All I heard was Blah, Blah, Blah

This is just too much to pass up. The Boneman has a blog up about the irony of his reformed experience. Apparently he thought the reformed tradition was intellectually honest. He seems to have since changed his mind. The real irony is his example of a lack of intellectual honesty. Here it is.

Take the issue of paedocommunion. Reformed traditionalists keep banging the "examine yourself" passage from 1 Cor 11:28 to mean that we must introspectively / subjectively determine if we really "know" we are saved before coming to the table. When confronted over the largely "extrospective" pastoral context of 1 Corinthians as it relates to "discerning the Lord's body" (the unity of the local church), the Reformed traditionalist's eyes glaze over and proceeds to say, "Well, it can't really mean that because... blah, blah, blah!"

In other words, Boneman thinks it is intellectually dishonest to make an argument against paedocommunion. Not that he pays attention to the arguments they use. He admits they have one, he just does not think it worthy hearing. Notice the last sentence where he quotes the ‘traditionalists’. They reject something and when they start to explain all Boneman can come up with is ‘blah, blah, blah.’ I don’t know about you all, but when I see someone summarize a position as ‘blah, blah, blah’, I know where the intellectual dishonesty lies.

Oh yeah, and if you wonder where I ran across this jewel of reasoning, I found it linked and strongly agreed with by Mark Horne.

I told you so

I will be at Heidelberg Youth Camp all week, so don’t expect any posts or responses.

But before I go I wanted to post a little something for those of you, especially my brother, who never believed me when I told them the NBA was rigged. I always said it was not the players who rigged games, but rather the referees. I always said you could tell within five minutes of an NBA game who was going to win based on the referee’s calls. For all of you doubters I told you so.

Do we have a High Point?

Far be it from me to disagree with the JollyBlogger or Bryan Chapell, who is the one quoted, but I have not published anything theological in a while, and so I am going to disagree.

The JollyBlogger reports that Bryan Chapell had a sermon at GA about the PCA at 35 years. Chapell claims the PCA is faithful to the Scriptures, believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, has haggled for 35 years about what means to be faithful to the Westminster Standards, and now should focus on being mission-minded. While I think that the PCA’s position paper on Creation reflects badly on the PCA’s view of inerrancy, I will let that point pass without further discussion. What I really want to discuss is the quote touted by the JollyBlogger from Rev. Chapell. He said,

The best part of that sermon for me was when he said something to the effect of "the high point of the church cannot have been 500 years ago."

My first response, and should be everyone’s response, is ‘Why not?’ Admittedly without context it is hard to deal with this quote, but one is starting to see it more and more. It is usually a plea to move past the Reformation tradition no matter how it is hidden or dressed up. If someone is going to make a statement that something cannot be true, then it needs to be well defended.

First, is Rev. Chapell talking about the high point of theology? If so then why can 500 years ago not be the high point? Why cannot approximately 2000 years ago not be the high point? What even makes us think that there are high point and low point in the history of theology? What about our theology today should be different than the theology of the apostles, the Westminster Divines, the Old Side Presbyterians? What exactly should be changed to make us move ‘higher’ in Rev. Chapell’s mind? If Rev. Chapell meant this to be about theology then he has fallen into the trap of the Schaff/Hegelian model of theology. I reject the idea that theology grows and becomes more known and more complex over time like a Math book does as one goes from addition and subtraction to Calculus (Doug Wilson’s favorite example). It is certainly not a statement that should just be thrown out without defense, nor should it be accepted without discussion. Is not the faith once given the saints, and we charged with holding fast to it. Where exactly do we get the idea that as history progress and changes, so too must our theology?

Second, if he is talking about moving past the Reformation as far as planting churches and spreading the influence of the church, then whom on earth disagrees with him? The Reformation is not looked to by people as an example of the greatest degree of influence the church ever had. In fact, the Reformation is probably one of the low points with regards to influence the church had. I have never heard anyone think that the high point of church missions or planting or influence has past or that the time of the Reformation was that high point.

Again, I do not have all of the context, but I bet Rev. Chapell was speaking along the lines of the first point, that somehow the church needs to move beyond the Westminster or stop thinking about past theology, and start thinking about new ways/theology to reach the lost in the modern culture. I really would like someone who was there to explain it to me.

My main point here is this: we need to consciously examine what we think about history itself, whether it has high points and low points, whether or not it is proper to look back or whether or not the lessons of history are useful in the present. These things are under attack, and I fear that we too often want some new innovation to lead our churches simply because we all accept the maxim that new is better. I hope that this is not what Rev. Chapell meant, but it is something that is making its rounds in the church today.

Aaron Burr - Patriot

Aaron Burr is a name that is synonymous with treason, treachery, and greed. A new biography of the man by Nancy Isenberg called Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr changes those perceptions. The book is excellent, and will completely change your opinion on the former Vice President.

One word of caution does need to be spoken. Nancy Isenberg won an award for a previous book entitled, Sex and Citizenship in Antebellum America. One can guess she is a bit of a feminist, and this is probably why she wrote about Burr. Burr himself was apparently a feminist. He educated his daughter as if she were a man, he loved strong intellectual women, and he hobnobbed with European feminists from time to time. Ms. Isenberg never misses an opportunity to toot that horn, but it does not interfere with the parts of the book that answer all the questions surrounding Burr’s life.

The first thing many think of when thinking of Aaron Burr is the duel he had with Alexander Hamilton that killed Hamilton. Burr is usually portrayed as a violent, remorseless killer when these accounts are retold. Hamilton is usually viewed as a heroic figure who detested dueling, but was forced to the field. Some biographers like Broadus Mitchell in his Alexander Hamilton a Concise Biography even try to convince us that Hamilton did not fire his gun. All untrue. Most of it is taken from the work published by Hamilton after his death. He prepared it before the duel in case he died. In it Hamilton decried the practice of dueling, but felt he had no choice. The truth is that Hamilton dueled around eleven times, and his son died in a duel where Hamilton was the second. Hamilton was the offending party in his duel with Burr, but he refused to retract his incendiary remarks. It was the third time Hamilton had attacked Burr, and this time Burr could accept nothing less than an actual apology. Hamilton in reality was a cad who did everything he could to destroy his opponents through mud slinging. Burr fired second in the duel after Hamilton missed above his head.

The next thing most of us think about is the election of 1800 where Burr and Jefferson tied for the office of President. It led to the creation of the 12th Amendment. Most think Burr tried to cut back room deals to supplant Jefferson, and that is why Jefferson refused to have Burr stand for re-election as Vice President. The truth is that Jefferson cut the back room deals. Many letters from Federalists prove that Burr never even came close to stealing the Presidency from Jefferson. James Bayard wrote Hamilton saying, "The means existed of electing Burr, but they required his cooperation". Jefferson rejected Burr as Vice President in 1804 because Burr would have been a threat to James Madison in 1808. Jefferson actually systematically destroyed Burr by strengthening his opponents in New York by giving out patronage to those who opposed Burr, and refusing to clear Burr’s name when slanders came out in the press. Slanders which today are taken for granted as true.

The final thing we all think about with regard to Aaron Burr is his treason trial where he was accused of trying to separate the Western States and the territory of Louisiana. Again, these claims are found only in the newspapers (which were all politically motivated), and not in facts of any kind. The Federalist feared Burr would lead an armed rebellion and the Republicans feared he would win over the West through politics and entice the states to leave in that manner. Burr was quite popular in the West, after all he did kill Hamilton. Burr received aid from Senators Dayton, Adair, Smith, and Brown; bought boats from Andrew Jackson; was defended by Henry Clay; and encouraged to run for Congress by William Henry Harrison. The West truly loved Burr. In reality Burr had no intention of disunion or any action against the United States. Rather he was going to attempt a filibuster against Spanish Mexico if the United States went to war against Mexico, which would have made it a legal enterprise by the law of nations. Tensions were quite high and General Wilkerson, Burr’s co-filibusterer, helped make them higher through his advice to Jefferson and his advice to Spain, Wilkerson was on the Spanish payroll. Burr was actually cleared of any wrong doing several times. Twice in Kentucky Grand Juries were convened against Burr, but both cleared him. The first because no evidence was brought, and the second because the only witness was not credible and the Jury admonished the prosecutor for using the court of politics. He was cleared by a jury in Mississippi after surrendering to them after Jefferson put out a nation wide APB for his arrest on treason. No weapons were found on him or his group. Only supplies needed to start a new city on the large tract of land Burr purchased in Louisiana territory. Burr faced yet another trial in Richmond in front of Chief Justice Marshall, this is the one we all remember. The two chief witnesses against him were both laughable. General Eaton, a filibusterer himself, was considered an outright liar. It was not the first time in his career. He cried after the defense team finished with him. And General Wilkerson himself. Wilkerson turned on Burr when rumors hit to close to home about his Spanish involvement. It was shown that he altered a letter written to him by a friend of Burr. The evidence showed that his claims were exaggerated since no weapons could be found on Burr nor did the army of 10,000 people arrive. The place where the government did find weapons was on an island on the Ohio River, but Burr was never there. Marshall ruled the indictment flawed, the jury cleared Burr of treason.

Burr is maligned by history, but he did leave us a legacy that we ought to remember. Burr was a good politician. It was he who broke the hold of powerful political families in New York. He paved the way for men like Martin Van Buren, who considered himself a Burrite. It was Burr who laid the foundation for Tammany Hall as a political machine, not a corruption machine. It was Burr who helped the next generation of Republicans express their disenchantment with how Jeffersonianism turned out. The men who appreciated Burr like Van Buren, Jackson, and others would lay the foundation for a new party, the Democratic Party. That is what we should think of when we think of Aaron Burr. Hopefully one day the record will be set straight.

Harry Potter Predictions

I cannot resist a good game of ‘predict the future’, so here comes another one. Mind you, my record for sporting events is quite bad; thus, I will join the crowd and make my predictions about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I have read all 6 previous books, but I am not a crazed fan and will not be buying this book when it comes out. I borrowed the previous ones and I will try to do the same with this one at some sane time. So, someone out in the blogosphere may have to tell me if my predictions are right.

First, many Christian fans of the book think that it will have a bit of Christian ending. They posit that Harry will die to protect some character often the unlovable Draco Malfoy, or Potter’s muggle aunt and uncle, but occasionally his friends Ron and Hermonie. This always leads to the defeat of Voldermort, although few postulate how. Perhaps in a similar fashion as the sacrifice of Harry’s parents did for him the first time around. I do not think that this is how it will end. This seems a bit of Christian wishful thinking. I reject this ending despite the symmetry it provides with the beginning of the story.

Second, Rowling has told us that two characters will die in the final book. We can safely assume that one is Voldermort. After all no one is thinking that she is going to end a Children’s Book series with the bad guy winning. That leaves only one other death to pin point. It would not be much of a shocker if a minor character bites the dust, so we can put aside those and focus on the major players.

In the end, I do believe that Rowling is going for some familiar themes of sacrifice in her novels, but I also think there is a thread of redemption. The longest running debate in the books is about Professor Snape. Harry always thought he was a bad person, Dumbledore did not. In the last book, Snape, seemingly answering the question, killed Dombledore. I think then the best guess at the end of the books is that Snape is the second death foretold by Rowling. Snape will die a hero. Snape is going to give his life to protect Harry Potter or be killed when he is destroying a horocrux that keeps Voldermort alive. This will show that people can be redeemed, which I think is what Rowling is attempting to do. Harry will rid the world of Voldermort forever, but he will need the help of his friends to do it. Expect Nevile to play a crucial role in this book as much has been hinted about Nevile, who started off a bumbling fool and will have his own redemption of sorts when he becomes a hero. The Malfoy clan will end up behind bars, and Gandalf will have some sort of Obi-Wan Kenobi moment where he directs the steps of young Potter.

There you have it, my bold predictions for the book. You no longer need to buy it.

John Gerstner, Church History, and Matthew 16

I recently was given some video tapes from the video tape library of a dear departed friend, Rev. Norman Jones. I had a few spare moments and had been intrigued by the John Gerstner Church History series that was made by Ligoner ministries. I only watched one full lecture and parts of two others, and I thought I would make a comment on one or two things that struck me, specifically the third point.

First, I did skip straight to the Middle Ages. I have a peculiar interest in Charlemagne and the church as a whole during the 8th and 9th century. It is very hard to find good material on them. In fact, it is almost impossible to find a church history book that actually covers them at all. John Gerstner mentioned Charlemagne one time in a sentence about the power of the pope to crown emperors. Never mind that this was a highly debatable historical point (there is some evidence to suggest that the pope crowned Charlemagne during a prayer to give the appearance of papal authority). That was the only time Charlemagne or anyone from the 8th century was mentioned. That was it. Gerstner did just what everyone else does and that is skip from the 5th Century to the 13th. That is a large gap. I found it frustrating.

Second, the whole course seemed to be history as an apologetic against the abuses of Rome. There is nothing wrong with using that as a unifying theme, and it did provide for some interesting comments and discussion. Gerstner was excellent at pointing out paradoxes in Roman papal history and thought. He was particularly good at ridiculing the Unam Sanctum, which proclaimed all have to be in submission to the pope to receive salvation. This of course was given by Pope Boniface VIII who was in captivity and complete submission to King Philip the Fair of France. The Unam Sanctum is still the law of the Roman church.

Third, Gerstner made some interesting comments on Matthew 16:18. Of course Rome reads this as Peter being the rock, and upon Peter the church is built. Traditional Protestants read this as the Confession of Faith (as exemplified by Peter) is the rock upon which the church is built. Now there are several alternate readings that I am familiar with. Edmond Clowney read the passage as Peter and ALL the Apostles are the rock upon which the church is built. Augustine (the reading I favor) held that Christ is the rock and he builds the church upon himself. Dr. Gerstner introduced me to a new alternate reading. Gerstner claimed Peter was the rock upon which the church is built, but that did not imply authority rather we are all rocks upon which the church is built. He did make some caveats about it was faithful Peter, not Peter regardless of faithfulness. Still, Gerstner claimed that this passage was virtually the same as I Peter 2:5 where he calls all believers living stones. That Jesus was really only referring to Peter as a stone that builds the church, and that all believers are stones that build the church. Gerstner referenced Matthew 18 (I assume verse 18) and John (no reference was given) to support his view. Gerstner did not explain how ‘building upon the rock’ fits into his view more than to say we are all living stones being built into the church. I wish he would have gone into greater depth of this view, but alas it was a church history tape. If anyone out there knows more about this position, let me know. I am also interested to hear what anyone has to say about this verse in general.

Sabermetrics

I just finished reading Baseball Between the Numbers written by the gang at Baseball Prospectus. This book is looking at baseball through the controversial Sabermetric approach. And while this is a book about numbers and stats, it is still very readable to the average baseball fan. I do think that the editors put the chapters together wrong. They should have started with "What is so Important about Mario Mendoza" first rather than near the back of the book as that is the chapter where they argue why Average based metrics are not good enough.

I have to admit that I am convinced in part of Sabermetrics. They convinced me that ERA is not a good way to measure pitchers and that Batting Average is not reliable way to judge hitters. I can even buy into their Value Based model of evaluating players. I even think the method of finding good players in the minors is something that should be used in the future.

Where they lose me is when they try to make comparisons across Baseball eras. Here we see complete bias, not just numbers. The first chapter (it should have been toward the end) is a chapter attempting to prove by the numbers that Barry Bonds is a much better hitter and power hitter than Barry Bonds. They did show Barry to be better, but not before stating that Babe never faced the best athletes of his era since it was pre-desegregation and knocked off Babe’s numbers for it. They tried to find a fair number to use from how often the swimming record is broken, or some such non-sense. It was ridiculous, and an obvious attempt to bias in favor of Barry Bonds. They did not deal with any of the arguments that show baseball was harder for Babe than it is for Barry (no plush air rides, no cool night games, wool outfits, no knowledge of diet, higher pitcher’s mound, bigger ball parks, spitballs, etc, etc.). The book was actually appallingly pro-Bonds, as a late chapter also decided that statistics could not prove a power surge among elite hitters in baseball, only among the average hitters. That chapter did admit that it could only measure one benefit of steroids instead of all the benefits. It also failed to mention that Barry Bonds was one of those average homerun hitters prior to steroids. The chapter tried to encourage us to enjoy the records of law abiding baseball players being broken by steroid freaks. The book is just plain wrong morally on that point.

In the end, this book is a great read and really a must read for those who love baseball. It deals with all sorts of fun questions like which is better a 4 man or 5 man rotation (they decide 4 man). It talks about whether or not a stolen base is worth while. They do not think so, but I do not think they have measured all of the benefits of a stolen base. I do not think they were able to go far enough back in history to judge the stolen base and sacrifice bunt accurately. The talk economics of baseball as well as they interact with Billy Beane’s philosophy and whether or not Alex Rodreguiz is worth it. They argue against the effects of a catcher and against the big money on pitchers. It is a good book even if you disagree with much of it. This book intrigued me so much that I might put to the test some of the ideas in this book by joining a Fantasy Baseball league next year, and applying what I have read. That seems like a logical testing ground to me. I will let you know how it turns out. Until then, get the book.

Sacramental Exegesis?

Lost in all the modern controversy about Federal Vision is the exegetical controversy about Grammatical-Historical exegesis. There is a sudden rise in people desiring to replace Grammatical-Historical exegesis with a Medieval exegesis that includes not only typology, but allegory and basically gives free reign to the exegete.

Barb of Whilin Away the Hours gives us a good example of the modern Medieval exegesis. Barb finds symbolism of baptism in Jonah and then finds the baptism again in the water that Jesus turns to wine in John 2. Thus, baptism and the supper are linked, and she is able to then use the link (she has a few other dubious connections) to argue for padeo-communion.

With this sort of exegesis linking water to baptism (both judgment and salvation), why not use Judges 12. In that chapter Jephthah and the Gileadites are standing in the water killing the Ephraimites; thus the judgmental waters of baptism. 42,000 Ephraimites died, which surely would have stained the water with their blood; thus, the Supper is pre-figured. The Blood of the Supper calm the waters of baptismal judgment and make them calm waters of baptismal salvation. The Gileadites then re-emerge from the waters onto a now calm and peaceful land.

Am I right in my new found exegesis of Judges 12? I found water and blood, surely that means the sacraments are in view? What logic did I use in Judges 12 that is not employed in the Jonah story or finding the sacraments in John 2? If Grammatical-Historical exegesis is set aside, we can find the sacraments or whatever we want anywhere in the bible. It is the Grammatical-Historical exegesis that forces us to deal not in fanciful connections of symbology, but with context. What in the context of Jonah makes us think of baptism other than the mere appearance of water. Nothing. Does baptism fit into the point the book of Jonah is making? No. What about John 2? Jesus turns water into wine, but what makes us think it has anything to do with baptismal water? There is nothing in the context to suggest it at all. There is nothing at all wrong with typology, but typology must not get out of control. I am afraid that by shedding grammatical-historical exegesis we will see more of this find-what-you-want-anywhere typology.

Moyers and Journalistic Independence

The other day I accidentally stumbled onto the end of a Bill Moyers’ Journal. He was ending his show with an attack on Rupert Murdoch acquisition of The Wall Street Journal. It was the worst three minutes of journalism I ever witnessed. In addition to just outright showing contempt by making statements such as "Rupert Murdoch is no saint" and comparing his propriety to the chastity of the Marquis de Sade, a serious mistake was made. The personal attacks, which bordered on accusing him of tax evasion, were bad do not get me wrong, but the sanctimonious appeal to journalism as a non-partisan activity, which Moyers certainly thinks he was engaging in, is a high crime and offense to my ears. He stated,

But THE JOURNAL's newsroom is another matter - there facts are sacred and independence revered. Rupert Murdoch has told the Bancrofts he'll not meddle with the reporting. But he's accustomed to using journalism as a personal spittoon. . . . Far worse is the travesty he's made of its[Fox News’] journalism. Fox news huffs and puffs, pontificates and proclaims, but does little serious original reporting. His tabloids sell babes and breasts, gossip and celebrities. Now he's about to bring under the same thumb one of the few national newsrooms remaining in the country.

This shows a clear misunderstanding of what newspapers are supposed to do, and have always done. I just do not want to pick on Bill Moyers. Dick Morris makes the same mistake in his book Off with Their Heads (review forthcoming). Morris laments the liberal turn in the ‘Old Grey Lady’ of the New York Times, and for the same reasons. For Morris the New York Times is a national newsroom that has a heritage of unbiased reporting. Both Morris and Moyers are wrong. Newspapers are supposed to be sources of biased reporting. For that matter, I would say news programs on TV are as well.

Most newspapers were established to push a political agenda, and were often associated with specific politicians. The Charleston Mercury served the purposes of the Fire Eaters before the Civil War in 1860. Martin Van Buren created the modern Democratic Party through the organ of his Albany based newspaper. Horace Greeley, perhaps the most famous newspaper man of all, used the New York Tribune to openly support the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln. This is not ever denied now, but at the time Tribune was considered a very politically neutral paper. Yet, it was not, nor was it intended to be. So it is with the ‘Old Grey Lady’. The New York Times was an openly Republican newspaper. It showed its independence from the Republican party by supporting Democrat Grover Cleveland for President. Hardly neutral. It gained its reputation for neutrality by not participating in the ‘Yellow Journalism’ of the late 1800’s. That does not make it politically neutral, it just does not make it corrupt. The same can be said of the Wall Street Journal. People who treat newspapers as neutral endanger themselves, and show a great neglect of history.

Moyers’s belly-aching about journalistic neutrality is a load of nonesense designed to make him look like a messenger of truth. The reality is that Moyers is a messenger of Moyers’s ideology, not the facts, nor the truth. So is every newspaper on the planet. Fair and Balanced is a myth pushed by those who want you to believe their version of events. Since Fair and Balanced is used by the right to hoodwink viewers and readers, the left prefers the term ‘Journalistic independence’. They mean the same thing, and they are both equally successful at it.

Just to show my point. All great newspaper stories and writers want the coveted Pulitzer Prize. It is the mark of excellence in journalism. The Pulitzer Prize is named after the great newspaper man, Joseph Pulitzer, owner of the New York World. Pulitzer’s claim to fame is that he along with William Randolph Hearst created ‘Yellow Journalism’. Yes, the award for journalistic excellence is named after the journalist who lead the nation to war with faulty reporting, who was indicted for libel, and who was so known for dishonesty in news that he is the source of the very name of false reporting today.

I rest my case.