Lost in LOST

In case you missed the LOST season finale, do not read any further.

As many of you know, I watch LOST and Heroes because they are the only shows worth watching. The finale of Heroes was good, but not great, but LOST was fantastic. I cannot resist offering my two cents on what will happen and the greatness of the show.

First, Charlie is not dead. Many people have been upset about Charlie not trying to swim out. His death has many people upset. My theory is that Charlie is not dead. Or at least, he will not stay dead. The show seems to have shown us that the island has some special healing powers, which was why the Dharma group went there in the first place. Some seem to benefit from this healing while other do not. Charlie, we have already seen been resurrected once. Do not forget that he was hung by Ethan in the first season. When Jack found Charlie, he was not breathing, and CPR did not bring him back. Jack quits, cries, walks around, and then comes back. Then, and only then, does Charlie start breathing. We all assumed that CPR saved Charlie’s life, but we should know better now.

Second, I think the key to LOST is in the names. The vast majority of the names have significance and are literary allusions. The Philosophers are fairly straight forward. You have John Locke, Desmond David Hume, and Daniel Rousseau as the obvious references. Each represents a the philosophy of the Philosopher as well, at least in some important way. You also had Boone and Shannon Rutherford, a probable reference to Samuel Rutherford. His thought laid the foundation for John Locke’s thought just as Boone Rutherford laid the foundation for John Locke on the island. Other names can be debates such as Jack Shepherd which some say was confirmed to be a reference to Jack Merridew in Lord of the Flies. I personally think the Shepherd part is more important as in the season finale he was compared to Moses, which fits nicely since his nephew is named Aaron. Jack’s father’s name is Christian Shepherd, and despite his funeral the season finale flash-forward made several mentions of Jack’s father as if he were alive. Hugo Reyes may be a reference to Philosopher Hugo Grotius. The Latin word for Grotius is De Groot, which happens to be the name of the founders of the Dharma Initiative. Other names are clear references to Literary characters or authors that are not necessarily philosophical in nature. Sawyer seems a clear reference to Tom Sawyer. Sawyer is of corse a fake name for James Ford, much like Mark Twain is also not the real name of the author of Tom Sawyer. Kate Austen may very well be a references to author Jane Austen. Benjamin Linus, leader of the others reports to the mysterious, Jacob. Can one think of Jacob and Benjamin without coming to a biblical reference? Juliet was an ‘Other’, but now is with the castaways on account of star-crossed love. Do I need to point out that reference? Desmond Hume was shipwrecked on an island for three years and is trying to get back to his love, Penelope. Penelope is also the name of the wife Odysseus in the Odyssey. I am sure there are more that I have missed.

Third, based on the names I think some predictions can be made. I know I have a bad track record on predictions, but I will not stop trying.

• Charlie is alive


• Juliet will die. She dies in the play. She is not with Jack after they got home. Somehow she dies.


• Benjamin is the person in the coffin in the flash-forward. I have several reasons for thinking this is true. It has to be a male. It has to be someone that Jack cares about, but Kate does not. He is in the group that is about to get picked up. Jack seems to agree with Benjamin about the island in the flash-forward.


• Jack’s father, Christian, is alive. Jack makes several references to him in the flash-forward. His name is Christian; thus, ‘life-after death’ may be in view. We have never seen his actual death. The coffin was found on the island, but it was empty.


• Season Four will be about trying to get back to island to finish unraveling the mystery.

With only 48 episodes left, I think LOST will be able to maintain a high quality. As my wife and I discuss and spend the summer in suspense, I may blog more of my thoughts on a show that actually stretches your brain.

The Extent of Voting Pragmatism

After following a long series of links, I got to this article about Rep. Ron Paul as the winner of the Republican debates, and it got me thinking. Why do Republicans continually vote against their beliefs? This is the same as the age-old question of should you vote for a third party candidate or not. It seems clear that this is exactly what the Republicans are doing, voting against the one they believe is the best candidate. The only possible reason is because they think they need to vote for someone who has a chance to win in ‘08.

Look at the facts. First, the Neo-Conservative Outlets are going out of their way to bash Rep. Ron Paul and ignore the candidates that are actually conservative like Rep. Tancredo, Paul, and Hunter. Not only that but the Neo-Conservative News Outlet hid their own poll because it was not to their liking.

Second, MSNBC has Rep. Paul as the winner of the first debate by a landslide. They also have him winning the second debate by a landslide. Just in case you think these results skewed by the viewership of MSNBC, Fox News had Rep. Paul a close second behind only Romney. Rep. Paul was a full 6% ahead of Mayor Giuliani, and 21% ahead of McCain. Independent sources seem to back up this view of Paul being the winner.

Third, Giuliani and McCain are still the leading candidates to win the nomination. Paul trails Giuliani by 23% and McCain by 16%. Thus, the question: why do Republican think Rep. Paul a top tier debater, but have no support for him when it comes to the election? I do not think it is simply because he is that much better on stage. I think it has to be the ‘winning before principle’ idea that cripples third parties every year.

I know a lot of people get excised over third party voting, so let us switch up the scenario for a minute. Say there is a candidate running for office in a liberal section of California. He agrees with Christianity, believes it true, thinks Christian principles would make the world a better place, but knows that if he runs as a Christian then he will lose because his constituents think Christianity a backwater religion. He really wants to defeat the openly Secular Humanist opponent because he fears the agenda of said Secular Humanist, so our candidate runs as a sometimes practicing Jew. That way, he is not laughed out of the voting booth for being a Christian, is able to carry over some of the Christian principles to his office like believing a God exists, and he has a chance to defeat the Humanist agenda. Would we laud this man as doing what he could? Would thank him for not letting the Humanist win even though he is not able to be faithful to his true beliefs? Would anyone think he had done the right thing? I think the answer is obvious.

So why do we do it? The polls show that it is clearly happening. A better question for Christians is, do we confine the ‘winning over principle’ pragmatist-ideology to the voting booth? Or is it possible that this ideology that sacrifices our principles is really pervading our entire lives? I am not accusing loyal Republican voters or Democrat ones of being inconsistent sinner by any means. I have just been struck recently by how deep the roots of Pragmatism run in all of our lives. The attitude of claiming a little extra on our taxes because it is our money anyway. Or the telling of a little white lie because everyone will feel better and it is easier. Or the cutting corners on the project because we can fix it later if someone complains. The list could go on and on and on. Maybe I am way off base here, but it was just a little thinking out loud, which is what a blog is for anyway.

Feast Days not Holy Days

As I said in the first post in this series, the RCUS follows the German Reformed Tradition of celebrating Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost as Feast days. How do I reconcile this with my opposition to the Liturgical Calendar? Since today is Ascension Day, what better time than now for me to tackle this task. I shall try to explain.

First, it should be pointed out that Easter and Pentecost are always Sundays. I am advocating replacing Sunday services. Instead, my church uses those days to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. We do the same with the Sunday before Christmas. This is what was done in Geneva as well, so it is not some sort of new tradition by any means.

Second, I do think churches ought (but by no means do I think they are required) to celebrate such obvious days as Easter and Christmas. If we were honest we would admit that Easter and Christmas are the two days that more people attend church than any other day. There are many who many only go to church on Christmas and Easter. Those people along with the majority of the congregation are expecting sermons revolving around the holiday that the entire culture is celebrating. A giant opportunity will be missed if one decides instead to preach on II Samuel 5:11. Those churches that do not celebrate Christmas or Easter should be consistent and not complain about the selfishness of the holidays or secularization of Christmas or the removal of nativity scenes or the Easter Bunny. If the church refuses to recognize the reason these holidays existed in the first place, then one should not expect the culture to do so either. We must be careful not to lift these days up as better than the rest of the year, but we can still sing Christmas carols or "Up from the Grave He Arose" without doing that. We are clearly not saying this is Easter, Pentecost, or Christmas and the rest of the year are 'Ordinary Days'.

Third, and getting more into theological points now, these days are not kept or celebrated anything like they are in the Liturgical Calendar. There is no sense of Pentitential Purple at all? No fasting, no expiation, no removal of the Bible from the table of the Lord, no services of darkness. All of that is gone and not used. Instead, of Good Friday being somber and dark, it is ‘GOOD’! It is a day of feasting because of the goodness of God towards us. All of these days are kept as celebrations, not of some re-enactment of the sufferings and life of Jesus. Instead of having a season of penitence prior to Easter, we celebrate Easter and Good Friday. Instead of having Advent, a season of penitence, we celebrate Christmas! Not a minor difference.

Fourth, The Continental Reformed Tradition of Five Feast days recovers the days of Pentecost and Ascension Day. There were lots of blogs by Calendar supporters about Lent, but will anyone blog about Ascension Day? I grew up in a Liturgical Calendar church (United Methodist), and we celebrated Lent, we went to church on Ash Wednesday, we had Maundy Thursday, and we never missed Advent. But not once did we ever have an Ascension Day service. Not once. I don’t remember any Pentecost celebrations either, but there could have been. The point is, the Liturgical Calendar and churches put much more emphasis on the penitential parts of the Calendar than it does other days. This is not true with the five feast days.

Fifth, these five days remind us of foundational truths found in the Apostle’s Creed. The Apostle’s Creed speaks of ‘born of the Virgin Mary [Christmas], suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried [Good Friday], he descended into hell, the third day he rose from the dead [Easter], He ascended into heaven to sitteth at the right hand of God the Father [Ascension Day]” And it goes on to speak of the “The Holy Ghost” [Pentecost]. These are fundamental beliefs of the Christian. The Five Feast days just give us days to remember them. Like the memorial stones of the OT, they are their so we do not forget or take for granted.

Again, I do not think it should be required that a Church follow such things, but I do not think it scrapes against Protestant or Reformed Theology to celebrate them with a biblical worship service, and perhaps a meal afterwards for fellowship. I do believe there is a real difference in the theology that underpins these celebrations and the theology of the Liturgical Calendar. So go and have a good Ascension Day. It would be interesting to see how many actually had a service today.

It is that time of year again . . .

It is that time of year again when all the denominations get together for their respective meetings. I leave for Synod next week. This year looks rather tame compared to the last years and I am hopeful it will go smoothly.

However, other denominations do not look as smooth. The PCA has a report coming back about the Federal Vision and Rev. Jeff Meyers has posted 30 Reasons not to adopt the report. I will attempt to summarize his 30 reasons into a few.
1. The PCA is not Strict Subscription – points 1,2,10,11,12, 13, 15, 16, and 17. Meyers has a point here. It does appear to me that this report may have a hard time fitting in with the idea of ‘Good Faith Subscription’, but that is the bed the PCA made for themselves.
2. Disagreement with the conclusions of the report – points 9, 14, 20, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 (possibly 16) – This is a legitimate reason to vote against the report. The question is do people agree with him or not.
3. Sour Grapes and Church Politics – 3,4,5, and 6 – Rev. Meyers thinks a FV proponent should have been on the committee. I agree that it looks like a railroad by not having a FV man on a Study Committee, but this why you vote on things at the GA. If the report is wrong, vote it down. This is not a reason to vote against it, but the reason you have votes in the first place.
4. The Report is unconvincing – points 8, 18, and 19 – A legitimate reason to vote against the report if one agrees with his conclusion about the lack of meat in the report.
5. The Judicial Nature of the Study Committee – points 28 and 29 – A very good point. One I have made before as well. There are procedure and protections that exist (and rightfully so) in a judicial process that do not exist in a study committee. It seems odd to pretend that this is not part of a disciplinary procedure. This is clearly a great reason to vote against the formation of the committee, but is it a reason to vote against it now that it is created? A dilemma for sure.
6. Obviously inappropriate treatment – point 7 – This is sad, and I hope it is an oversight. It is against the Standing Rules in the RCUS not to turn in a Report 4 weeks prior to the Synod. How did this report not get into the Commissioners Handbook? Wow. A stunning development that is just inappropriate all around.
7. Because the conversation is good – point 30 – This is by far the worst of his reasons. It seems obvious that not all agree this conversation is good. The idea that a conversation is not a movement and thus it should allowed to continue is hard to fathom. I poor ending to an otherwise nice contribution to the debate by Rev. Meyers.

If you want a more critical and through treatment Green Baggins is going through them. I think he is up to Point 16. This has helped launch the firestorm that provoked responses from Mark Horne and Uri Brito. Just to name a few. While I am against the FV, I do think they have some legitimate complaints about the way the PCA has handled this situation. On the other hand, Mr. Brito has done his fair share of mistreating in his Senior Paper for Reformed Theological Seminary. Mr. Brito has managed to take the entire FV debate and throw it out the window as Personality Clashes, mainly by those anti-FV men like Green Baggins and John Robbins. The fact that the two sides cannot even agree that real differences exist between them really disappoints me. If you wondered why the RCUS no longer funds or supports RTS, look no further than the paper of Mr. Brito.

All in all, it will be a wild and strange few months. I thank God I am in the RCUS everyday.

More objections to the Liturgical Calendar

I have been discussing my objections to the Liturgical Year or Liturgical Calendar. I thought I would add a few much more general objections before discussing the Continental Reformed practice of Feast Days.

My first objection is that it de-emphasizes part of the year. Roughly half of the year is spent celebrating seasons of the church and the other half is called "ordinary time". Some denominations try to spice that up a little by calling it "kingdomtide", but the effect is the same. Church is just ordinary when it is not Advent or Lent or some other season. The special season have special colors, rituals, and celebrations all their own, and then ordinary time has only Sundays. It is simple human nature to see what the reaction to the non-seasonal aspects of the year will be. It will be looked down upon, or overlooked as people wait on the next season of the year. This is not a healthy view of Church life.

My second objection is that too much time is spent penitentially preparing and not enough time celebrating what we already have. Advent is a time to repent and prepare. Lent is a time to repent and prepare. Lent is 40 days plus Sundays, and Advent is over twenty-eight days counting Sundays. Christmas season is twelve days, and Eastertide is fifty days. However, Eastertide really only has Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost as the celebrations as opposed to Lent which has Holy Week (an event every day), Ash Wednesday, St. Patrick’s Day, and other days that are taken more seriously by Rome than by Protestants like the Annunciation. The focus of the year falls heavily on the penitential time of Lent and Advent. This sort of emphasis fits well with the Roman Catholic dogma, but does it have a place in Protestantism where we do not earn salvation but it is freely given?

A sub-point of my second objection is how this makes us view the Lord’s Day. Is it ever right to have the church covered in Penitential Purple on the day we celebrate the victory of Jesus Christ over the grave and over sin? Even though Lent does not require fasting on Sunday’s because it recognizes the inherent problems with such a position, the church is still focused on the teaching of Lent (penitence) during the Lord’s Day that fall during that time. Advent is the same way. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is to be celebrated every Sunday. I think legitimate concerns can be raised about the Liturgical Calendar and this point of doctrine and practice.

My third objection is the circular nature of the calendar is stale, artificial, and not the cycle God gave us. While I do not go as far as men like Hughes Oliphant Old who linked the Liturgical Calander with nature worship (Penitential mourning at Advent coincides with Winter, joyous celebration occurs with the return of Spring signaled by Easter), I do think the calendar does not follow the clear cycle set forth by God for us. The week is created for us to work six and worship one. This is clear-cut in the Scripture, and I believe undermined by the Calendar as Sundays are lowered beneath special days (maybe not in theory but often in practice). This combined with never ending cycle of preparing-brief celebration-nothing-preparing-brief celebration make me think the criticism of a stale worship falls both ways at least.

A fourth and final objection is the nature of the Post-Pentecost Church. The Liturgical Calendar is focused on reliving the Incarnation, Suffering, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. While no one disagrees those are important points of the Gospel, the question is whether or not we are to relive them as a church over and over again. While Old Testament Israel was set up on a series of feasts and festivals, the New Testament church is never given such commands or examples. Pentecost comes and the Church is now for all nations and is free from those OT festivals because they are fulfilled in Christ. One of the main differences between the Liturgical Calendar and the Non-Calendar position is the idea of a Post-Pentecost church. The Calendar relives the life of Christ every year while the Non-Calendar lives in the Spirit every week. What I mean by that is that church that does not follow the Calendar is free to follow the Spirit’s guidance, to preach on whatever seems important, focus on specific issues, respond to needs, and celebrate the life and death and resurrection from the dead of Christ how it sees fit. I think this is an important difference between the Liturgical Calendar and non-Calendar churches.

Evolutionists at War

Just in case you do not think that Evolutionists are in an all out war to keep their position of power in the scientific community take a look at the well calculated propaganda on Wikipedia. The Evolution page is nice and free from criticism for the most part. It has a few links to its debates with Creationism and other detractors, but no real disagreement on the page. Now take a look at the Intelligent Design Page. Every thing they believe is accompanied by longer refutations. Much of it is also linked to creationism, and shameless attempts to slander Intelligent Design scientists. Notice the page is locked from editing so no one can mess up the masterpiece. If you proceed to their Talk Page you will not only a lively defense being mounted by Evolutionists, but also that the Intelligent Design page has been rated as one of the best in all of Wikipedia. Creation Science does not fare much better.

The Anti-American Media

Ever wonder if the media really hates America? Well, there is a real easy test coming up soon. Just watch your favorite news show and see how much coverage the 400 Anniversary of the first English settlement in America receives. You can start today by seeing how much coverage the Queen of England gets as she commemorates Jamestown on tonight's news.

I am not holding my breath for a very good response from MSNBC.

Holy Week Celebrations

Holy Week is the last part and the culmination of Lent. It should be mentioned that according to the Liturgical Calendar, Easter is the beginning of a distinct section from Lent. Holy Week is a term that in and of itself should give us problems.

Palm Sunday is the beginning of Holy Week. This is where the triumphal entry is re-enacted as the congregation parades in waving palm branches (or a variant depending on the availability of palms). I have often wondered why this is a day the church celebrates in such a fashion. After all, Jesus wept when he saw the Hebrews waving their palms in the air because he knew their praises false and empty. Why would the church want to re-enact such a thing. Let us not forget that the palms are considered sacramentals just like the ashes for Ash Wednesday.

Maundy Thursday is the next big day in the Holy Week celebration. It is the day of the institution of the Last Supper, so the churches gather together and take communion or Mass. Many churches also practice foot washing at this particular service. All of the extra communion bread and wine are kept for the Good Friday service (at least in the Roman church) because no consecration of the bread is allowed on Good Friday. The notable ending to the Maundy Thursday service is usually the stripping of the altar bare. Everything is removed.

Good Friday services and Holy Saturday are usually services devoid of communion. Any communion taken on Good Friday had to be left over from Maundy Thursday, and usually the main event is an unveiling of a crucifix as the only adornment on the walls. All the other things were removed at the conclusion of the Maundy Thursday service. Holy Saturday services usually forbid the taking of communion and all liturgy. They are centered around prayer vigils awaiting the Easter morning. Just for some perspective John Armstrong blogged about Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday this year as a time of worship that involves body and mind.

Again, my opposition to the Holy Week is the underlying purpose of Holy Week and its special celebrations. No, I do not think the purpose of Holy Week is to remember the death of Christ. Don’t we do that more often than once a year? The purpose for Holy Week is to prepare for Easter, but to prepare by re-enacting the end of the life of Christ. In case you disagree notice how Greg Grant feels when a Christ candle is reintroduced during a Tenebrae service. The re-enacting the life of Christ fits with the message of expiation from our sins of Lent. Not only does it fit it teaches it. It is built into the rituals of Holy Week. Read the Duke Divinity school online article. Notice how the Hatians were "bodily participating" in the suffering of Christ, and more importantly:

they knew that it was somehow wrong to listen to words proclaiming the death of Christ while resting comfortably.

Why on earth would it be wrong to listen to death of Christ in physical comfort? The answer is that there is something important about the suffering you inflict upon yourself. Not unlike the monks who flogged themselves for their sin. No liturgy is offered on Holy Saturday because as Father Cusick explains:

No liturgy is celebrated on Holy Saturday, for Christ's Church cannot pray except through the living Christ.

What? We have no living Christ? Does not this take the re-enactment of the last week of Christ’s life to far and miss the glory that we have living on this side of the Resurrection? I think the obvious answer is yes, unless all of this is part of a ritual package that focuses on penance and expiation of one’s sins that somehow needs to relive the sufferings of Christ every year.

The idea of penance, expiation, Lent, and Holy Week are bound together. Protestant churches that practice these things with the same rituals do nothing to free themselves from such teachings. Take a look again at the practices of more Roman Catholic countries at the bottom of the Holy Week page. The self-flagellation and suffering in order to do penance is astounding, and should not be dismissed as besides the point. If one thinks that this is still not part of the make up of Lent itself then a few questions need to be answered? Why does Lent have to involve giving up something hard to give up? Why cannot it not be 40 days of praying more or going to church more, but giving up nothing? Why is it not promising to watch 40 movies with religious themes, or spiritual themes? Why is it not just a prescribed set of Bible readings? Why does the preparation for Easter involve suffering at all? Why is the Good Friday service austere? Should we not celebrate the death of Jesus Christ as a good thing? The same can be said of Holy Saturday. I hope Protestants will think more seriously about taking on these type services. They are becoming more and more common, and I am not sure the church is reflecting enough upon these matters. Even if one disagrees with me surely we can agree that real thought and dialogue needs to take place prior to taking on these practices.