Obama's Solution to Faith and Politics

The intersection of faith and politics is something that is always discussed, and every four years can become something of a hot topic. Barak Obama has made some very interesting comments regarding his views of faith and politics. They are thoughtful, not normal democratic rhetoric, and deserve some interaction. Now in my comments I will ignore his small discussion of his own conversion that mentions nothing of Jesus Christ, sin, and salvation. The avoidance of the words sin and salvation are interesting, but not really the point of this discussion. Instead, I will focus on his discussion of the role of faith and political decision making.

Obama tries to find a balance for Christian morality in "our modern, pluralistic democracy." Further, he tries to find a place for it in the Democratic Party. Obama makes a few admissions that I find startling from any politician and amazing to be coming from a Democrat at all. First and foremost he states,

I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

To that I give a hearty Amen! The government cannot fix the problem of sin. One could argue whether or not the party of expanding the powers of the federal government (think federally funded Midnight Basketball) truly follows this belief, but specific social policies are not addressed in this speech. More important is his second startling admission.

So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

It is good to hear a politician admit the plain truth about laws. They are a codification of morality. Obama admits that, and good for him. He also goes on to advocate allowing Christian to use their religious values in their public life referencing Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and William Jennings Bryan and others. This is a step in the right direction. It is nice to see someone admit clear historical facts and carry them over to today’s conflict between religion and politics. Obama thinks he has solved this conflict with a new solution.

But, Obama’s solution is what gets him into trouble. He maintains that the religious must recognize the new truths of the ‘modern pluralistic democracy.’

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This is nothing more than fancy mumbo-jumbo that conflicts with his earlier admission that laws are codified morality. It also will not work in the real world. What universal do people of opposite faiths share? What fellowship does Christ have with Belial? The Temple of God with the Temple of Baal? Or Light with Darkness? Let us just look at a few examples to see exactly how Senator Obama’s solution is a false one.

Homosexual marriage might be an example. What universal can those of different faiths agree upon? Will evolutionists agree with Christians on the principle that they do not produce offspring, and thus should not be allowed to marry? Or will they decide marriage itself is an institution that can evolve? Obama says Christians simply cannot point to their faith and say ‘God created marriage, it is what he says it is.’ Right now all marriage laws are codified Christian morality, but according to Obama that cannot be one of our arguing points. Now we have to find a universal that all agree with. What of the Muslims? They may want the marriage laws changed because it allows only one man to marry one woman. Mormons may also follow the Muslim suit because they wish their standards codified. What common ground is there?

More to the point is abortion. Christians believe life begins at conception, but now have to find an universal principle accessible to all people. Evolutionists often believe infanticide is acceptable because it increases survival possibilities for others. See Peter Singer if you don’t believe me. They would especially want to have abortions in the case of the mentally retarded or physically handicapped because they pollute the gene pool. Muslims do not even think murder is wrong if the person dying is an infidel, so what is the big deal about abortion. In other words there is no common ground here either.

Let us see how this revolutionary principle Obama puts forward plays out in his own thinking. The following is taken from an interview about his position on infanticide because of a bill he opposed while in the Illinois Senate. This quote is explaning the existing Illinois law with regards to children born after a failed abortion.

Obama: On the state level that says if there is a fetus that is determined viable and there has to be a second doctor who assists in determining that that fetus is viable- they are required by current Illinois Law to provide that fetus with assistance to make sure that they can live outside the womb. The law already exists. That’s not what Senator O’Malley’s law was about. What Senator O’Malley’s law was about was identifying all fetuses as human beings as a way of going after the right of women to choose to have an abortion pre- viability and that’s the reason that I, like a number of other senators, including Republican senators, voted either present or against it.

Note here what Senator Obama has done. He has found his universal principle to which all can agree. What is it? It is apparently refusing to recognize a baby as a human being or even a baby, but rather simply calling it a fetus. Notice that the fetus is not internal to a mother in her womb, but rather this is an already born baby that was supposed to have died in the womb, but for some reason did not. Senator Obama refuses to recognize that the child born is anything other than a fetus, and it is not even worth saving unless a second doctor comes along and pronounces it a child. So, in finding a universal point that people of all faiths and non-faiths can agree upon, he comes up supporting calling born children fetuses until multiple doctors decree otherwise. I am not sure about anyone else’s experience in giving birth, but I have not seen multiple doctors for any of my three kids, and I bet multiple doctors never work in abortion clinics. Thus, this law is a way to ensure botched abortions still end in death. Yet, Obama finds it the best way to go about things, and poor Senator O’Malley is the transgressor for trying to get personhood given to all children. When is a fetus a person in Obama’s mind?

If you are like me you are probably thinking that Mr. Obama’s Christian informed position sounds an awful lot like abortion on demand because babies are not people. You are probably also asking yourself exactly what did the evolutionists like Peter Singer give up to compromise with the people faith who oppose evolution in Obama’s position? It sounds an awful lot like translating the Christian faith into universal principles that all can access is just a new way to say the same old thing. ‘Leave your faith at the door when it comes to making laws.’

Obama understands laws are codified morality, he just refuses to codified a Christian morality instead choosing for the lowest common denominator morality. Obama has identified the problem by seeing this is a culture war about whose morality will govern the land, he just comes to the wrong solution. Obama’s solution is nothing less than a complete surrender. He sounds a lot like he is taking a new approach to religion and politics, but in reality he just found a new way to couch the old message of keeping the Christian faith out of politics.

St. Bartholomew's Day Massacare - Peter Ramus

August 24th is St. Bartholomew’s Day, or at least it was in 1572. That was when the great massacre occurred in France where the Reformed were killed by the thousands to please the Romish church. Every August 24th I remember the sacrifice of the Reformed in France, and I like to remember them by telling one of their stories.

Peter Ramus is a forgotten man in today’s world. However, he was a reformer from France who lived and died for the Reformation. His main work was philosophical. Peter Ramus wanted to bring the Reformation to bear on Philosophy itself, particularly the reliance on Aristotle that Ramus thought caused many of the Romish errors. In fact, Ramus was so brazen about attacking the one St. Thomas Aquinas referred to simply as The Philosopher, that his doctoral thesis was "All Aristotle says is false." He became a teacher so popular that the government took action against him forbidding him to teach philosophy. So, Ramus taught Math instead, and still remained a popular teacher. Ramus became a Protestant after the Colloquy at Poissy. By 1562 assassins tried to murder him often enough that he had to flee from Paris. He would return but had to flee again in 1568. He traveled to all of the major Protestant cites, Zurich, Basel, Strasburg, and finally Heidelberg. Despite the fact Ramus was Reformed he was not always welcomed because many of the Reformers still held to Aristotelianism. Men such as Theodore Beza and Zacharias Ursinus opposed his philosophical approach and derogatorily referred to him as the ‘French Plato.’ However, some Reformers like Casper Olevianus agreed with him and welcomed him. This conflict within the Reformed camp always kept him from staying and teaching at any of the great universities of the time. In the end, Ursinus went back to Paris via Geneva.

Ramus had a successful teaching position at the Royal College in France, but his stay would not last long. August 24th, 1572 the followers of Rome and the Guises came to find him and silence him once and for all. They did not reach him until the 27th because Ramus had official protection papers from the King of France himself. Thugs broke into his office and began to take the valuables before they killed him. Ramus prayed allowed in his last moments, “O my God, against thee and thee only have I sinned and done this evil in Thy sight. Thy judgments are justice and truth. Have mercy on me and pardon these wretched men, O God, for they know not what they do.” He was then shot in the head, and his lifeless body stabbed and dragged around the fifth floor of the building.

Ramus never completed his reform of philosophy. He stood more against Aristotle than for anything. Ramus realized that the Christian faith must dominate every aspect of our lives and that includes the philosophical pursuits. His oratory was so great that he doubtless converted many not only to his cause, but the cause of Christ. This is evident from the large number of his students who broke with the church of Rome. Ramus is forgotten now because the views of Aristotle still dominate the philosophical landscape even in the Christian church; thus, Ramus is still an enemy. But regardless of one’s position on Aristotle we ought to be able to rejoice together in the love and devotion that Peter Ramus showed to the Lord of lords. His death stands as one of the most significant in the mighty massacre during that dark time in France in 1572. Let us follow his example at least in as far as we reform our lives to the Word of God, and stay faithful even if the end is bitter.

There has been a lot of back and forth between the Federal Vision men and those who are against the Federal Vision. The pro-FV side has often claimed they were never understood by the anti-FV men, and they have often claimed to have been wronged by all of the committees that put out reports and condemn the FV. They especially like to tout the idea that they were never contacted personally. In that respect, Jim Jordan’s rant on Douglas Wilson’s blog is nothing new. I have not read the article to which Dr. Jordan is primarily responding, but I do want to address his snarky comments about not being contacted personally. Here is how he puts it.

The worst aspect of this whole debacle is the fact that neither the OPC committee, nor the PCA committee, nor the MARS faculty ever made any contact with the "FV" people they criticize. Had they made even one phone call, they could have found out that we don't believe most of what they accuse us of believing. I find this behavior appalling.

I have three responses to this. First, Study Committees are designed to respond to what has been written, not what people may currently believer or the nuances of some particular writer’s phraseology. This is because the committee reports are meant to be used by the member churches to protect the people in the pew. That is why almost every report is usually followed by a recommendation that this report by covered in each church, or something to that effect. If a person writes in a book, “Baptism saves,” or “Baptism is not a picture of salvation, it is salvation”, but what they mean is “baptism, the rite of water, saves only in the sense that it connects us to the local church, which is the body of Christ, but does not decretally save one forever and ever, but rather it merely puts us in the right place to practice, live out, or experience salvation.” The author of said comment may be upset when a report comes out that attacks the first two comments, but does not mention the third. They may even say, ‘If they had just called me on the phone . . .” But the point is that the people in the pew are not going to call the author on the phone either and they need to know what is wrong with the first two statements (not that I am approving of the third comment), which is all they are going to ever see. I would have thought such things were obvious to all.

Second, the church has never held such an odd position as that people must be called prior to publication. Anything in the public domain is fair game. Did Irenaeus speak to the author of the Gospel of Judas, which he does attack and refute, to make sure he was reading the Gospel correctly? Was it wrong for him to write a book called Against Heresies if he did not contact each and every individual he would quote from? Augustine condemned the works of Pelagius without ever having met him after reading his Commentary on St. Paul. Was this wrong? Should have Augustine allowed the Pelagian error to circulate while he tried to reason face to face before writing his letters? Can the same not be said of Jerome, who also attacked Pelagianism? What about all those men who sat in judgment of Pelagius at the Council of Ephesus? Were they all wrong? This history of the church would look very different if no one ever spoke against a heresy without first checking with the author to make sure everything was in place. We have many heresies or view points today that bear the names of men who probably disagreed with those positions. I, as well as others, agree that the Memorialistic view of the sacraments commonly called Zwinglianism does not reflect the view of Zwingli himself. I, along with others, think that Nestorius did not agree with the heresy known as Nestorianism (Nestorius proclaimed the Tome of Leo the truth of the gospel). Does that mean Nestorianism is not a heresy? No, it is a heresy, and it rightly goes under his name. A heresy spread and formed with writings that bore his name, and they had to be refuted immediately. Thankfully they were. I seriously doubt that Dr. Jordan wants to decry all of these events in Christian history as wrong because they did not speak with the author first, rather they simply interacted with the written word.

Third, Dr. Jordan himself does not practice this policy, and thus his moaning and whining is nothing more than selfish, pompous, bombast. See the following quote from his letter:

And it's no surprise that the heirs of Kohlbruegge in the RCUS also dislike Norman Shepherd and the FV -- after all, if you are suspicious of the whole Reformed doctrine of sanctification, you are not going to welcome people who say that faithful Christians are obedient Christians.

Now it is true that the RCUS was once dominated by Kohlbregge and his teachings. God used the teaching of Kohlbregge, mainly his high regard for the word of God, to preserve the church from liberalism and joining the church that eventually became the United Church of Christ. However, the modern day RCUS is far from the "heirs of Kohlbregge" nor are they "suspicious of the whole Reformed doctrine of sanctification". In fact, I will just point to the action of Synod of the RCUS a mere two years ago. A man wishing to publish works against the FV movement asked the RCUS for permission to publish some of Kohlbregge’s works. Kohlbregge being so far on the side of justification by faith alone without works that he diminishes sanctification, and that was seen by the person asking permission to be a good antidote to the FV teaching. The RCUS turned down this application because we do not approve of the Kohlbregge doctrine. Refuting one error with another is not an option, so we voted it down. Perhaps, if Dr. Jordan had just contacted any minister in the RCUS, he would know we are not Kohlbreggian any longer. Perhaps if Dr. Jordan would have followed his own advice he would not print this attack on the RCUS on a blog and in a Christian magazine. Perhaps, if he would have simply read our Synod abstract, he would know. If only he would have picked up the history of the RCUS in the You Shall be My People, he would understand the RCUS and the role and place of Kohlbregge. Alas, Dr. Jordan is full of venom and advice to his opponents, advice that he himself never intended to follow. That behavior is what I find appalling.

China's Long War against Christianity

I have long thought China is still the biggest threat in the world. I do not mean to down play Islamic-Terrorism, but in the end, the Islamic states are all backward and the rank and file armies would rather not fight. I worry that the world has forgotten that Communism is just as godless and just as dangerous as Islamic-Terrorism. China’s expulsion of Christian missionaries has gone mostly under the radar.

What worries me more is that this is pattern of behavior with China that goes back centuries. This pattern is not just to close its doors to missionaries, but to wipe Christians out through vicious persecutions. The article mentions the 1954 expulsion and resulting persecution by Communist China, but this goes back further than even the adoption of godless Communism. One can go all the way back to 635 and a monk named A-lo-Pen who carried Christianity (admittedly it was a perverted Nestorianism) to China and even won approval to do so by the Emperor, T’ai Tsung. Bishops were established and monasteries were founded. Then, at an unknown time all the Christians including the foreign born Christians were wiped out. The monks who visited in the 900’s found no traces of Christianity left anywhere. Of course these monks probably did mission work, but all traces of whatever they accomplished vanished under the Ming (beginning in 14th century). In 1807 Protestant missionaries are in Canton, and it is again a starting from scratch because of the extermination of all things Christian that has taken place. The Boxer Rebellion (1900) leads to the death of 189 missionaries. Then we can get to the massive persecutions that led to the arrest of Watchman Nee and local Chinese Christian leaders under the Communists in the 1950’s. Of these we have documented cases of torture and death for being a Christian.

These are simply the persecutions that I know about, and can be documented. Many traditions have Thomas of the Twelve disciples spreading the gospel in China, which would mean that any converts Thomas made were wiped out prior to A-lo-Pen in 635. China’s history is a bloody one that entails a great deal of Christian persecution. We should not forget to uphold the growing movement of Christianity in China as the signs begin to indicate another round of Christian extermination from godless China.

Harry Potter Series Review

I just finished Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, which means I have now read every Harry Potter book. Thus, it is time for me to share my thoughts upon the subject. And if you do not want the content of book 7 or any of the books revealed to you, this is your only warning to read no further.

First, let me just gloat. I correctly predicted the ending of the book. Snape dies a hero, check. Voldermort killed by Harry, check. Neville plays a big role in final book, check. Obi Wan Kenobi like appearance by Dumbledore, check. Harry will not die, check. For those desperately trying to make the series more Christian and claming that Harry did die and come back from the dead here is a quote from Dumbledore on the question of whether or not Harry is dead: "That is the question, isn’t it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not"(707). He latter also says, "Of course this is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" (723). Face facts, I predicted this book correctly.

I believe that I am somewhere in the middle of the road with regards to Harry Potter, by J.K. Rowling. Many hold that Harry Potter is evil because it makes witchcraft seem fun or good, and still others believe that Harry Potter is actually trying to teach kids to be witches and or Satanists. I think that opinion is wrong. Harry Potter is a fantasy book for kids. Magic has long been a way to gain kids attention and appeal to their imagination. Tolkien and Lewis both do the same thing, and if one is to reject Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Narnia should also be rejected. However, the main reason that opinion is wrong is because the witchcraft of Harry Potter is fake. Any kid will figure this out the minute he picks up a stick and tries to get it to unlock doors or cast spells. A twig is a twig in the real world. The witchcraft the bible warns us about is not flying on brooms and trying to cast spells because that is fake. The witchcraft the bible warns us about is trying to communicate with demons and having a familiar spirit. That stuff is no where to be found in Harry Potter. On the other hand, some think that Harry Potter is full of Christian images. Others want to argue that the books have always meant to follow a Christian path. I think these are also wrong. Despite two Bible verses being quoted in book 7, I see no reason to think that Rowling was trying to teach a gospel message. Like most books Christian truths can be found within. Rowling does teach us that evil must be opposed and doing nothing in the face of evil is wrong. She does make a great deal about self-sacrifice, and has a theme about free-will, choice, and belief that make it more than just a meaningless Tom Clancey novel. But I do not think the Potter series is explicitly (there is no reference to God at all), nor implicitly Christian.

Stylistic: J.R. Rowling is a good author. She does a good job of getting you interested and has a good sense of pacing. For a book that is almost 700 pages long she knows that the pace cannot always be frantic. However, for a child, this book would have tedious parts as background information is revealed. Harry Potter: the Deathly Hallows has a nice style when considered by itself, but as a concluding book to a long series, it falls short. It would have been better if the idea of the three Deathly Hallows or Hallowed Objects made by Death would have been introduced in one of the prior six books. At least introduce the fairy tale or the symbol of the Hallows or something. That way less time would have to be spent explaining. Plus, by introducing this new idea of a Supreme Wand, a Resurrection Stone, and a Supreme Invisible Cloak it makes it seem as if Mrs. Rowling had no idea how the series was going to end when she began it. This book also suffers from not having any school time. In my opinion this was a large part of what attracted kids to the books. Here was a school that was cool, and the kids did school things that could easily be related and understood. None of that exists in this last book.

I do think Rowling leaves several things dangling and unfinished. For example, she introduced the idea of freedom for house elves, who were slaves, as far back as book two. She returns to that in book seven. Yet, all we see is that Ron has changed his mind. In the epilogue of what happens when they are all grown up, we see no reference to the elves or their plight. The same is said for the goblin and wizard relationship, which is brought out in book seven. They are exposed and then dropped. Did this epic battle between good and evil expose faults in the society in which the wizards live? Yes, it did. Did this epic battle cause the society to change for the better? The reader has no idea. The conclusion also leaves us to wonder at exactly what does Harry Potter do now that he is all grown up? Did he ever go back and finish school? Just a sampling of the many questions that are just left hanging.

Logical: I believe the concluding book only emphasizes the consistency problems Rowlilng has in her make-believe world, again pointing to the idea that she did not have an end in mind when she began writing. There are many minor details that make the overly sensitive such as myself prickle. However, I will concentrate on a few. First is about an idea running through the entire series. According to the books, the sacrifice of Lilly Potter (Harry’s mother) protected Harry because of her love. Thus, when Voldermort tried to kill Harry, the curse backfired. Yet, James Potter (Harry’s father) did the same thing for Lilly. Yet, she died. Lots of people died protecting others throughout this series. Rowling ends the book with the idea that Harry had been willing to die to protect all of his friends who were fighting for him. Supposedly that weakened the spells Voldermort cast during this final battle, but it did not stop them. However, the book makes clear all of those people were fighting to protect Harry while he finished up his mission. Why did their deaths not work? Was it because a true sacrifice had to not be fighting death, but accepting it? I can see that explanation in the book, but that does not answer the problem of James Potter, who died without a wand in hand.
Second, and more troubling for the resolution of this book is the Deathly Hallows themselves. According to their origin the wand was "a wand more powerful than any in existence: a wand that must always win duels" (pg. 407). We find out that the "possessor of the wand must capture it from its previous owner, if he is to be truly master of it" (412). This often meant murder or theft. Yet we learn that Dumbledore possessed the wand after winning a duel against its previous owner. This brings up the obvious question of how did Dumbledore beat an unbeatable wand in a duel? No answer is given. We know from the end of book 6 that Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore, but did not take his wand. Snape then kills Dumbledore. According to the book this means Malfoy is the rightful owner and new master of the wand, which is buried with Dumbledore. How Malfoy is the master without being the possessor is not explained. Then during the course of the book Harry Potter defeats Malfoy, who is not using the Hallowed Wand, and somehow that makes Potter the master of the wand. How the wand knew that fact or how that fits in with being a possessor of the wand is unclear. The Hallowed Wand is then used by Voldermort, but it kills him because it will not kill its master, Mr. Potter. Just in case that was too clear, Rowling muddies the water more when Potter reburies the wand with Dumbledore and claims that if dies a natural death, the wand will lose all of its power. How that fact fits with the previously mentioned fact of Malfoy losing his mastership of the wand without ever possessing it is also unclear. According to the Malfoy scenario, anyone who ever disarms Harry in the future should be the new master of the wand.
The wand is not the only Hallow with problems. The third Hallow of the Hallowed Cloak is also inconsistent with the rest of the series. You may have already guessed that Harry’s cloak given to him in book one turns out to be the Hallowed Cloak. Supposedly the Cloak "renders the wearer completely invisible, and endure eternally, giving constant and impenetrable concealment, no matter what spells are cast against it" (411). Yet, in this very book Harry has to Confound to magic detectors because supposedly they would have seen the cloak. I seem also to remember that Harry Potter the Goblet of Fire, the magic of Mad Eye Moody sees through the cloak to Potter stuck in a hole in the stairs. I think the Marauder’s Map of Hogworts also shows Harry while he is under the cloak. So much for impenetrable concealment.

Theological: I do think there are some good theological themes in the Potter series. There is a theme about will and freedom that I would need to ponder on a bit longer with the other books in front of me. There is an excellent theme about pride. Whether it shows up in silly spats between teenagers or in the fact that Voldermort almost always loses because he fails to examine things he thinks are beneath him such as sacrificial love, children’s fairytales about the Deathly Hallows, or the power of elves being different than wizards, it is always consistent: Pride leads to a fall unless one changes. This is clearly her best theme and it is woven into the stories well. It would be interesting to see how many people in the books die while laughing and bragging. Sirius Black does in an earlier book. Bellatrix dies the same way in this one. The idea that evil most be fought is also apparent in this series and all are laudable themes. There is another theme about faith and belief, but I would have to examine it closer to see exactly what it is saying.

That said, I think there are several very bad themes in these books. Contempt for authority is one. Harry Potter is a snot nosed brat to his Aunt and Uncle who took him in when he was orphaned. They are bad to him, but the Bible does not allow for children to be so disrespectful of those placed in authority over you. Fifth commandment violations abound. Compound the poor treatment of his guardians with his blatant disregard for rules at Hogworts, for which he is often rewarded. Not to mention the disrespect for the authority of the state, the Ministry of Magic, and there is a slight note of kids know best that runs throughout the novels. Not exactly a good theological theme, but clearly part of its appeal to children.
A more disturbing theological problem is the idea that evil is fought with evil. Now I believe this is purely slopping thinking on Rowlings’ part, but it is something that comes across. Rowling introduced the idea of three unforgivable and forbidden curses in the fourth book. One curse puts another under your control. A second tortures another with extreme pain. A third outright kills your opponent. These are Dark Magic, and not to be done. Voldermort and his minions use these spells. However, when Sirius Black dies we see Harry Potter try them in book four. He is told by an enemy that you have to really mean it for the spell to work right. This seems to be Rowling’s answer for why Harry is not arrest for using the Dark spell. Yet, in book 7 we see all the good guys using the Dark Arts and the Forbidden Spells. Harry uses the spell that puts people under your control multiple times. Leaders of the good guys admonish him to kill his opponents rather than disarm them. He also uses the torture curse several time and even remarks that "I see what Bellatrix meant you need to really meant it" (593). Clearly now no defense is possible for Harry the user of the evil Dark Arts. No attempt to explain this or even frown upon such things is made in any of the books. This raises a series theological problem: what is evil for J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter. Why is he fighting evil with evil? This idea alone sabotages any idea that the Potter series is in some way Christian.

All in all the Potter books are okay, but not great. They are not for younger kids in my opinion because of the massive amount of death, the lack of clarity about evil and how it is fought, the authority problem, and the later books will simply not hold their imagination. In the end, this series is Star Wars set on a magical earth rather than far, far, away, and it is not done as well. I do open up the floor now for discussion.

Reformed Rhetoric or Reformed Basics?

Tim Enloe at Reformed Catholicism has some concerns about the rhetoric of Reformed people and churches concerning Roman Catholics and Roman Catholic theology. When shifted, the gist of his complaint is that Reformed people do not take the time to understand the nuances of Romanism and that Reformed people cling to that desperate illusion of ‘Bible-onlyism’. Without shifting the post is a rant that shows Mr. Enloe has no real understanding of what the Reformation actually says. Maybe there is someone out there somewhere who fits his straw man, but I doubt it. It also shows that Mr. Enloe holds the fundamental tenants of Protesantism in contempt.

Here is a good sample of exactly what I mean:

here’s a particular one that bugs me of late. Reformed people very easily go off on diatribes against Rome’s "false Gospel," claiming that it "cannot save." Usually this is accompanied by horrific slurs of “Rome’s teaching” which are based on hopelessly inadequate categories of analysis derived from an utterly silly "Bible Onlyism" that blinds people to the complicated interfaces of history, culture, language differences, and philosophy with theology.

Hopefully we can all agree with Paul that false gospels do not save and that another gospel is really no gospel at all. I think Mr. Enloe would agree with that. It seems to me that Mr. Enloe is saying Rome is not teaching a false gospel and that such things are a slur against Rome. Why is it that most Protestants think that Rome teaches a false gospel? According to the post because we believe the Bible alone as the rule of faith, and do not hold to quadrilateral of Scripture-Tradition-Experience-Reason. This is the real objection of Mr. Enloe.

Take a look at some of the questions Mr. Enloe sets forth to remove us poor Protestants from our ‘sophomoric’ addiction to the Bible and rejection of tradition.

More importantly, what does it mean to say that “Rome’s Gospel doesn’t save”? For militant Bible-Onliers, where exactly in the Bible does it say that believing in the doctrines of the Reformation is "how" you get saved? If this is true, why didn’t the Apostles preach sola fide in the book of Acts?

What Reformed person on the planet thinks that believing the doctrines of the Reformation is "how" you get saved? In fact it is just the opposite. Rome thinks you must submit to the Pope (ie. believe what he believes) and be a member of the Roman Church to get saved, while the Reformed think we are saved by Jesus Christ alone through faith alone by grace alone. The whole debate about whether or not Rome’s gospel saves is because Rome and Geneva disagree on "how" one is saved. The instrument of the salvation is not belief in the doctrines of the Reformation, but rather faith is the sole instrument of salvation and in that point is where the debate lies. Mr. Enloe knows this as his assertion about Acts shows, but he puts it in the very inflammatory manner because it makes his case sound better.

As for Acts sola fide is preached by the apostles. Acts 2:38 has Peter telling the crowd "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." There is no notion of works plus faith here just turning from one’s sins to Jesus Christ. Note Philip’s requirement for the Ethiopian to be baptized in 8:37, "If you believe with all your heart [that Jesus Christ is the Son of God] you may." Faith is all that is required by Philip, who may not be an apostle, but is in the book of Acts. Notice how the preaching of Saul soon to be Paul is characterized in Acts 9:20, "Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God." Acts 15 has the Apostles and elders specifically reject the idea of law keeping as a necessary part of salvation. Peter calls it a yoke that ‘neither our fathers nor we are able to bear’ (v.10). Then of course we have the famous answer of Paul to the Philippian Jailor saying "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household" (16:31). I could go on.

One other question posed by Mr. Enloe deserves a bit of attention.

What does it mean to say that the Gospel was “recovered” at the time of “the” Reformation? If the Gospel is what saves, and if it was “lost” for so long, how was anyone between whatever point the loss occurred and the point of the recovery saved? Is Christianity thus like Mormonism, conceiving that True Faith was destroyed for hundreds and hundreds of years and then, poof!, shazam!, and abracadbra!, just recovered out of the blue at the point of our own little group’s founding?

Here I must give Mr. Enloe some credit. First, for using the word ‘shazam’ in a sentence. It has always been one of my favorite words. Second, because here he has a decent point. Some people do think that the gospel was completely lost, and those people are wrong. However, I think a better historical question for Mr. Enloe is does not the success of the Reformation show that the gospel never really disappeared? It is only recovered in the sense of something being taught from the top. The popes had lost the gospel, but it had never fully disappeared from the world. Take for example the Waldenses who cease to exist as a separate entity because their teachings were the same as the teaching of the Reformation because they both taught the Bible. Similar success was found among the many followers of Wycliffe. The history of the Medieval Church is a history of how the gospel survived and thrived especially in Southern France, Switzerland, and northern Italy, which all became hot beds of the Reformation. While Mr. Enloe is right to characterize some Protestants as dismissing almost all of history because they think anything pre-Reformation is wrong, that is not the case for most Protestants. History is on the side of the Reformation, and her doctrines.

All in all for a for a post about the poor state of Reformed Rhetoric, this post is laughable. It makes every error it charges to the Reformed. Mr. Enloe’s hostility will not abate because he does not truly want a change in Reformed Rhetoric, he wants the Reformed to abandon Sola Scriptura. Mr. Enloe’s problem is not with our speech, but with our theology. Hopefully next time he will just admit it and gets straight to the heart of the matter.

756*

It finally happened. Barry Bonds has passed Hammering Hank Aaron for first on the all time homerun list. It was a sight that should have made any baseball fan sick. Barry stopped the game and thanked everyone he could except his personal trainer who sits in jail because he refuses to tell the court exactly how much drugs Barry pumped into his system. And Barry forgot to thank Balco and their director, who also sits in jail, for his artificially inflated arms. Barry may have been a border line Hall of Famer prior to steroids, but now there should be no way he gets in. He broke the law, and cheated the game.

I hope the voters do the right thing and keep Barry out of Cooperstown. I also hope that Bud Selieg wakes up and deals with the problems before him. However, if there is one thing I know. Commissioner Bud will make the wrong choice, do something stupid, and try to sell baseball down the river for a quick buck.

Another look at Charlemagne

I just finished Charlemagne by Derek Wilson. It was interesting to compare this book to the previous Charlemagne: Father of a Continent biography. Wilson’s book was not even close to as scholarly as the other. He did not go into as much detail about the Carolingian Renaissance, which was a clear drawback to the book. He did not have as many stories are takes on Charlemagne telling me it was not as well researched. Wilson did make some improvements on the other biography. Wilson’s biography is written in a popular style that anyone could read, as opposed to a stilted, translated, prose. Wilson takes the biography along a chronological path rather than each chapter exploring every aspect of a different subject. That may also appeal to some. Wilson does one other thing that is enlightening. Wilson adds an entire third section of the book that deals only with the Charlemagne myth. He traces the use of Charlemagne from his death to the modern day. I found this last section fascinating. Charlemagne was almost immediately turned into an icon. Poems, biographies, and plays appear almost immediately. Both Germans and French pointed to Charlemagne the Great as a rallying point. German leaders as late as the 13th century were claiming Charlemagne talked to them in visions along with Frederick Barbarosa and Otto I. French kings did the same. Louis 14th claimed King Charles as his own. Napoleon patterned himself after the First Holy Roman Emperor. In fact, Napoleon crowned himself emperor to correct the one mistake of Charlemagne, and did not undertake that endeavor until after a pilgrimage to Aachen, Charlemagne’s capital. After Napoleon failed to live up to Charlemagne as was defeated the legend of first great French man almost died. He was too intertwined with Napoleon, and thus he was avoided. Adolf Hitler would resurrect Charlemagne by passing laws against Charlemagne. Hitler forbid anyone to use the name of Charlemagne because he was the ‘butcher of the Saxons.’ The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Charlemagne was again a hero. He is now occasionally invoked by the promoters of the EU because Charlemange referred to his territory as Europe. He united the different regions and country and made the firs European Union, which the many now try to duplicate.

In the end, I liked the book, but probably only because I love the subject. Wilson did not do justice to the great accomplishments of Charlemagne. He also clearly did not understand the Christian religion nor how it motivated Charlemagne. He does admit occasionally that an action fit nicely with his piety, but then proceeds to tell us how it was all about politics. So, I disagreed a lot with the characterization of Charlemagne as a political machine. Several things in his life militate against such an understanding. He turned down numerous things that were politically better such as the marriage of one of his daughters to the future Byzantine Emperor. Wilson also makes Charlemagne too much of a loyalist to the pope. True, Charlemagne did many things to help the pope out, but he also actively opposed the pope on several issues such as the 7th Ecumenical council that dealt with worshipping images and by inserting "and the Son" into the Nicene Creed. No small matters. A decent book, but I bet there are better biographies out there. I intend to find them.