who accused us of being Eastern Orthodox, etc., knew full well that we were not anything of the sort. They knew that they were lying about us. They were motivated by evil desires, often envy, and for that reason sought to tear us down. It was not ignorance. It was not really juvenile thinking. It was just envy and evil. Why should I sugar-coat it and pretend that this is not so, when everyone involved knows that it is?

While I have no knowledge of the events he is discussing here, it again seems odd that even with the gloves off, no names can be found. Who are these myesterious men who oppose people for political gain? Finally, we see names in the next paragraph.

A second large problem connected with the current noise is deceptiveness. The Mississippi Valley presbytery of the PCA has issued a report on FV and related issues, again erroneously lumping the NPP with the FV.

Jordan believes that the Mississippi Valley Presbytery is part of the slander campaign. He even seems to give proof with the “lumping of the NPP with the FV.” But, there is one problem with that assesment, the report did not lump them together. The report deals with the New Perspectives on Paul and the Federal Vision, but it does so in separate sections. The report also deals with N.T. Wright and Norman Shepherd in separate and distinct sections. One can argue, as I have, that the report tries to take on too many topics, but I do not think that one can argue they are lumped together. They are even under different headings.

Sadly, Jordan’s no-name rant on all that oppose the will of Federal Vision People has really rallied the troops. Those excited about Jordan’s claim that all who are not with him are anti-intellectual include, Mark Horne, Sibboleth, and Barb. Those are just the blogs I frequent, so there could be many more.

It upsets me a little that these rants are accepted among Federal Vision adherents, all the while clamoring for more dialogue, as Jordan does. If someone on the other side of this debate did such name calling and finger pointing at no one in particular, it would be condemned (see reaction to John Robbins), and it would be used as proof of a corrupt church system only out for political gain. If anyone thought that the Federal Vision feud was over, think again. This appears to be a controversy that will be around for quite some time.

The New Perspectives and the Bible

As much as I think the New Perspectives movement distorts first century Judaism in the extra biblical literature, I think that their biggest error is ignoring the Gospels. We have a divinely inspired picture of first century Judaism, and it ought to trump all else. Several gospel encounters should shed light on the nature of first century Judaism.

John 3 is a perfect example. Christ present Nicodemus with a beautiful picture of salvation by grace in stating that we must be born again. Yet, Nicodemus cannot comprehend it. He thinks Christ speaks of a physical rebirth. Christ chastises him for not understanding grace, the need to be born again. Nicodemus a teacher of Israel did not think much of grace. Nicodemus asks, “how can these things be?” to the teaching that “that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Hardly the response of someone who already lived and participated in a religion of grace.

Matthew 23:4 shows us Christ describing what the Pharisees do as they teach. They “bind heavy burden and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders.” Surely this is a description of a graceless religion that cares only of works. Peter echos this sentiment in Acts 15 when he says the law is a yoke that “neither we nor our fathers could bear.”

The Rich Young Ruler in Matthew 19:16-26 is another example. Although men like Steve Schissel try to turn this story into an affirmation that the law is doable, it really condemns salvation by works. We must not forget when reading this story that Christ begins with “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.” Christ is beginning by reminding the rich young ruler that no man is good, no man keeps the law. Only God is good. Then when the rich ruler does not get it and still asks what he “lacks”, Christ shows him all he lacks is a heart that desires God. It is the 10th commandment, the internal commandment that he cannot keep. We should also not stop there. The story continues to the disciples who then hear the camel and the eye of a needle teaching. They rightfully ask, “Who then can be saved?” Christ responds, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” No man can save himself. No man can save himself by the law, but God can save. God alone is good and God alone can save.

Matthew 5:20 and indeed all the Sermon on the Mount is related to that point. “For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” This is to tell us that as good at law keeping the Pharisees and religious leaders are, they still deserve only death. Not only does this help show us that the Judaism of the time of Christ looked to obedience to the law for righteousness, it shows us also that obedience to the law is impossible. Why? Because the law is internal as well as external. This is why those who know they are poor in spirit, mourn that fact, are meek, and thirst for that righteousness they lack will receive it. They are blessed and will be filled with a righteousness that is not their own, but comes from Christ.

These are but a few of the gospel accounts of first century Judaism. I am sure that many who are better than I can quickly show more. Often the NPP refuses to accept Biblical testimony to the nature of Judaism. The Bible paints a picture very different than that painted by most NPP advocates.

New Perspectives on First Century Judaism

I am not an expert on the New Perspectives on Paul by any means. However, the exegetical movement has gained strength and underpins a lot of the Federal Vision controversy. As obvious from some discussions on previous posts it leads to dramatically different readings of Paul, and the Bible as a whole. The main tenant of the NPP is that first century or second temple Judaism was a religion of grace and not a religion of works. Thus NPP advocates have to now read the condemnation of Judaizers not as a condemnation of works as a whole because that is a misunderstanding of Judaism. This allows them to find a more positive role for works in places like Romans 2.

Instead of arguing about specific exegesis, which will get no where since the presuppositions are different, let us examine first century Judaism. Admittedly, I do not have access to all of the material, but I think an argument can still be made that Judaism is indeed a Pelagian religion of works, not one of grace.

One source of first century Judaism is the Apocrypha. These are the books that are often included in Romanist Bibles, but not in Protestant ones. They were written during the second temple period and thus give us a glimpse Judaism at that time. These books do not put forth a picture of Judaism as a religion of grace. In fact, Romanists often quoted from Ecclesasticus (sometimes called Ben Sirach) to prove works are needed during the Reformation. First and Second Maccabees are even worse as they encourage the keeping of Hanukkah, make the law keeping of Judas Maccabeus as the basis of his victories, and show us that sin offerings for the dead can atone for the sins of the dead. While that may be a mercy for the dead soldiers it is a mercy grounded on the law keeping of Judas. The additions to Esther seem to linger on law keeping adding that Esther hated her marriage bed because it was with the Gentiles, and she kept away from the table of the Gentiles, and hated her position as Queen of the Gentiles. So too do the additions to Daniel adding stories where vindication is given to upright Jews like Susannah not by the miraculous mercy of God, as Daniel in the Lion’s Den, but by wisdom and legal maneuvering. Third Maccabees is again about remaining loyal to Jewish law even in a foreign land. It even goes as far to suggest that God will reward the law keeping. Fourth Maccabees blatantly offers salvation through ‘virtue’ and obedience. Psalm 151 gives more glory to David than to God. Even if the Prayer of Manasseh does suggest mercy, it is clearly in the minority. Many of these second temple Judaism books are heavy with Pelagianism.

Another source is the Mishnah. This gives us a good glimpse into what the Rabbis of the first century taught. Here Sanders fails to convincingly show grace in Judaism. We see ideas such as Gehenna, a place where those whose works were balanced between good and evil go to scream and pay for their evil deeds before heading up to heaven. The school of Shammai follows this doctrine. It is a Pelagian doctrine since man must still pay for his sins himself through suffering. Many rabbis seemed to also argue that election of Israel was also grounded in obedience, either in that of a patriarch or the future obedience of Israel. Others thought the covenant had been offered to all nations, and only Israel accepted it. These reasons are blatantly Pelagian. Sanders pushes them aside and emphasizes the fact that Israel is elect as proof of grace. Ignoring the works basis of that election.

I have a hard time seeing where first century Judaism can be seen as anything but a Pelagian system where works/obedience serve as the basis for salvation. Allow me to quote the end of Ecclesasticus (51:30), “Do your work in good time and in his own time God will give you your reward.”

George Washington Biography

I just finished a biography of George Washington called, Washington: The Indispensable Man by James Flexner. It was okay. I learned a lot of facts, and the book is readable, but not necessarily well written. The chapters are short, and that is a plus. I got the book at Mount Rushmore, so I have no idea if it is even well received in real bookstores. I usually like to do a little more research into the books I buy, but I had to get a book from Mount Rushmore. How many times does one get to go to Mount Rushmore?

I have one major complaint about the book. I felt as if Flexner had an agenda to smear the first President with the charge of adultery or at least impropriety via innuendo. He spends a chapter on Washington’s boy hood relationship with a woman named Sally, who ends up marrying a neighbor. Washington apparently confessed his love for her, and wrote her off and on for the rest of his life. In the beginning of her marriage, he still writes with some passion that she encourages, but that quickly ends. The rest of their correspondence appears to be only friendly. Flexner brings up Sally often, and compares her favorably to Martha Washington. Flexner never speaks highly of Martha, and states George never loved her because he always loved Sally. No proof offered. After Washington becomes President, Flexner introduces another woman who attended the dinners George and Martha gave in Philadelphia. She too is compared favorably to Martha, and Flexner assumes that George would have preferred her company to Martha’s company. Despite the existence of love letter from Martha to George and scenes of great devotion between Martha and George at the end of George’s life, Flexner feels the need to run down their marriage again by implying that no one was ever able to “prove” adultery, but declares George to have been a ladies man. That running theme really irritated me, and I would recommend everyone buying a different biography of General Washington.

On the bright side, I do recommend Mount Rushmore.

Emergent Evangelical Disaster

I have not blogged in a little while because I have been having discussions with some of my friends in Colorado Springs. It has been a sad, painful experience to say the least. Some, who formerly believed, now no longer do. Others seemed more and more confused on the gospel by the minute. They freely and quickly spout justification by faith and works.

It began with a group email conversation with former co-workers, one of whom attends an Emergent Church, or a church affiliated with the movement or whatever they want to call it. It is obvious the doctrine of justification by works must be taught or at least allowed to grow in that congregation. I protested and pointed to Scripture, but to my horror, other former co-workers jumped in siding with justification by works. These were members of mainline denominations, non-denominational churches and they all had no clue about the doctrine of justification. Upon hearing the traditional Protestant exegesis of James 2 and the belief that works flow from thanksgiving for salvation, they pronounced it “full of crap.” By the way, I used to work at a Christian ministry in Colorado Springs that had weekly chapels that apparently do not bother with salvation either.

It is one thing to know that evangelical churches out there are not doing a good job of proclaiming the gospel, but it is another to be hit right in the face with it. It was a good reminder to why I became a minister in the first place. It also reminded me not to take even the most basic doctrines for granted. The gospel must be proclaimed or people will revert to trusting in themselves. May God strengthen His church to boldly proclaim his message once more.

RCUS Report on N.T. Wright

The Reformed Church in the United States position paper on N.T. Wright has been put on the web. It is good and passed unanimously. If you do not know why the RCUS would go out of its way to condemn the odd teachings of an Anglican Bishop, it is because he has a great following in the Presbyterian and Reformed world. Not only did he speak at the 2005 Auburn Ave. Conference, but many men openly confess their adherence to Wright's re-write of Paul and his odd brand of Biblical Theology.

Please browse the report. I think you will find it helpful.

Henry Clay

“The Old Coon”, “the Greatest Statesman never to be elected President”, “the Great Pacificator”, and “The Great Compromiser”: all titles that belong to Henry Clay. I just finished reading Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union by Robert Remini. A fantastic book. I have praised Mr. Remini’s writing style in past posts, so I will not recount it here.

Clay stands as the greatest Senator, and or Congressman that America has ever had. He was a man of principle, and he never wavered from them. Yet, he lost 3 attempts at the Presidency, and two more attempts at gaining his own party’s nomination, a party that he started. Both times that he lost the nomination, his party won the presidential election. Both were war heroes, and neither truly held Whig party beliefs. Despite all of that, Clay still has a legacy that will go unmatched as far as service to America. He formed the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise Tariff, and the Compromise of 1850, to name a few.

Yet, Remini does a good job of exposing the private side of Henry Clay. Remini is willing to flat out state that Clay was a bad father. His sons all were failures, drunks, or committed to mental institutions. Clay apparently often cheated on his wife, and his notoriously loose morality helped defeat his Presidential hopes many times. But, Remini lets us know that late in Clay’s life during a period of loss and grief, he joined the church, and never fell out of communion with it for the last decade of his life. Hopefully it was a true conversion.

The book is a good insight into the most influential man in the early 1800’s in America. If you like history, Henry Clay is worth a look.

Thoughts on John Roberts

Howard Phillips has some interesting thoughts on John Roberts. Phillips had not yet made up his mind on the nomination, but raises some good points. Here is the quote that most disturbed me.

A liberal law partner [of Roberts] at Horgan & Hartson says—and this is a rough paraphrase: “I’ve had dinner with John Roberts, or lunch, on more than a thousand occasions, and if you asked me what he thinks about anything other than whether he prefers bacon, lettuce and tomato to tuna fish I couldn’t tell you.”

Charles Krauthammer, another pundit whom I respect, sees some trouble in John Roberts. I have to say that I am looking forward to seeing these hearings. I have to admit that I am even more interested in the next Supreme Court nominee. For me the verdict on Bush’s presidency is still out. Is he a conservative? Well he cut taxes, but loves deficit spending. He seems to respect federalism in some cases, but does not mind increasing National bureaucracy, and federalizing airport personnel. John Roberts could tilt the scales for Bush one way or another. Is Roberts a Thomas or a Kennedy? I fear that the hearings will be pointless. I fear that Republicans will try to argue you should not get to vote against a judge because of judicial philosophy, which is why Republican overwhelmingly approved Ruth Ginsburg. Then they turn around and whine about judicial activism. Yet, I suspect Roberts will not answer anything and remain a mystery for sometime even after he gets his seat on the bench.

I hope Roberts comes out strong and answers question for the Senate. I also hope Bush nominates someone who has a clear record for the next seat. He won’t, but hope springs eternal.

Katrina’s Political Danger

Now that the worst appears to be over, and evacuations are running smoothly, talk has turned to investigations and fault. Thankfully the racism finger pointing appears to be done with as well. However, the worst fall out could still be to come.

Let begin by acknowledging my fault. In an earlier post, I did criticize the President for a slow reaction. I have since learned that I probably was mistaken as to the speed of aid delivered. FEMA had coordinated with the Red Cross, who had trucks of water, food, and other supplies standing by. They were prevented from entering the city and going to the Superdome and Convention Center by the Louisiana department of Homeland Security. This is NOT a branch of the Federal Department of Homeland Security, thus freeing Bush of blame and placing it solely on Louisiana. I guess I owe Matt and President Bush an apology. Also some thanks to James and WoCoFunk for putting me back on the straight and narrow. However, I do still think that President Bush should have gone back to the White House quicker (he waited a full day after the levees broke before returning), and addressed the nation from there. Symbolism is important, and while Crawford may be equipped to do as much as the White House, Crawford is not the nation’s capital. That is about as far as I am willing to blame President Bush with what I know now.

James also brings up good points about Federalism to which I would like to add my voice. The new danger of Katrina could be more power going to the National Government. Soon people will be demanding FEMA have more authority to shove aside state governments to make sure help is given. It is becoming more and more obvious that the governor of Louisiana made some pour decisions. She would not let the Red Cross bring food, water, and supplies to the Superdome and Convention Center. She did not give her National Guard enough authority, she turned down help from President Bush. The list gets longer and longer. So many people will claim that the National government should by-pass the states and act directly with its own authority. Our “conservative” President has already showed that this power grab is his mode of operation as he has done such things as Federalize airport security, create a department of Homeland Security, and accept the idea of an Intelligence Tzar.

Yet, should not the lesson of Katrina be the less National government involvement the better? Maybe the real lesson here is that who we elect to our State offices matters. Is it possible that a commission investigating the disaster will find that the laws are not bad, the set up is good, the people of Louisiana just elected an incompetent, and have suffered from years of Legislatures who never revised evacuations plans, spent money on non-essentials, and did not improve the levees? The growing reach of the National government has made us not care about local and state politics. Off year elections get little attention, and hardly have a turnout at all. Can you name your state representative? What about your state senator? These are the people that make the laws for your state. These laws played a major role in the recent disaster. Katrina’s legacy ought to be a lesson about paying attention to local and state elections, but it will probably be a new department and increased power for the National government. Well, if it worked for Amtrak . . .

Liturgical Ritualism

Here is what I believe to be a good example of the thinking of Federal Vision/High Liturgy men, and its danger. It is a quote from Steve Wilkins in an interview he gave in 2003 about the Auburn Ave. Theology. He is discussing baptism.

It's like a wedding. There is a transformation that takes place because of the ritual. A single man becomes a married man. He is transformed into a new man, with new blessings and privileges and responsibilities he didn't have before. A similar thing happens at baptism. The one who is baptized is transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, from Adam into Christ, and given new privileges, blessings, and responsibilities he didn't have before.

Note that Wilkins here makes the argument that ritual makes a change within you as to your status and to the blessings, responsibilities and privileges one enjoys. For Wilkins it is the ritual that makes one married, not the vows, not the rational consent, only the ritual itself. Also Wilkins then claims it is the ritual of baptism that makes one in Christ as opposed to in Adam. It is the ritual of baptism that actually transfers one from hell to heaven, darkness to light, Adam to Christ. The ritual of baptism saves for Rev. Wilkins. I believe this is one of the major lines of thinking for both the Federal Vision and those who desire a High Liturgy. Ritual saves. The rituals actually convey what they represent. High Liturgy men want a weekly communion because the ritual of Eucharist will convey what it represents by simple eating. For the record Wilkins is a paedocommunist because he believe the infants will receive the blessing from partaking in the ritual. Other aspects of the High Liturgy, besides the sacraments, include such things as the pronouncement of forgiveness. Here the minister pronounces the people forgiven of their sins after they repeat a formal confession of sin, sometimes in the format of a prayer. This too gives rise to a sacerdotalism where the priest/pastor actually has the power to forgive sins. The ritual of pronouncement will convey what it represents. That is what Wilkins argues for in the above quote. That is what High Liturgy conveys, and that is why this is an important discussion.

Katrina Controversies

It never ceases to amaze me how the two major parties in this country fight like cats and dogs. It really does not matter what the subject is, they just have to fight. It has to be the main reason that 50% of this country fails to vote. It makes me not want to vote, at least not for either the Republicans or Democrats. Hurricane Katrina is no exception. The hurricane that flooded the 35th largest city in America and destroyed oil refineries and valuable coastline, not to mention probably killed more Americans than 9/11, has produced the most disgusting display of partisan bickering I have ever seen.

There are some legitimate questions and debates we can have once everyone is safe. I think it is reasonable to evaluate the efficiency of our nation’s response. Matt at Wheat and Chaff puts up a defense of the administration. While the post points out some things President Bush does well, I think comparing the responses to hurricanes in Florida last year and this one make President Bush look a little too slow. Tim Challies points out the differences between the mayor of New Orleans and Rudi Guiliani during 9/11. A good point that the most of the blame should fall at the feet of the city of New Orleans itself. These debates are not emotionally charged, and they will help the nation respond better next time. These are legitimate debates, and not the ones that draw my ire.

The ones that make me sick are the obviously idiotic charges of racism. Democratic fanatics like Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton are blaming the slow response on racism. These giants of equality are not blaming the city's black mayor or even Louisiana's white governor, but they are calling President Bush a racist. The first President to have a black Secretary of State, and then the first to have a black woman as Secretary of State is now a racist, and apparently so is Ms. Rice, who is black. Charges like this cannot be made on emotion alone. They require proof. If you are going to accuse someone of something so heinous, you had better have more than a gut feeling. Especially if you are going to do it while people are still stuck on their roofs. Instead of rallying to help the nation through its worst disaster ever, these men are playing the one card that will divide America, and they are doing with no proof whatsoever. The depth of partisan anger goes so deep that Arianna Huffington actually lashes out at President Clinton for helping out. That makes me sick. Do we really have to make every waking moment about partisan bickering and finger pointing? Apparently so.

The Danger of Weekly Communion and High Liturgy

I thought I would follow up on an earlier post. I mentioned that the Mercersburg men won their battle for a new version of reformed theology, not by direct confrontation, but by agitation for a high liturgy. The Federal Vision adherents appear to me to be trying a similar tact. I worry that they too will be successful if more attention is not paid to the theology of liturgy by old reformed churches.

Weekly communion is one example of that higher liturgy that is likely to gain inroads for the Federal Vision theology. Many pastors do not see a problem with weekly communion. In fact, they do not appreciate any suggestion that weekly communion is dangerous to the preaching of Christ crucified. With so many churches already moving towards a weekly communion, it is easy to see how the argument for a high liturgy will be an easier sell for the Federal Visionists than an outright change of orthodox dogma would be. Especially when you consider that other ministers advocating a high liturgy like Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul, who are not known to support Federal Vision adherents, may now be aligned with them in this fight to change the worship service. Some might say that one could promote a high liturgy without holding to a Federal Vision view of sacraments and justification. Let us hear John Nevin of Mercersburg on this issue.

In this way our liturgical controversy is, in reality, a great theological controversy; one that should be of interest to other Protestant Churches, no less than to our own. We see in it two general schemes of theology; two different versions, we may say, of the meaning of Christianity; two Gospels in fact, arrayed against one another, . . .(Catholic and Reformed, Vindication of the Liturgy, pg. 381).

One cannot take an altar-based liturgy, of which weekly communion is a part, and peacefully put it in the pulpit-centered churches of Geneva. One of the two must give way because they are of a different spirit. Henry Bullinger, in his Second Decade, wrote that that God is a spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and holiness. This type of worship commanded in the second commandment is contrary to any outward honors or displays (kneeling or prostrating or turning towards a cross) made to any thing, including the Eucharist. He goes on to decry the ministerial robe as a copy of the priests and a tradition of man, given only to create superstition (Fifth Decade). The Puritans, like Samuel Mather and John Cotton, rightly argued that a book of prayers sets itself against the Bible as the only sufficient book and that form prayers set themselves against the unction of the Holy Spirit and against praying in the Spirit.

The weekly communion service, with the rest of the elements of high liturgy, elevates the supper to a place where it does not belong. The weekly service harmonizes well with the teaching of Federal Vision adherents that the supper keeps us in union with Christ. Practicing Communion becomes essential for continued salvation. It naturally turns the focus of worship from the invisible proclamation of Christ in the gospel to the visible proclamation in the sacrament. Faith is replaced by sight. It will raise the call for more and more objective, visible elements appealing to all the senses, which in turn will lead to the introduction of unbiblical elements into worship. The argument that our worship is structured on the OT sacrifices of the temple will be employed to justify such things as incense, processionals, robes, and prayer book formulas. Slowly the table will again become the altar. This is how the medieval Roman Church built the mass: first an over-emphasis on sacraments, then the suggestion of the corporal presence of Christ, then the concept of transubstantiation, and finally the presentation of the mass as a real sacrifice central to salvation. The reformed understanding of the gospel has not existed peacefully with the practice of weekly communion in the history of the church. Not in Rome, nor in Constantinople, nor in Wittenburg, nor in Canterbury. Reformed theologians need to rally and to proclaim the Biblical understanding of worship and liturgy before it is too late.

Who is responsible for Katrina?

I would first like to add my prayers to the millions going up around the world for those victims of Hurricane Katrina. I have family in Mississippi and had been to Biloxi before. My family is in Jackson and without power, but out of the path of devastation. My wife and I received confirmation today that the others that we knew in Biloxi area are safe, although their property probably is not. I know that many others have not yet received word, and some may never. For those I offer prayers that God would show his hand and uphold them in this time of trial.

Which leads me to a quick point. It is both sickening and sad to see people blaming Hurricane Katrina on man. Cindy Sheehan has blamed it on President Bush, and Robert Kennedy Jr., on the governor of Mississippi. Not only are these individuals trying to use a natural disaster for political gain, but they know nothing of who controls the world. It is not us, and it is not even the government. All things flow from God, for they are all under his control. There can be no real hope or comfort for those who reject God the Creator, Sustainer, and Savior. It is hard to say it better than Heidelberg Catechism #26, so why try.

What do you believe when you say: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth”?

That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who of nothing made heaven and earth, and all that in them is, who likewise upholds, and governs the same by His eternal counsel and providence, is for the sake of Christ, His Son, my God and my Father, in whom I do so trust as to have no doubt that He will provide me with all things necessary for body and soul; and further, that whatever evil he sends upon me in this troubled life, He will turn it to my good; for He is able to do it, being Almighty God and willing also, being a faithful Father.

An almighty faithful Father, now that is comfort. Amen.