Is the Vice President Part of the Legislative Branch?

Keith Olbermann, a political hack rejected by Sportscenter posing as a newsman, proved his stupidity even more the other night in his attacks on Vice President Cheney. Olbermann’s attacks stated that Vice President Cheney was taking a position no one had ever taken before that the Vice President’s office was part of the legislative branch, not the executive branch. Sadly Rep. Ron Emmanuel agreed stating that no one in history has ever thought that. So permit me a minute to correct Keith Olbermann with a small history lesson because, while I think the Vice President is playing dirty pool, I think his office is the head of the legislative branch, and not part of the executive branch.

First, just look at the Constitution prior to amendments. The Vice President is first mentioned in Article 1 Section 3 paragraph 4 and 5, a fact Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley forgot on Olbermann’s show. Here the Constitution is speaking about the Legislative Branch, and specifically the make up of the Senate. The Vice President is the President of the Senate. The President Pro-Tempore serves in the absence of the Vice President or if the Vice President is serving as the President, in other words, if the Vice President becomes the Executive Branch, he is removed from his job over the Legislative Branch. The Vice President is mentioned again Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 1 when it states the Vice President’s term is the same four year term as the President. Now notice the section prior to the amendments. Part of section 1 has been changed because of amendment 12. Originally the Vice President was the person who finished second in the race for the White House, not a person on the same ticket. The Vice President and President were not joined in anyway. They were not thought to be a unit. They were separate. This created problems and led to the 12th Amendment joining them onto a single ballot, but the Senate still retained the right to choose the Vice President in an event of a lack of a majority of electors because the Vice President is the head of the Senate. Note also the President of the Senate reads the electoral votes. That means the Vice President reads the votes. The Constitution refers to the Vice President as the President of the Senate indicating where his job should fall. In the Legislative Branch.

Second, notice that the original Constitution says nothing about what happens when a President dies or is removed from office. We have one blurb about the Vice President not being the President of the Senate if he must "exercise the Office of President of the United States." It is not explained anywhere further. We take for granted today that if a President dies in office that the Vice President becomes the President and finishes the term. That was not placed into the Constitution until the 25th Amendment in 1967. It was assumed because of the political genius of Vice President Tyler, who declared himself to be the President for the rest of Harrison’s term without clear Constitutional precedent. There were people in the House that did not believe that Tyler had that right. They thought the Vice President served as a place holder until a special election for President could be held. Eight people in the Senate and more in the House voted against the idea that the Vice President becomes the President. Tyler helped solidify in our minds the idea that the Vice President belongs to the executive, but it was a controversial thing when Tyler tried to become the chief executive.

Third, the Vice Presidents did not always go on foreign good will missions as they do today, but they actually sat and ran the Senate. John C. Calhoun, Vice President for both Adams (the second one) and Jackson, seems to have enjoyed the job of running the Senate. He allowed personal attacks in speeches by political friends and called down political enemies as being out of order. John Adams (the first one), Vice President for Washington, hated the job because he found it tedious and boring. These men had no executive jobs at all. Their sole job was to run the Senate, and vote there when needed. Even today the Vice President has no official executive job to do. They do not even get to be Commander-in-Chief of the Coast Guard.

Fourth, cabinet positions were also not always assumed to be part of the executive branch. Specifically the Secretary of Treasury reported directly to the House of Representatives since that branch is given control of the pursue strings. The Senate censured President Andrew Jackson when he directed Secretary of Treasury Roger Taney to remove the government deposits from the Second Bank of the United States. The reason was that the Secretary of Treasury did not have authority to do that without Congressional approval. Taney was also a recess appointment, who was then defeated, because the first Secretary of Treasury refused to remove the deposits on account of the fact that he believed Congress had to order him to do it, and not the President.

These are just a few of the facts that are easily discoverable by any decent journalist or Constitutional Law Professor. I do believe the Vice President belongs to the Legislative Branch, and I think the founders viewed his job as in the Legislative area as well. One might could argue that subsequent amendments have changed that, but what one cannot do, is pretend that the claims of Vice President Cheney are ridiculous.

Moral Outrage

I have been thinking lately about the complete lack of moral outrage in the culture anymore. I am not just talking about the lack of moral outrage for millions of children aborted in this country, but the lack of moral outrage for law-breaking and murder in general.
Let me explain, how this post came about. I admit up front that I am a huge wrestling fan. However, this post is not about wrestling, just keep reading. Recently the best wrestler in the business today, Chris Benoit, apparently murdered his family before committing suicide. Now people are always shocked by things like this, but what irked me is the underlying drug culture this exposes. There is absolutely no moral outrage for drugs in this culture even when they end up killing people. Take a look at the article and see the chairman of the WWE, Vince McMahon, denied that steroids and the large amount of prescription drug use may have contributed to this abomination. Why would a company deny that steroids are bad and can cause ‘roid rages’? McMahon also sanctimoniously proclaimed that Benoit’s name would never be uttered again on WWE shows. Now, I agree Benoit is a killer, and that is disgusting. However, I think Vince McMahon is partly to blame as he obviously encourages the use of pain killers and steroids. Just take a look at the evidence. Sports Illustrated has uncovered wide spread drug use by wrestlers, including Eddie Guerro who died from them. Take a look at this list of wrestlers who died from drug related problems. Now remember that these are only the big name wrestlers who died. The list does not include those busted for drug use like Scott Hall, Lex Luger, and Chris Masters to name a few. The list does not include those who are relative unknowns trying to make it in the business and die as well. If that were not enough evidence of an endemic drug culture remember that court documents prove McMahon distributed steroids to his wrestlers in the past. Yet, do we see moral outrage in the covering of this death? Are there questions about steroids everywhere? No. Somehow, the business of steroids in our athletes goes away again.
Now, I think this goes far beyond just wrestling. Baseball is about the only sport where people are actually angry about steroid use. And even then it took the Sports Writers years to break the story. Plus, it turns out that amphetamines are chewed like M&Ms in baseball locker rooms, but not one Sports Writer ever thought this would make a good story? Baseball MVP Ken Caminitti died from drugs after admitting to using steroids. Yet, the writers stayed silent and the union members stayed silent. Where was the moral outrage? Don’t even get me started on the the world of professional boxing. The National Football League is even worse. Now, Chris Collinsworth was my favorite player growing up and he is my favorite announcer today. But this article shows just how stupid sports writers are when it comes to this stuff. Collinsworth touts how tough the NFL steroid policy is because you get suspended 4 games (roughly 25% of the year) for taking steroids. A second offense equals 6 games (37% of the year). A third nets one whole year. Wow. Tough stuff. Except of course a person can miss 4 games because of taking illegal steroids and still be considered the best defensive player in football, make the pro-bowl and be eligible for all the post season award, which is where the bonus money kicks in for many player contracts. Why is missing 25% of one season considered tough by writers? The football teams do not forfit the games they won why their top player was cheating with drugs. Why is not, ‘you get caught with steroids one time, and you are out for at least a year.’ Is a four game suspension tantamount to being against drugs, or is it really an enticement to take drugs? Collinsworth thinks that a four game suspension compares favorably to the Olympic Track and Field. While I have no doubt that Olympic standards are not up to date enough to discover who is taking drugs, the policy for Track and Field is a multi-year suspension for one offense, and a life time ban for the second. Plus, Track and Field has mandatory testing at every race compared to the 10% chance of the random test in the NFL. Now, who has the tougher policy? Collinsworth does not show us moral outrage, but rather a covering for his sport that pays his salary.
Leaving the world of sports for a minute, think about Hollywood. I remember great moral outrage at Mel Gibson for making racially unacceptable comments, but does anyone even remember what he was doing when he made those comments? Yes, that is right, driving and speeding while intoxicated. Think how many people check into drug rehab in Hollywood a year. Brittany Spears and Lindsay Lohan have been multiple times in this calendar year. The media covers it as a funny story, but these are people’s lives. The people our culture holds up and celebrates are almost all on drugs and we wink and look the other way. Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley died from drug use, so it is nothing new. I honestly believe one reason that Scientology is so big in Hollywood is its stance against drugs. Most of these movie stars need help, and that particular cult offers them some.

In summary, I think Christ Benoit is responsible for his sinful actions. I also think the employer who provides deadly mind altering drugs share creating an environment of drug use deserve some blame. So too do the people who stayed silent for so long about the drug use rampant in our nations sports. Finally, the culture at large that puts drug use right up there with loitering on the scale of bad things to do also deserves blame.

Denominational Unity, the Gospel, and Historiography

I want to post one more interaction with Alastair on the subject of Denominational unity that I began in this last post. The most recent post by Alastair illustrates well the difference between Alastair’s view of the church and God’s work in history, and mine, as well as illustrating a few troubling points about the Schaff-like historiography followed by Alastair.

First the difference this post illuminates is one of ecumenism. If the idea is that the church breaks apart and then builds back up with a greater understanding then one must look for a way to build back up the breaking down that has occurred in the fracturing of denominations. One must even find a way to build back up the broken relationship between Protestants and Rome. Alastair does just that through finding a definition of the term ‘gospel’ that can include both Rome and Geneva. Alastair claims:

All of this said, the gospel is not primarily a message about how individuals can go to heaven when they die, but is the proclamation of the advent of God’s kingdom in history.

Thus, Alastair can advocate unity around the gospel and dismiss the differences between how one gets to heaven in the Roman church and the Protestant churches. Now, I am not saying that Alastair does not care about justification by faith. I am not saying that Alastair denies justification by faith alone. I do not want to be misquoted. What I believe Alastair is saying is that we ought not to view a denial of justification by faith alone as a denial of the gospel.

I should take a minute and state that I do agree with Alastair that the term ‘gospel’ is much broader than just individual salvation. I do think it is about the Kingdom of God, the King Jesus, and about the triumph of the kingdom in the end when all are judged. But, I do think this includes the idea of salvation. After all a message about a heavenly kingdom without a message of how to get into the kingdom is hardly good news. Jesus in John 3 is amazed when Nicodemus does not know how to see and enter the kingdom. Thus the message of being born again in fundamental to the message of the kingdom.

Second, I think one of the troubling points about Alastair’s view of history rears its head in this post. Alastair earlier claimed that looking back in history for guidance is wrong because that church was less mature. In this post, Alastair advocates going back to Early Church Creed and their definition of the gospel. Although not stated, I believe it is a logical conclusion that Alastair believe in a unity based on the Ecumenical Creeds of the Early Church as do men like Andrew Sandlin. The inconsistency between the statements really needs to be addressed. If the early church was a less mature church, why should we use their definition of gospel? I should state here that I disagree with Alastair about the definition of the gospel in the early church creeds. Alastair claims the early creeds define the gospel as about the Kingdom coming in Christ, who fulfilled Scripture, and delivered his people from the present evil age. I am not going to enter into a long interaction with the Early Creeds, I simply do not believe the creeds in question set out to define the gospel. All of the early creeds were written to address specific heresies that had arisen. The Apostle’s Creed is the only possible exception and it was written to be a baptismal confession, not a definition of the gospel.

Still, the one question remains for Alastair and those who follow that line of thinking. If the church is maturing as time passes why argue for unity based on the lowest common denominator? Why argue for unity based on the most immature statements (according to their historiography) that exist? Why not argue for unity only on the basis of the latest theological development and level of maturity? Alastair’s view of history drives him to view innovations in theology as steps forward, as growing maturity. Yet, his view of history also pushes him to rebuild what has been broken, such as the unity of the church, anyway possible. Alastair and those with him need to claim unity based on the past and wisdom of the past all while asking us to put away the wisdom of the past and embrace the new, mature thinking.

I for one would rather have a different view of history. One that embraces history, embraces unity on the basics of Christianity that have been embraced throughout all ages of the church, and sees the Church created in full maturity just as God created Adam and Eve and the whole world as a fully mature world.

Handed Over and Delivered - Response to Alastair

Alastair has posted his thoughts on denominationalism in a couple of posts. His enlightening post is well thought out and worth a read to anyone interested in history or ecumenism. I do think that his post highlights some points of disagreement that I think the church as a whole should discuss more carefully. It concerns the nature of the church, and it serves as the spring board and foundation for the rest of Alastair’s posts. He begins with this:

When Christ founded His Church, He founded it to be a growing and maturing, rather than a static and unchanging entity. Primitivist ecclesiologies are suspect for this reason. The NT pattern of the Church is normative in certain respects, but is designed to be outgrown in others. Christ wants His Church to become more glorious with age and a reversion to the more simple worship and structures of a past age can be a step in the wrong direction.

Here Alastair clearly gives us his view of the church. The church was created immature and in need of growth or sanctification, if you will. The church we see in the NT, and OT for that matter, are normative and a guide but meant to be left behind like a child leaves behind print for cursive writing.

Alastair continues by giving us his view of history.

In the OT we see God directing the flow of history for the purpose of maturing His covenant people. He moulds and transforms His people through a number of powerful events and experiences. He builds up His people and then breaks them down, in order that they might be refashioned into something newer and more mature.

I agree that God directs the flow of history, and that history is about the covenant people of God. What I disagree with is the view of history that Alastair carefully unfolds in the rest of his post. I do not believe the pattern of the Bible is one of breaking down in order to build up into something bigger and better as if the church were 6 Million-Dollar Man who was broken down, but rebuilt into something better.

What I am arguing for is a view of the church that sees the church as the center piece of history, but does not see the church as fundamentally immature or in need of growing and maturing. I believe that God has given the Church all it needs in Christ and the Spirit. We do not need to mature past the apostles. Instead, we should imitate them as they imitate Christ, to paraphrase Paul. God’s direction of history is not one of breaking down in order to rebuild it better and more mature, but the history of the church is one of God ‘Handing Over and Delivering.’ This is the pattern I see laid out in the Bible, perhaps no where more clearly than in the book of Judges. The people (read the church) did what was right in their own eyes (read abandoned God), and God handed them over to their enemies. Then the people cried out to God (read repented and returned to God), and he sent them a deliverer. Then came peace until the people repeated step one. Some interaction with Alastair’s biblical work here is in order. Alastair argues:

He reforms the people under the leadership of Moses and elders and then later forms them into a priestly nation around the worship of the tabernacle. He settles them in the land as a group of tribes under the leadership of judges. Later He breaks apart this order in various ways. The tabernacle order is gradually dismantled and a united kingdom is formed under Saul and David. God later causes the kingdom to be split and begins to form new communities around the prophets. . . . Through this process the people of God changed radically and became something quite different from what they were at first.

With respect I disagree. First, I do not think this completely fits with the history given to us in the Bible. I agree that Moses and elders ran Israel, but I disagree that they were removed or that the forming of Israel into a priestly nation removed the elders from leadership at all. Do we not see Joshua rule with the elders of Israel (Joshua 23:2, Judges 2:7)? Not just elders but judges as well (Joshua 24:1). The Judges do not replace the elders of Israel either as we see them operate (Judges 11:5, 21:16, Ruth 4:4). We even see the elders during the United Kingdom (1 Samuel 15:30, 2 Samuel 3:17, 1 Kings 8:1). Even in the Divided Kingdom we see the elders (2 Kings 23:1). I fail to see the breaking down of this order at all.

Second, I do not think Alastair’s proposition does justice to the proclamation of God about one of these changes. Listen to what Samuel says when they end the time of Judges and institute the time of the United Kingdom. "But you have today rejected your God, who Himself saved you from all your adversities and your tribulations" (1 Samuel 10:19). This hardly sounds like a beneficial breaking down of an old order to be replaced with a new one of deeper trials and knowledge of oneself and of God. In fact, this appears to fit my understanding of ‘Handing Over and Delieverance’. Read the entire speech of Samuel at the coronation of Saul in 1 Samuel 12. He recounts the way God Handed Over and Delivered, and then goes on to say, "If you fear the LORD and serve Himi and obey His voice, and do not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then both you and the king who reigns over you will continue following the LORD your God. However, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, the hand of the LORD will be against you, as it was against your fathers" (I Samuel 12:14-15)

Third, I think there could be confusion in Alastair’s argument between the Church and the Kingdom of Israel. As we all agree both a state and a church existed in OT Israel. The government of the state changed, but the government of the church did not. Neither the judges nor the kings had any priestly role. They did not offer sacrifices, nor did they operate the tabernacle nor the temple. The few times that we see the political leaders interfere in the church, we see God condemn it as sin. Gideon and Uzziah come to mind as good examples. Saul murdering the priests also serves as a good illustration that the Kingdom of Israel and the Church were not one and the same. How the unfolding of a different form of government for the state of Israel leads to a radical growth for the church needs to be explained before Alastair’s theory can be adopted.

One might be wondering how does this affect anything. Well, I think the difference between Alastair’s model of a Church Growing into Maturity and my model of a Church going through ‘Handing-Over and Deliverance’ has several implications. Not the least of which is a rejection of Alastair’s argument that "a reversion to the more simple worship and structures of a past age can be a step in the wrong direction". When the church repents and is Delivered, they are returning to the Faith once delivered to all the Saints, not growing into a newer more mature understanding of themselves and God. The problem with the church and with us is sin, not immature ignorance. Again look at the book of Judges. The people sinned by whoring with false gods, and what they needed is to repent and return to the one true God. No development can be seen in their theology after each of these experiences. Look at David in I Samuel 11-12 and Psalm 32 and 51. David did not need to mature and learn something new about God, he just needed to return to God and repent of his sin. David knew adultery was sin. All Israel knew adultery was a sin. Yet David sinned, was Handed Over and repented and was Delivered. The same pattern that I believe runs through the pages of both the Old and New Testaments. Alastair applies his view:

If we truly believe that God’s guidance of history hasn’t ceased and that He is still moulding and forming, breaking down and reforming, His people through historical events we will have new perspectives with which to view these sorts of events.

I do believe that God continues to guide his church, but I do not follow the ‘Breaking down in order to mold into something better’ paradigm. Thus, Alastair and I are going to evaluate Church History through a completely different lens. Alastair’s paradigm makes him reject the idea that the Reformation was simply a rejection of false innovations in doctrine and practice and a return to a more Biblical model of the church. Such a view for Alastair is too simplistic, and reality is more complex. On the other hand, if Alastair’s historiography is wrong, then so too is his understanding of the Protestant-Rome split during the Reformation. Thus, the debate about the Reformation, future Ecumenism between Rome and Protestantism, as well as any denomination is wrapped up in one’s view and understanding of history. Sadly, many of the modern debates (like Federal Vision) are underpinned by differing historiographies. It is a subject that really could use more debate, refinement, and discussion. I know that I could sure use it.

The Voice of the Church

An interesting side debate has now occurred after the PCA adopted its report. Should the Federal Vision adherents leave the PCA because they should have a high view of church authority? Rev. Lane Kiester is one of those who thinks they ought to just leave the PCA now they know they are not welcome. Alastair argues that men ought to stay because the PCA and/or OPC do not represent the church universal. I have to disagree with both of them.

Rev. Kiester argues that if one has a high regard for the church, then he would either repent or leave the church. While I agree with the idea of repenting, leaving the church if one is not convinced is not necessarily an action I advocate. J. Greshem Machen did not leave the liberal PCUSA. He tried to change it from within, and was eventually disciplined out. According to Rev. Kiester, Machen must have had a low view of the church because he did not repent, and he did not leave.

On the other hand, Alastair, tries to argue that because so many denominations exist we cannot treat any one of them as if it were the Church capital C. Alastair seems to think that this was not the case in generations past because he states, “we cannot simply take the ecclesiologies of previous generations and apply them directly to the local denominational congregations that we attend.” Thus, Alastair seems to argue that in the ‘olden’ days the pronouncements of a church meant something because their were not denominations. With all due respect for Alastair, I think there were always denominations. The first heretic, Marcion, is excommunicated by his father, but received in Rome and there he leads many astray. Marcion ‘churches’ are everywhere by the end of the 2nd century as are Monatnist churches. Some areas had a ‘Catholic’ church, a Marcion church and a Montanist church. How is this different than the current situation? But surely we would not argue that all three of those ‘churches’ would have to speak with one accord to say the Church spoke? Even if we leave off the history of heretics, we can still see proto-denominations. Take the case of Cyprian. He avoided martyrdom, faced harsh criticism from the Bishop of Rome no less, but he refused to say that was the Church speaking and went about his own business. Is that not a denominational spirit in the second century? Alastair’s argument is what the Patriarchs of the East said for centuries. They claimed the Church as a whole could not speak unless everyone agreed. It led to wide differences between the East and the West long before open schism occurred in 1054. That does not speak well for the existence of church wide counsels either because the Robber Council of Ephesus had wide approval, but was eventually overturned. The Seventh Ecumenical Council had the agreement of all the Patriarchs, including the Pope, but was outright ignored by the vast majority of the churches because of the influence of Charlemagne and the Franks. Is that not a proto-denominationalism even in the 8th century? Alastair’s formula means the Church never speaks, ever. Such a situation is hard to countenance.

Thus, I believe the answer is to be found in discipline, rather than pronouncements. Alastair is right in thinking that the study committees of the PCA, the OPC, and even the RCUS do not equal the church of Christ speaking to all the other denominations out there. I personally would have a hard time thinking that a study committee of the CRE constituted the voice of the Church. I also regularly ignore the pronouncements of women being preachers made by the PCUSA, the UMC, the UCC, many Baptist churches, the TEC, and several other denominations that probably have more membership than the Reformed churches. I do believe that the church does speak, and that is through godly discipline rather than study committees. Lane is right that when your own denomination speaks, one ought to listen very, very carefully. However, the way the church speaks on such matters as the FV is discipline, not study committees. Lane is correct that passing the study committee at GA was a victory, but was it the church speaking? At least three presbyteries of the PCA have vindicated the FV, or at least portions of it through study committees and/or trials. Does the study committee at GA somehow trump the voice of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery that actually examined a man? Or the Louisiana Presbytery? Does it mean the Missouri Presbytery’s committee report is no longer valid or perhaps even out of bounds? Did the OPC report reverse the decision Kinnaird case? The bible shows us over and over again that the church speaks through its godly discipline. It spoke on the Judaizers at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. They spoke about lying in Acts 5. They spoke on Simon Magus when Peter and John pronounced upon him in Acts 8. Discipline is the voice of the church in matters of doctrinal deviation. I think if the PCA and OPC have spoken, it is at best a speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Admittedly discipline cases are pending in the PCA. That decision will be the PCA speaking, not this report. I should also point out that the discipline of the church must be consistent and applied to more than one person. I think I do not need to remind the Presbyterians of Charles Augustus Briggs, and what happened after he was the only one removed from office.

I commend the PCA for its acceptance of the report, but I encourage them to press on. They are not finished until they use the Biblical power of the keys to truly speak on this issue.

Literal reading and the Senses of Scripture

An interesting discussion has taken place that I would like to comment upon. Alastair commented on an article written by Matt of Fragmenta, who was responding to Peter Leithart. Basically, Rev. Leithart is saying that we cannot find the meaning of Scripture in the author’s intent because it is unrecoverable, but we also cannot disassociate meaning from the author’s intent because that leads to pure chaos. Leithart’s answer is to:

address this, medievally, by complicating what we mean by "sense." After all, linking sense to authorial intent is only a problem if there is only one sense. If there are multiple senses, then one of them might be a direct expression of the author's intention without committing us to saying that all of them are.

Matt objects to the idea of multiple meanings saying that proliferating the meanings only gets in the way.

Alastair defends Rev. Leithart by adding:

Whilst the original meaning of the text is always important and should not be lost sight of, the meaning of the text is far greater than its original meaning. I appreciate the value and importance of such readings of Scripture that Matt speaks of. However, important as such readings of the Scriptures are, it was not the approach adopted by the apostles, who habitually interpreted the OT in a manner that placed the accent on the multiple senses that went beyond the original sense and occasionally even appeared to run contrary to it.

As a follower of Grammatical-Historical Exegesis, which Leithart and Alastair find wanting, and a rejecter of the New Perspectives on Paul, which Matt seems to favor, I thought I would add my two measly cents.

First, I am not against the idea of ‘senses’ to Scripture, nor is the method of grammatical-historical exegesis. Louis Berkhof even speaks of a mystical sense of Scripture in his Principles of Biblical Interpretation. There are passages that point us to Christ in the OT. Abraham sacrificing Isaac for example. This is a legitimate meaning of the text despite the fact that Christ is no where ‘literally’ mentioned in the text. The Bible contains symbols and types that can only be called a mystical sense that goes above a literal sense.

Second, I am against the idea that every text has a mystical sense to it. Not every text is a type or contains some hidden non-literal meaning. Elisha calling down the bears on the disrespectful children is not some sort of strange type, nor is Nehemiah striking the children that speak foreign tongues.

Third, the mystical sense has to be grounded in the literal sense. Alastair is right that we find texts that seem to place a priority on the mystical (spiritual may be a better word, but I am sticking with the common term) meaning, but I disagree that it ever runs contrary to the literal or even appear to run that way. Jesus in John 6 points to the deeper meaning of the his feeding of the 5,000, but that meaning is based on the action of feeding the 5,000. Galatians 4:22-31 speaks of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. However, that passage makes no sense at all if the literal understanding of the Abrahamic story is not there.

Thus, here are my concerns with what was said. Rev. Leithart seems to argue for a Medieval understanding of the senses of Scripture. It actually seems to be a running theme. What I have argued for in my three points above is that the Scripture does have a mystical sense that is grounded in the literal sense and that grammatical-historical methodology can discover it. Basically Scripture interprets Scripture. That is not the Medieval methodology. Nor, I would add, the New Perspective methodology. The Medieval way of looking at Scripture is that every passage has multiple senses. The literal sense is barely even a touch stone for the other two or three senses. Hugo of St. Victor said, "Learn first what you should believe, and then go to the Bible to find it there." This is what worries me about the discussion. One can argue for types and symbols in the OT or in the NT without having to argue for Medieval exegesis. Let me just give you a concrete example of what we are talking about.

Bernard of Clairvaux, who wrote my favorite hymn of all time and is a figure I actually like, gives us this nugget of exegesis from Song of Solomon 1:17, which reads, “the beams of our houses are cedar, and our panels are of cypress”(according to the Latin version used by Bernard). His exegesis of the verse:

By ‘houses’ we are to understand the great mass of the Christian people, who are bound together with those who posses power and dignity, rulers of the church and the state, as ‘beams’. These hold them together by wise and firm laws; otherwise, if each of them were to operate I nany way that they pleased, the walls would bend and collapse, and the whole house would fall in ruins. By the ‘panels’, which are firmly attached to the beams and which adorn the house in a royal manner, we are to understand the kindly and ordered lives of a properly instructed clergy, and the proper administration of the rites of the church. Yet how can the clergy carry out their work, or the church discharge her duties, unless the princes, like strong and solid beams, sustain them through their goodwill and munificence, and protect them through their power?

That is what the Medieval men mean by ‘another sense’ of Scripture, and that is not what I mean. I sincerely hope that is not what Rev. Leithart is arguing for, but by throwing around the term’Medieval’ and others arguing that the mystical sense can appear to contradict the literal, I fear it is.

Multiple Book Reviews

My wife has brought it to my attention that I have been neglectful of my book reviews. It has been sometime since I did one, so this one will have to encompass many books, and it will sadly not encompass all of the books I meant to review.

Let us just start with history. I just finished two books from the American Presidents Series. The first, John Quincy Adams by Robert Remini was an exceptional book. As with all of Mr. Remini’s work it is educational and easy to read. Despite the fact that Remini is a Jackson, Clay and Webster scholar, his work on Adams is fair and even handed. Unlike some of the other books in this series it is more like a true biography rather than just an examination of the Presidency of John Q. Adams. It is still short to fit the format for the series and would easily mastered by a high school student if one so chose to use it. The book deals with why John Q. Adams did not go into the Federalist Party as well as the Corrupt Bargain and the return to Congress of the former President. While I think that Mr. Remini takes a few unnecessary shots at the strict parenting of both Abagail Adams of John Q, and John Q of his children, all in all the book is very good.

The second book in that series I read was Marting Van Buren by Ted Widmer. This book was a fascinating glimpse into the founder of the two party system. It too follows Van Buren though his whole political career rather than just his Presidency, and it even takes time to examine the causes of things that affected Van Buren such as the sudden rise in the slavery debate during the 1830’s and the Panic of 1837. The style of Mr. Widmer is much more flamboyant than Mr. Remini. He seems to enjoy a good lofty metaphor, fancy introductions, and the odd ball quotes that drive his point home. Oddly enough it means that Davy Crockett gets quite a few quotes in a book about Van Buren. The book does give a good picture of the forgotten 8th President, and includes many trivia facts as well such as the origin of the word OK. OK was the abbreviation used for Old Kinderhook (even President Van Buren used it about himself). It was then equated with ‘oll korrect’, a slang way of saying ‘all right.’ Thus, if one was for President Van Buren he was OK in that he was for Old Kinderhook and all right. That is the origin of the now common word. Something to file away in your memory banks.

I of course read more than just historical biographies. A few books that had been recommended in past issues of World Magazine finally found their way to my bookshelf courtesy of birthday gifts. Why Johnny Cannot Tell Right From Wrong: Moral Illiteracy and The Case for Character Education, by William Kilpatrick, analyzes the ways in which Public Education destroys the moral reasoning of children. The format and name of this book derive from an earlier book explaining Why Johnny Can’t Read. That book explores the affects of removing phonics from school and replacing it with the See and Say Method. This book examines the consequences of removing Character Education and replacing it with Moral Reasoning or Decision Making. The numbers seem to back his analysis up. Suicides have risen 300% among teenagers in the past 30 years, 21% of all public school kids avoid the bathrooms at school (I was one of that group) out of fear. More disturbing is that despite the frequent use of contraceptives 1.1 million teenagers became pregnant in 1991. The number is not declining. Approximately 40% 14 year-old girls will become pregnant by the time they are 19. The number one concern of teachers in America is behavior problems. Back when the schools followed the Character Education method in 1950 the number one concern of teachers was reading. He has some disturbing illustrations, and if you think this is not going on in your school, I suggest you read this book. Still, the author is convinced that Public Schooling is acceptable if we just do it right. That is a conclusion that I am not sure is justified. It is not written from a Christian Worldview so the idea of whether or not Christian values should be inculcated and what happens when the values taught are not the values of the parents do not make the cut in this book. A sad deficiency. Still the book is worth a read, and it contains a list of good books to read to your kids in the back.

The Party of Death by Ramesh Pnnuru of National Review is even more interesting. It is not for the faint of heart. If you are against abortion or euthanasia this book will probably make you sick and then overwhelmingly angry. The tone of the book is just right. It is exposing like a good journalist expose, but not insulting like Ann Coulter. It destroys the arguments of the Party of Death, which is defined not as Democrats but as anyone who supports abortion, and goes into the Stem Cell debate as well. It is a very up to date book that stops just short of the Democratic Mid Term victory. The book is a must read. I do quibble with some of his suggestion for how to proceed in the fight against the Party of Death, but that is a very minor criticism. My main problem with his suggestions is that it is political, and not directed at the masses. A good quote from Martin Van Buren should be inserted here to sum up my feelings about the situation.

Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude. The first is the resource of intrigue and produces only secondary results, the second is the resort of genius and transforms the universe.

I also have finished most of Jay Adams’s Shepherding God’s Flock. This book really should have been required reading in a Pastoral Theology Classes at seminary, but it was not. It has great information and is very detailed as Jay Adams is want to do. It contains information on how to do Home Visits and what to look for when candidating at a church. Very useful, very practical. It does contain the theories of Jay Adams as well, but that is not the focus of the book. For example, Jay Adams is convinced that Home Visitation is not the same as Pastoral Visitation and Shepherding. Adams has always been big on the Counseling from the Pulpit, and much of that emphasis can be seen in this book. So, if someone has a problem with some of Adams Pastoral theories, this book will need to be read in that light. I think that it would still be helpful just for all of the wonderful details like where to sit during a visit and not to get caught in new conversations after you are planning on leaving. The advice is often things that new pastors do not think out before being thrown into having to do it. For that reason alone, I found this book helpful.

One final note for those of you who enjoy my baseball thoughts. I have started a new blog Blogging Baseball. Mainly I started it to experiment with Wordpress.

I just received another round of books that will keep me busy for a while. I will try to be more diligent about posting reviews.

Should a General Assembly celebrate the Lord's Supper?

The blogosphere is quite because the PCA is in its General Assembly. Everyone and their grandmother is down there in order to participate in the row over the Federal Vision Study Committee report. I glanced at their docket, and something else caught my eye. They are going to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. It is after the session is declared open and called to order by the moderator. The RCUS does have worship services, but they are not technically part of the Synod. The meetings are not in session as we worship. The Synod in the RCUS does not have the power to offer the sacraments, only the local church. Yet, clearly the PCA General Assembly is offering the sacrament. It cannot be participating in a host church’s Lord’s Supper because it is not in a host church, but rather a convention center. I found it interesting because I wonder what sort of difference this implies in the view of the church?

Forgetting Joseph

"And there arose a new king in Egypt, who did know Joseph." – Exodus 1:8

This verse in Exodus gives the context, but I believe it also introduces a theme that runs throughout the rest of the Bible. That theme is the sin and danger of forgetting history. I do not mean history as facts, but rather history as the meaning of things done in the past. Here in Exodus we see that forgetting the past leads Egypt to persecute the people who saved all of Egypt through seven years of famine, not to mention made them into a wealthy people. The consequences of that forgetfulness is the Red Sea and the death of every first born male.

Yet, the theme does not stop with Egyptians. We see the same theme running in the people of God. The book of Judges has a similar start. "When all that generation [those who lived with Joshua] had been gathered to their fathers, another generation arose after them who did not know the LORD nor the work which He had done for Israel" (Judges 2:10). That starts a cycle that basically repeats itself throughout the rest of Judges. This of course leads to the people of the Lord doing evil in his sight, neglecting true worship and exchanging it for false worship. This theme continues even after the kings of Israel. Josiah finds the book of Deuteronomy that had been lost and forgotten (2 Kings 22). We see in Ezra 10 that the Israelites had forgotten the word of God and taken pagan wives. It is the constant cry of the prophets (see Isaiah 17:10, 51:13, Jer. 2:32, 3:21, etc.). It is found in the Psalms (see 106 for example).

Not only do we see the sin of forgetting the works of God in the past we see God providing ways for us to remember. We see it over and over and over again. God commands Joshua to set up Memorial Stones after crossing the Jordan so that "when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, ‘What are these stone?’ then you shall let your children know" (Joshua 4:21-22). The tribes of Reuben and Gad build an altar because they feared “in time to come your descendants may speak to our descendants” without remembering they are all part of Israel (Joshua 22). The exhortations about throughout Scripture to remember, "Remember your creator in the days of your youth" (Ecc 12:1). One can even look at the sacraments and see that one of the purposes is “to proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” because every generation needs a sign so that they do not forget.

It seems to me then that one of the main jobs of parents is to teach our kids history. Or to put it another way remind them of what God has done in the past, and how God’s work in history affects them now. I think it is easy to see how forgetting the Josephs of the past have put our society in a bad position. We must make sure that our children remember the work of God, or else when they face their own Red Sea they may find themselves among the Egyptians.

FV Controversy and the Role of Sadness

The RCUS recently passed its statement declaring the teaching of the Federal Vision another gospel. The PCA seems to be on deck and the URCNA is the lone hold out as far as I can tell. But statements are not what I want to talk about.

I want to mention an aspect of this debate that seldom comes across on blogs (I am just as guilty as the next blogger). That aspect is the great sadness that we should all have regarding this problem. Whatever the reason for this current debate/crisis, we should be united in complete and total sadness. Some say it stems from Westminster Theological Seminary in the 70s, some think it is a revival of Mercersburg, others think it may stem from the New Perspectives on Paul. Regardless, ministers within reformed churches can no longer agree on what constitutes the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe the FV is another gospel, I voted for the resolution and would do so again. But it was actually a very sad moment. These statements are too often treated as academic exercises. They are not. They serve as pleadings. At least that should be our attitude. "How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings"(Matt. 23:37). Jesus had just pronounced woes upon the Pharisees, but he did it with a heavy heart.

I wish we had a little more of that in this debate. Just take a look the comment sections of these posts and messages! I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything. I know some of the men making comments, and they are good men. One thing leads to another and our sadness for the situation gets buried. It is just not good to let it stay buried for too long.

I believe the FV to be in our churches, a present danger, and that it is another gospel. And that is one of the saddest things I hope I ever say outloud.