Mark Horne has a post attacking the idea that the confessions can be "solid rock amid shifting sands." You can decide for yourself whether he is directly referring to my post of a similar title. His words deserve a response either way.
Rev. Horne is correct that the confessions themselves are not the “Solid Rock.” That appellation belongs to Scripture. However, the confessions are “apt summaries of the Word of God.” If one believes that Scripture, the solid rock, never changes, why would one think that the summaries of Scripture should change? None of the confessions deal in subjects such as millennial views or apologetical approaches. They deal with primary issues like salvation, the church, and creation. Rev. Horne suggests that Reformed faith is dead on arrival if its adherents cling to the confessions. For some reason Rev. Horne would say Scripture is unchangeable but summaries of Scripture are malleable and ever changing.
The only reason I can imagine why a summary of the never changing Word of God should change is if man cannot know the Word of God. This would explain why we must have a summary that is in constant motion with the times. Any minister believing this would hopefully be honest and take an exception to WCF 1.7. However, anyone who thinks the Word is unknowable is in a very untenable position. First, if the Word is unknowable, then the 2000 years of theology in the church has been wrong because no one really understood what God was communicating to man. Second, he would have to admit that he could not know the Word of God either, and thus, the confession could very well be more accurate than he is on any given subject.
The church has for centuries found no need to change or abandon confessions like Nicaea or Chalcedon, but if Rev. Horne’s logic is true, then that is simply proof that the church has been dead for centuries rather than evidence of the accuracy of those confessions. To argue that it is nothing but a practice of dead orthodoxy to hold fast to confessions as summaries of God’s Word is nothing more than avowing that one has disagreement with certain aspects of those confessions. It is time for these men to either write a confession, a generally-accepted delineation of their system of faith, that they believe IS maintainable or admit that they believe the Word of God is unknowable and that confessions, including the ones they have promised to uphold, are more a stumbling block than anything else.
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.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
The Value of a Housewife
You need to read Matt’s piece on women at home. Very well done. Look around on his site for the first part of this discussion.
Revelation Commentary
Does anyone know of a Partial Preterist commentary on Revelation? I have Ken Gentry’s works on dating the book and the Beast, but have not yet come across a verse by verse commentary from his viewpoint. I would be interested in seeing the entire book from the Partial Preterist perspective.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks in advance.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Acts 15 and the Law
I would like to hear a Federal Vision interpretation of Acts 15, especially Peter’s speech. Verse 10 of that chapter says, "Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." I have not seen much discussion on this verse, and I think it presents some problems for the Federal Vision position of faithful obedience as doable. Peter here is disputing with brothers, elders in fact. Obviously then these who want to argue for law keeping and circumcision are not those who want faithless law keeping. These men from Judea are full of faith and desiring to pursue the law of righteousness by faith, but yet Peter says it is wrong to do so. He also clearly states that the law is a yoke that no one is able to bear. I would like to hear an exegesis of this passage from the "Law is Doable" perspective.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Covenant of Works?
There seems to be a lot of discussion on the Covenant of Works. It is one of the contentious issues of the Federal Vision controversy. Sadly, I have to say that I disagree with both sides in the debate. What that makes me, I am not sure. But here is a quick look anyway.
First, the Federal Vision adherents seem to deny the Covenant of Works existed. This is linked with their denial of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Dr. Jordan puts forth an alternative that we do not want the merit of Christ, but rather his maturity. He does not see a covenant of works and a covenant of grace, but immaturity and maturity. I do believe in a Covenant of Works. It is not hard to spot in the Bible. All the parties are present in Genesis 2 and 3. Conditions given, and a promise made. We even see in Hosea 6:7 God say Adam transgressed the covenant, "they like Adam have transgressed the covenant". So it is quite biblical to speak of a covenant being made with Adam. The New Testament is full of setting the idea of salvation by works (a Covenant of Works) next to salvation by Christ (Covenant of Grace). Romans 10:5, 11:6-7, Galatians 3:12-13, and especially 4:21-26 where Paul says there are two covenants. All of these are but a sampling with the two major passages being Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15. In these two passages we see the two covenant heads set side by side. Adam and Christ, who is called the Second Adam or the Last Adam. Here we see that one is either in Adam and his covenant or in Christ and his covenant. These are the two classic passages showing us the two covenant system. Thus, I cannot side with the Federal Vision men and deny a covenant of works made with Adam.
Second, the Truly Reformed, if we shall call them that, seem to imply that the Covenant of Works was a Westminster invention. They claim that no other confession prior to the Westminster (save an Irish Confession in 1611) taught a Covenant of Works. While, I will grant that the title, Covenant of Works comes first in the Westminster, it seems fairly obvious that most of the Reformed Creeds prior to the Westminster held to it. The Heidelberg Catechism question 60 is clear when it states that Christ fulfilled obedience for us, implying a covenant of works. That along with question 9 and 10 speaking of man being required to live up to the law perfectly, and several other questions make the Heidelberg teaching a Covenant with Adam and Eve that demands perfect obedience that Christ then fulfills for us. That is about 100 years prior to the Westminster. Turretin speaks of a Covenant of Nature. Witsus tells us the Covenant of Works also used to be called the Legal Covenant and/or a Covenant of Nature showing us that concept had been around for sometime. Calvin seems to hold to a covenant with Adam where we all exist until Christ "transfers into us the power of his righteousness (2.1.6)." The concept of the Covenant of Works is easily seen throughout the Reformation, not just with the Puritans. But does it occur earlier? Yes, I believe it does, though again without the current title. It is not hard to find in the Middle Ages with men like Anselm clearly stating Adam could have earned life with obedience and with their fall all men fell with them, and other aspects of the Legal Covenant. Clearly one is lead to believe that Anselm would have had no difficulty with the Covenant of Works. I only have space for one more example, so we shall use Chrysostom a bishop of Constantinople because he is well known and from his position he would have had great influence with his writings. It is evident from Chrysostom’s commentary on Galatians and his Homilies on Romans that Chrysostom held to "two covenants." One covenant is of bondage and the other of freedom and grace. This puts the idea of two covenants all the way back to the 4th Century.
It seems to me that the Greenville argument that Westminster perfects the doctrine of the Covenant of Works harms the cause, in that it implicitly accepts a developmental idea. I do not know if Greenville Theological Seminary is opposed to the idea of Doctrinal Development, but I will say that during a Medieval Church History class the teacher wanted us to know that the Medieval Church is the bud from which the Reformation flowers. This is an almost direct quote of Schaff, and might I add, not proved during the rest of the class.
This ought to be enough to get the discussion going. I look forward to the responses.
First, the Federal Vision adherents seem to deny the Covenant of Works existed. This is linked with their denial of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Dr. Jordan puts forth an alternative that we do not want the merit of Christ, but rather his maturity. He does not see a covenant of works and a covenant of grace, but immaturity and maturity. I do believe in a Covenant of Works. It is not hard to spot in the Bible. All the parties are present in Genesis 2 and 3. Conditions given, and a promise made. We even see in Hosea 6:7 God say Adam transgressed the covenant, "they like Adam have transgressed the covenant". So it is quite biblical to speak of a covenant being made with Adam. The New Testament is full of setting the idea of salvation by works (a Covenant of Works) next to salvation by Christ (Covenant of Grace). Romans 10:5, 11:6-7, Galatians 3:12-13, and especially 4:21-26 where Paul says there are two covenants. All of these are but a sampling with the two major passages being Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15. In these two passages we see the two covenant heads set side by side. Adam and Christ, who is called the Second Adam or the Last Adam. Here we see that one is either in Adam and his covenant or in Christ and his covenant. These are the two classic passages showing us the two covenant system. Thus, I cannot side with the Federal Vision men and deny a covenant of works made with Adam.
Second, the Truly Reformed, if we shall call them that, seem to imply that the Covenant of Works was a Westminster invention. They claim that no other confession prior to the Westminster (save an Irish Confession in 1611) taught a Covenant of Works. While, I will grant that the title, Covenant of Works comes first in the Westminster, it seems fairly obvious that most of the Reformed Creeds prior to the Westminster held to it. The Heidelberg Catechism question 60 is clear when it states that Christ fulfilled obedience for us, implying a covenant of works. That along with question 9 and 10 speaking of man being required to live up to the law perfectly, and several other questions make the Heidelberg teaching a Covenant with Adam and Eve that demands perfect obedience that Christ then fulfills for us. That is about 100 years prior to the Westminster. Turretin speaks of a Covenant of Nature. Witsus tells us the Covenant of Works also used to be called the Legal Covenant and/or a Covenant of Nature showing us that concept had been around for sometime. Calvin seems to hold to a covenant with Adam where we all exist until Christ "transfers into us the power of his righteousness (2.1.6)." The concept of the Covenant of Works is easily seen throughout the Reformation, not just with the Puritans. But does it occur earlier? Yes, I believe it does, though again without the current title. It is not hard to find in the Middle Ages with men like Anselm clearly stating Adam could have earned life with obedience and with their fall all men fell with them, and other aspects of the Legal Covenant. Clearly one is lead to believe that Anselm would have had no difficulty with the Covenant of Works. I only have space for one more example, so we shall use Chrysostom a bishop of Constantinople because he is well known and from his position he would have had great influence with his writings. It is evident from Chrysostom’s commentary on Galatians and his Homilies on Romans that Chrysostom held to "two covenants." One covenant is of bondage and the other of freedom and grace. This puts the idea of two covenants all the way back to the 4th Century.
It seems to me that the Greenville argument that Westminster perfects the doctrine of the Covenant of Works harms the cause, in that it implicitly accepts a developmental idea. I do not know if Greenville Theological Seminary is opposed to the idea of Doctrinal Development, but I will say that during a Medieval Church History class the teacher wanted us to know that the Medieval Church is the bud from which the Reformation flowers. This is an almost direct quote of Schaff, and might I add, not proved during the rest of the class.
This ought to be enough to get the discussion going. I look forward to the responses.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Strict Subscription vs. No Subscription
There is an interesting discussion about strict subscription that should be commented upon. Rev. Meyers shows his opposition to strict subscription by quoting James Jordan. Jordan argues that the system of doctrine in the Westminster has little to do with the details of the Confession.
What Rev. Jordan means by detail is 'word' or 'thought'. The system of the Westminster is not to be bound in every word or thought of the Confession. The System is something much broader. Thankfully, Rev. Jordan supplies an example.
Here Rev. Jordan explains that even though the Westminster speaks of a covenant of works and a covenant of life the "system" of the Westminster only means two stages. The entire idea of covenant is thrown out the window as if it were some extraneous abstract idea that has no meaning.
Which brings us to the idea of strict subscription. Is it still subscription when one does not believe the words of the document are important. It seems to me that ‘Good Faith’ or ‘Loose’ subscription is really just interjecting Neo-orthodoxy into Confessional readings. The debate is between the ‘Confession is the system’ and the ‘the Confession contains the system’. Jordan, the Presbyterian Pastoral Leadership Network, and others argue for the Neo-Orthodox Confessional reading. These men want to be subscribers to the Confession, but only if they can ‘demythologize’ it first. Strip it of its silly old notions and replace them with the new enlightened ones. Once we allow this into our churches (as the PCA already has) then no Scriptural truth is safe.
Well, of course there is a "system" in the Standards, but the question is how detailed that system is. To say that there is a general system though many details in the Standards are not necessarily bound into that system, is quite different from saying that the Standards form a system that is tightly locked down in every detail.
What Rev. Jordan means by detail is 'word' or 'thought'. The system of the Westminster is not to be bound in every word or thought of the Confession. The System is something much broader. Thankfully, Rev. Jordan supplies an example.
For instance, we hear today that the “covenant of works” notion is an integral part of the Westminster Standards’ theology, and that departing from it is a departure from the Standards. Not so. The Westminster documents also use the phrase “covenant of life.” The “system” is that there are two stages of human life, a first stage with Adam and a second stage with the New Adam.
Here Rev. Jordan explains that even though the Westminster speaks of a covenant of works and a covenant of life the "system" of the Westminster only means two stages. The entire idea of covenant is thrown out the window as if it were some extraneous abstract idea that has no meaning.
Which brings us to the idea of strict subscription. Is it still subscription when one does not believe the words of the document are important. It seems to me that ‘Good Faith’ or ‘Loose’ subscription is really just interjecting Neo-orthodoxy into Confessional readings. The debate is between the ‘Confession is the system’ and the ‘the Confession contains the system’. Jordan, the Presbyterian Pastoral Leadership Network, and others argue for the Neo-Orthodox Confessional reading. These men want to be subscribers to the Confession, but only if they can ‘demythologize’ it first. Strip it of its silly old notions and replace them with the new enlightened ones. Once we allow this into our churches (as the PCA already has) then no Scriptural truth is safe.
Hatred for the Past
I just had to post a comment from Rev. Meyers that can be found in the comments to article under previous discussion.
Never before has such a clear case of Mercersburg Theology been laid before us. These 5 points are full of Historical and Theological Development, but also contempt for the past. Nothing shows the Federal Vision’s hatred of the past more than point number 1. Rev. Meyers is actually saying that there is no way people 500 years ago could have come up with quality of theology that we can today, even though they have access to the same bible. Theological vitality is tied to shedding off theologies of the past and coming up with innovative ideas. If it such a bad idea to be clinging to 500 year old documents as good theology, just think how awful it must be to read documents from the Middle Ages, or worse yet those poor simpletons that sat at the feet of the apostles. Poor Polycarp and Ignatius! What trash their letters must be! And the Nicene Creed? Utterly useless. Just look at point 4 if you doubt Rev. Meyers argues that way. We have improved the doctrine of the Trinity and have better exegesis because a few guys now know what Judaism really looked over 19 centuries ago.
Charles Hodge once said of Philip Schaff’s Theological Development that it would cause people to always see an evolution of and never a possible devolution from the gospel. Could there be any clearer proof than Rev. Meyers’s point number 1?
1. The fact that REFORMED churches are still clinging to a 500-year old document is evidence of our loss of theological vitality.
2. The Westminster standards were written to answer the pressing issues and questions for 17th-century people - mostly English speaking people, too. This is fine. Confessions and catechisms are supposed to speak to the culture and use the language and conceptual categories familiar to people in order to disciple them in the biblical faith. But we no longer live in the 17th century. Duh.
3. Does anyone really think that we will still be using the Westminster Standards 200 years from now? Yikes.
4. There's been a great deal of theological and exegetical work done since the 17th century. Just think of the work on the Trinity in the broader church, but also in our own Reformed circles the theological work done on the covenant. The best of that work needs to be proclaimed publicly in our confessions and catechisms.
5. Until we compose something contemporary we will continue to have people tempting us to accept some form of "living in the past" as the answer to modern problems. As if repeating Reformed scholastic definitions of terms is what the modern world needs.
Never before has such a clear case of Mercersburg Theology been laid before us. These 5 points are full of Historical and Theological Development, but also contempt for the past. Nothing shows the Federal Vision’s hatred of the past more than point number 1. Rev. Meyers is actually saying that there is no way people 500 years ago could have come up with quality of theology that we can today, even though they have access to the same bible. Theological vitality is tied to shedding off theologies of the past and coming up with innovative ideas. If it such a bad idea to be clinging to 500 year old documents as good theology, just think how awful it must be to read documents from the Middle Ages, or worse yet those poor simpletons that sat at the feet of the apostles. Poor Polycarp and Ignatius! What trash their letters must be! And the Nicene Creed? Utterly useless. Just look at point 4 if you doubt Rev. Meyers argues that way. We have improved the doctrine of the Trinity and have better exegesis because a few guys now know what Judaism really looked over 19 centuries ago.
Charles Hodge once said of Philip Schaff’s Theological Development that it would cause people to always see an evolution of and never a possible devolution from the gospel. Could there be any clearer proof than Rev. Meyers’s point number 1?
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
The Heart of Harriet Miers
I have been slow to make any judgments about Harriet Miers and whether or not I think she will be a good Supreme Court Justice. Readers of this blog probably can guess that I am fairly concerned about it. Her qualifications do not concern me, but her beliefs do. Mainly because I have no idea what they are. I have been puzzled about why President Bush nominated her. His ‘trust me’ defense does not hold much water with me. However, I did just read an article in World Magazine that makes a good defense of Bush’s motives. The article argues that intellect alone does not make a good judge, but heart has to be a consideration. I suggest all read it for it makes some good points about needing to know a person’s heart and how heart ought to be a part of why we appoint people to positions. Imagine yourself for a moment having a task of great value, would you sooner give it to the unknown man with a good resume or your best friend who is competent and whom you know you can trust. It seems to me the bigger gamble is on the unknown quantity.
Just for the record I still have grave concerns about Ms. Miers but I understand the reasoning of President Bush. The problem is that I do not trust President Bush to be a good judge of heart. After all, President Bush is the one who looked into the soul of President Putin of Russia and saw a man he could trust rather than the autocratic KGB agent who rolls back Democracy, does joint military exercises with China, and stays out of the war on terror that the rest of the world sees.
Just for the record I still have grave concerns about Ms. Miers but I understand the reasoning of President Bush. The problem is that I do not trust President Bush to be a good judge of heart. After all, President Bush is the one who looked into the soul of President Putin of Russia and saw a man he could trust rather than the autocratic KGB agent who rolls back Democracy, does joint military exercises with China, and stays out of the war on terror that the rest of the world sees.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Solid Rock or Shifting Sand
Jeff Meyers tries to answer the question I have been dying to know about the Federal Vision. How can one advocate changing the standards (especially the Westminster) to fit the new insights of Biblical Theology, and then still claim early Reformed writings back up your point of view? Either it is a new insight, or it is not? Which is it? Sadly, Rev. Meyers fails to give an adequate answer. He tries to tell us that it is both new and not new, which ducks the question. Then he states,
This is a telling answer. What Rev. Meyers is arguing is that the system is what is important, not the content. This is how one argues for changing the Standards, but can still claim to be a part of that ‘system’ or tradition. Rev. Meyers would have us believe that the system remains unaltered even if all the words in the system are changed. Thus, one can change the meaning of ‘elect’ or ‘justification’ or the meaning of baptism and the supper, perhaps even the meaning of the Regulative Principle of Worship, and the system will remain the same.
Now, I think where Rev. Meyers and I will disagree is on the affect of reformulating biblical truth. Rev. Meyers thinks it does not affect the system of doctrine, and I believe it does, at least the way it is being done now by the Federal Vision proponents. It is one thing to speak confessional truths in a language and manner that is understandable by your audience, it is another to speak in a manner that is understandable to your audience, but contradicts the confession. The first, I believe, is ministering biblical truth in a particular context, and the second is reformulating biblical truth for the context.
Meyers goes on in his blog to accuse those who oppose the Federal Vision of “cultural imperialism.” He is saying that those who want to remain faithful to the Standards are stuck in a by gone cultural, and refuse to see how one must reformulate the message to fit the modern culture. Rev. Meyers wants to change the message to fit with the changing times, not only for the needs of the audience, but also for the advances in Biblical Theology. After all, changing the message does not affect the system for Rev. Myers. Thus, again, Philip Schaff’s Principle of Protestantism rears its ugly head. The dialectical movement of doctrine throughout history is what Myers is ascribing to in his post. One cannot hold to the doctrine of the Reformation because the Reformation was a previous stage of development, and it would be ridiculous to cling to that which history has past by. The system is more important. And the system for Rev. Myers is not what the Westminster or the Three Forms teach, not any more. Rev. Myers holds to a system that contains internal change in a movement toward a fianl synthesis.
The debate over the Federal Vision is not just about justification or the sacraments, as Rev. Meyers rightly points out. It is also a debate about whether or not the truth is knowable, whether or not it is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Is the doctrine of the church a solid rock upon which to build, rock that can be written down in Confessions and trusted forever, or is it shifting sands that blow and move around with the times.
Some of the terminology and phraseology is new. I'd admit that. But again, this should be no problem. That's one of the great things about "system" confessional subscription. We don't bind ourselves to a particular forms of words, just to the overall content. So we have freedom to reformulate biblical truth for the context in which we're called to minister.
This is a telling answer. What Rev. Meyers is arguing is that the system is what is important, not the content. This is how one argues for changing the Standards, but can still claim to be a part of that ‘system’ or tradition. Rev. Meyers would have us believe that the system remains unaltered even if all the words in the system are changed. Thus, one can change the meaning of ‘elect’ or ‘justification’ or the meaning of baptism and the supper, perhaps even the meaning of the Regulative Principle of Worship, and the system will remain the same.
Now, I think where Rev. Meyers and I will disagree is on the affect of reformulating biblical truth. Rev. Meyers thinks it does not affect the system of doctrine, and I believe it does, at least the way it is being done now by the Federal Vision proponents. It is one thing to speak confessional truths in a language and manner that is understandable by your audience, it is another to speak in a manner that is understandable to your audience, but contradicts the confession. The first, I believe, is ministering biblical truth in a particular context, and the second is reformulating biblical truth for the context.
Meyers goes on in his blog to accuse those who oppose the Federal Vision of “cultural imperialism.” He is saying that those who want to remain faithful to the Standards are stuck in a by gone cultural, and refuse to see how one must reformulate the message to fit the modern culture. Rev. Meyers wants to change the message to fit with the changing times, not only for the needs of the audience, but also for the advances in Biblical Theology. After all, changing the message does not affect the system for Rev. Myers. Thus, again, Philip Schaff’s Principle of Protestantism rears its ugly head. The dialectical movement of doctrine throughout history is what Myers is ascribing to in his post. One cannot hold to the doctrine of the Reformation because the Reformation was a previous stage of development, and it would be ridiculous to cling to that which history has past by. The system is more important. And the system for Rev. Myers is not what the Westminster or the Three Forms teach, not any more. Rev. Myers holds to a system that contains internal change in a movement toward a fianl synthesis.
The debate over the Federal Vision is not just about justification or the sacraments, as Rev. Meyers rightly points out. It is also a debate about whether or not the truth is knowable, whether or not it is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Is the doctrine of the church a solid rock upon which to build, rock that can be written down in Confessions and trusted forever, or is it shifting sands that blow and move around with the times.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Air Rage
I am currently on vacation, and that is why this page has not had any updates recently, but I thought I should take a few seconds to comment on the recent Air Rage epidemic. Air Rage of course is Road Rage for those in air travel.
I recently flew a series of flights from Bismarck, ND to Knoxville, TN and witnessed at least two such events myself. One incident had a stewardess spend no less than 3 minutes arguing with a passenger to return his seat to an upright position for landing. It is a standard rule to straighten your seat back when the plane is about to land, but this passenger would not comply. They argued rather loudly for an extended period of time, and I did not get to see who won. The reason, for those of you who are wondering, that one must return the seat to an upright position is because if the plane crashes, the seat my block those in the rows behind you from being able to exit quickly.
The second incident involved my spilling a drink. I spilt my coke, and the lady next to me and I received the lion’s share of the drink. We dried off as best we could and the seat as well, but apparently some dripped in-between the seats and onto the floor. This angered the passenger behind me because his carry-on item received a few drops of coke. I did not immediately notice his anger, but it was brought to my attention later. I apologized while the plane taxied to gate, and he refused to accept my apology. Only after his wife pleaded with him and repeatedly told me it is okay, did I even get anything remotely related to an acceptance of my apology.
A shocking third incident occurred a week later when my 80 year old grandmother flew from Jackson, MS to Knoxville, TN and a fellow passenger took her seat. My grandmother was in row 3, near the front on the aisle, and in need of making a quick connection. Her plane was already 50 minutes late. Some man who had a seat in the back, row 12 next to the window, took her seat, and did not let her sit down when confronted. His reason? He had to get off the plane quickly, and did not want to wait. My grandmother eventually took his seat in the back. Yet, the stewardess found out, and tried to make the man move, and he still would not relinquish his stolen seat.
The only possible explanation for such amazing acts of selfishness, and rudeness is Air Rage. Perhaps it is transmitted like the Bird Flu, but no matter what it appears to be everywhere. I will be flying home soon, and I am sure to run into more.
Until then let everyone be warned. If you are flying the biggest trouble you will probably face is from someone next to you.
I recently flew a series of flights from Bismarck, ND to Knoxville, TN and witnessed at least two such events myself. One incident had a stewardess spend no less than 3 minutes arguing with a passenger to return his seat to an upright position for landing. It is a standard rule to straighten your seat back when the plane is about to land, but this passenger would not comply. They argued rather loudly for an extended period of time, and I did not get to see who won. The reason, for those of you who are wondering, that one must return the seat to an upright position is because if the plane crashes, the seat my block those in the rows behind you from being able to exit quickly.
The second incident involved my spilling a drink. I spilt my coke, and the lady next to me and I received the lion’s share of the drink. We dried off as best we could and the seat as well, but apparently some dripped in-between the seats and onto the floor. This angered the passenger behind me because his carry-on item received a few drops of coke. I did not immediately notice his anger, but it was brought to my attention later. I apologized while the plane taxied to gate, and he refused to accept my apology. Only after his wife pleaded with him and repeatedly told me it is okay, did I even get anything remotely related to an acceptance of my apology.
A shocking third incident occurred a week later when my 80 year old grandmother flew from Jackson, MS to Knoxville, TN and a fellow passenger took her seat. My grandmother was in row 3, near the front on the aisle, and in need of making a quick connection. Her plane was already 50 minutes late. Some man who had a seat in the back, row 12 next to the window, took her seat, and did not let her sit down when confronted. His reason? He had to get off the plane quickly, and did not want to wait. My grandmother eventually took his seat in the back. Yet, the stewardess found out, and tried to make the man move, and he still would not relinquish his stolen seat.
The only possible explanation for such amazing acts of selfishness, and rudeness is Air Rage. Perhaps it is transmitted like the Bird Flu, but no matter what it appears to be everywhere. I will be flying home soon, and I am sure to run into more.
Until then let everyone be warned. If you are flying the biggest trouble you will probably face is from someone next to you.
Monday, October 03, 2005
James Jordan's point of view
In the interests of fairness, I should report that I have discovered Dr. Jordan’s side of the story. The broad references to men motivated by political gains and those who opposed him while in Tyler, TX are directed at Joe Moorecraft. Also, Dr. Jordan’s view on the Mississippi Valley Presbytery is based on this timeline of events. I hope that the Mississippi Valley did a little more than is reported in this timeline.
In the end, it does not matter. I still think that James Jordan is wrong. He should have named names. If he meant Joe Moorecraft, then say it. It is childish to attack without naming names. Also, I bet that even Joe Moorecraft is motivated by doctrinal concerns, and not just pure political gain. Just in case any think that this is all my twisted view of things, Federal Vision defender, Joel Garver agrees that theology is at the heart of the debate. All Jordan’s recent essay shows me is that Jordan has a deep-seated bitterness against Rev. Moorecraft, and against all those who refuse to be innovative with their doctrine.
In the end, it does not matter. I still think that James Jordan is wrong. He should have named names. If he meant Joe Moorecraft, then say it. It is childish to attack without naming names. Also, I bet that even Joe Moorecraft is motivated by doctrinal concerns, and not just pure political gain. Just in case any think that this is all my twisted view of things, Federal Vision defender, Joel Garver agrees that theology is at the heart of the debate. All Jordan’s recent essay shows me is that Jordan has a deep-seated bitterness against Rev. Moorecraft, and against all those who refuse to be innovative with their doctrine.