A Response to the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Tim Challies is a well known and very good blogger. So, I hesitate to cross swords with this master, but he recently blogged something I felt compelled to debunk. It was a blog about Homeschooling as a self-fulfilling prophecy with regards to Public Schools. Mr. Challies was commenting on a new book by Al Mohler who calls for Christians to get an exit strategy from public schools, and then goes on to talk about how godless they are and give examples. Mr. Challies asks the question of whether or not withdrawing the godly from the schools will help with the problem of the schools being godless and wonders out loud if the homeschooling movement has helped create or at least worsen the problem they complain about.

Before I get going on this critique, I should just let you know where I stand on homeschooling. I am homeschooling my kids, but I don’t consider myself a rabid homeschooler. I agree wholeheartedly with a recent report my denomination did on the subject. The Bible clearly places the parents responsible and accountable for their kids education. However, we can go no further in binding consciences than that. The parents are responsible, and if they see fit to delegate the act of educating to others, then it is biblically allowable. It does not remove responsibility or accountability, but it is not anti-Christian to send kids to public school, or private school, or a Christian school. It is about each parent making what they think is the best choice for their kids. For me, I choose homeschooling. You may want to choose something else.

Now, Mr. Challies makes this biblical suggestion about leaving kids in the public school. After mentioning that Canadian schools are not as bad off as American schools and thinking that might be because homeschooling is not as big in Canada, he goes to the bible for support of his reasoning.

I wonder sometimes about a “Genesis 18” principle. In Genesis 18 we read of Abraham interceding for Sodom and for his people in that city. “Then Abraham drew near and said, ‘Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?’” Abraham asks God, pesters God even, whether God will preserve the city for the sake of the righteous. Will God preserve the city because His people are in it? God answers in the affirmative. And is it possible, I wonder, that the Canadian system has been preserved more than its American counterpart because God’s people have remained there? Perhaps this is a long shot; perhaps I am abusing the text and the principle it teaches; but I can’t help but wonder. Would we not expect God to preserve an institution where His people are present and are attempting to make inroads for His glory?

It is this argument that I think needs to be discussed because I do believe Mr. Challies is wrong on this point. Very wrong, in fact.

First, I do think he is misusing the passage a little and making it say something that I do not believe it is saying. In Genesis 18 God does agree that for 10 righteous souls he will not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but alas 10 righteous cannot be found. This passage, however, does not say that 10 righteous souls would prevent Sodom from being so sinful in the first place. It seems to me the principle of Genesis 18 is that God will be generous with mercy for the sake of the righteous. It does not say that God will allow 10 righteous to influence a corrupt system for the good.

Second, I think the passage actually goes on to teach exactly the opposite of what Mr. Challies argues. If we look we find Lot’s family living in a place of degenerate sinfulness. Does the passage show Lot influencing the city for good or does the passage show Lot being influenced by the city. Well, we see Lot offer his daughter in place of the angel visiting him. A morally questionable motive. We see Lot’s wife look back with longing in her heart for the sinful life of Sodom. We see Lot’s daughter sleeping with him after Lot is drunk. It seems to me that one of the principles of Genesis 18 is exactly what many homeschoolers are stating, ‘Bad company corrupts good morals.’ One cannot be immersed in Sodom and remain unscathed.

What makes Canadian schools have less anti-christian rage than American public schools? I don’t know. It could be that Canada is farther along in removing Christian influence from the society at large (see hate speech laws and other such things). Maybe the churches there are not as active in politics, or maybe the educational elite do not want to create a mass exodus of the system and thus do not push their anti-christian worldview. Who knows? I am just fairly sure there is a better explanation than Christians in the schools creates a better influence. At the very least that argument runs counter to Genesis 18 and other similar examples found in Scripture.

A Response to Mercersburg as an Inoculation against Rome

Every now and then something really astounding is published on the web and one just has to comment on it. Mark Horne has done just that with his post about an inoculation against Rome. Rev. Horne claims that Philip Schaff’s Principle of Protestantism is just that, a way to fight against Rome. Horne rightly points out that Schaff provides a defense of Justification by Faith and also attacks William Pusey, but Horne does not address the main point of the book. Schaff and Nevin, which Horne recommends at the end of the post, are the furthermost thing from an inoculation against Rome, rather they are smaller doses of Romanism.

Here are some important things to remember about Mercersburg, Schaff, and Nevin that show Rev. Horne to be wrong.

1. Schaff defends justification by faith alone with one hand and takes it away with the other. Remember the point of his book is to show that the principle of Protestantism is not justification by faith alone, but rather a principle of development. In fact, he argues that the next step is a reunion with Rome where doctrines like justification by faith alone are merged with elements from Roman worship, like the altar, that implicitly deny that very doctrine. Thus, one can truly question whether or not Schaff defends justification by faith alone in that book, or whether he holds to justification by faith only until the next development is ready, which is a question that must be asked of Schaff when one follows his reasoning on theological development.
2. Nevin seriously considered converting to Roman Catholicism. This is something that is admitted by Schaff himself of his close friend. I find Nevin hard to believe as an antidote to Romanism if he almost went over to it himself. A point ignored by D.G. Hart in his whitewash of Nevin.
3. Many students that sat under Schaff and Nevin converted to Romanism and credited Schaff and Nevin for their conversion.
4. Nevin openly admits that his theological system is a different one from the 16th century pulpit based system and they are at odds with one another.
5. These men were considered unreformed by a large segment of the Reformed world during their own day. The Dutch Reformed broke communion with the Reformed Church in the United States because of the teachings of Nevin and Schaff. Hodge clearly held that Nevin was not reformed on the sacraments, and many within their own denomination accused them of being unreformed on a variety of topics. Take Benjamin Schneck’s work entitled Mercersburg Theology: Inconsistent with Protestant and Reformed Doctrine. Or you could listen to Joseph Berg claim that Nevin was a Nestorian, or the Philadelphia Classis accuse Schaff of holding to a Roman-type view on a Middle State between life and death (which by the way he held and taught at Mercersburg). One could go on for hours.

At the very least, Mercersburg Theology is not a inoculation. At best it is non-reformed attempt to merge two incompatible views. At worst it is a train that leads right to the Tiber river. Let me correct that. At worst it is a recipe to view theology as unimportant. See the result of Mercersburg Theology in the United Churches of Christ.

A brief excursus on Roman and Reformed Unity

I just want to take a second to reflect on something that has been happening on Reformed Catholicism. The site has had a few dust ups about Roman Catholicism and especially the pope. Most of these seem to have been cause by Tim Enloe. One of the ironies of this dust up is that Mr. Enloe often holds to a much more Roman view on many issues, just not the pope apparently. The comments got pretty heated, and Mr. Enloe seems a little surprised that Romanists would comment in such a manner.

I mention this because it highlights my major problem with Reformed Catholicism. It is an oxy moron. It is nice to speak about a dialogue between the Romanist and the Protestants, but it is not possible in the manner they desire it. Protestants and Romanists cannot agree on the gospel. We cannot agree on justification by faith alone, what dialogue can happen? None. We cannot even agree upon what books are in the bible. What should one expect when one presents a critique, historical or otherwise, about the Pope, which like it or not, is the defining characteristic of Roman Catholicism. Just another issue Protestants are Romanists do not agree upon. The Bible is clear, ‘How can two walk together lest they be agreed?’ There is no agreement between Romanists and Protestants, especially Reformed believers. So, I am all in favor of a Roman – Reformed dialogue. I just think that if that dialogue does not start with a call to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, then no good is being done.

A Parting with Marvin Olasky

I respect Marvin Olasky. He is a great writer; and I enjoy his columns in World Magazine. Usually that is. I have come to discover that I have a great deal of difference with him when it comes to defining Conservativism. Marvin, of course, is the inventor of the phrase "Compassionate Conservative." He has been disappointed by President Bush, but a recent article in the Dec. 8th issue of World Magazine reveals that he is looking for more of the same in the 2008 candidates. Mr. Olasky comments on the YouTube debate, and in one sentence he brushes aside both Mitt Romney and Fred Thomson, leaving McCain hoping one of the other remaining candidates falter. Thus, Mr. Olasky narrows the potential field down to two men: Rudy Giuliani, the favorite of Fox News and Neo-Conservatives everywhere, and Mike Huckabee, the chosen one of the evangelicals and the heir apparent to Compassionate Conservativism. Olasky barely conceals his hope that Huckabee will win the nomination. He goes as far as to state, “He has the feeling of George W. Bush at his best but the speaking ability that Bush lacks.” Now I realize that this is a compliment coming from Olasky, but it is precisely what makes me worried. Mike Hucakbee is George Bush again, which means he is not conservative at all. Huckabee will spend money like it is going out of style. Huckabee seems ready to continue the foreign policy of pre-emptive wars. Rather than fighting "the war to end all wars," we will continue to fight "wars to prevent a war." I know the article is supposed to be a side bar, but I watched that YouTube debate, and I did not see such a clear cut victory for Huckabee or Giuiliani. Huckabee has no real plans, and is all charm, something that Tom Tancredo does a really good job of exposing. Tancredo is the only one who ever attacks Huckabee. Sadly, no one ever listens to him. In the end, I have had enough of Compassionate Conservatism, and with all due respect to Mr. Olasky, I disagree that the two least conservative people in the race are the two best hopes for the Republican Party. I encourage Mr. Olasky to listen again to Fred Thompson, maybe Mitt Romney, and even Ron Paul. They make a lot more sense than the "President Bush with a silver tongue" that he is betting on now.

Cultural Warfare - Politics

If you want another view inside the culture watching political news shows is a way to see at least a glimpse of it. If you are not watching Hardball with Chris Matthews don’t start now. However, Mr. Matthews is rabid in his denunciation of the Republican Party and the constant talk of religion, specifically Christianity. He goes so far as to claim that it is creating a religious test for office and thus is violating the Constitution. He says it with such venom that it is hard to mistake his real point: he hates the idea of Christians who make decisions based on the Bible. He had specific venom for the questioner in a YouTube debate who asked how literal people believe the Bible. He went so far as to claim that questioner was violating the Constitution. Now, everyone ought to know that the Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government. In other word, the government cannot create a requirement that everyone must conform to the Three Forms of Unity in order to serve. However, the Constitution says nothing about voters. The Voters can vote for someone because he is a Christian or because he holds to a similar view of the Bible they do, or he can vote for the guy with the best hair. It really doesn’t matter. But, Matthews is desperate to eradicate Christianity from government and daily life, so he has latched onto this silly idea of making Christianity unconstitutional, at least in candidates for office. Sadly, others are starting to follow his lead. Take Mitt Romney for example. He seems to be saying something similar, although with a lot less venom.

What does this tell you about the culture? Well, I think it again points to a real distrust and hatred for the founding traditions. Christianity is on the outs. For a while political commentators ignored Christianity and were able to dismiss it as ‘fringe’, but now they feel the need to eradicate it. Some go about it in a pseudo-acadmeic model as Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham. His book, American Gospel, is an attempt to make people think Christianity had nothing to do with the history and the argument of the book is built more on the hope that no one knows anything at all about American history rather than any sort of proof, documentation, or argumentation. Other try to eradicate Christianity by trying to us the law to make it illegal. This is the Chris Matthews approach and the approach of the United States Supreme Court (see decision outlawing prayer and banning 10 Commandments). Still others go for the mocking dismissal. The unifying point is that a large portion of the culture has a hatred for Christianity, even more so recently than in times past.

Next time we will look at books and then head off to movies before wrapping this whole quick survey with how this is infiltrating the church.

Cultural Warfare - Comic Books

Every now and then it is good to check the temperature of the culture. Christianity should never change its message for the culture, but it should make sure it knows the culture so that it more effectively minister to its needs, as well as prepare for its attacks. There are lots of ways to get the feel for a culture, TV shows, movies, music, art, but in this installment, I want to examine the culture via the medium of comic books. Eventually I will wind this back to the church, but that is for a later post.

Why comic books? For a couple of reasons. One, comic books are for teenagers and kids. They affect the younger minds meaning that I believe they have a formative role. Two, Hollywood today is in decline. New movies rarely make the big bucks that people expect. The few exceptions are the movies made after comic books. This shows that comics do have a large following and it means that you can expect to see more and more comics make it to the films. Three, I grew up a comic book geek, so this stuff is interesting to me. Kind of sad, but at least I admit it.

I think it is important to get a brief history of comics because today’s culture is an anti-historical, death filled, culture. This is better illustrated with a brief overview. The Golden Age of Comics started in 1938 with the release of Superman. In this golden age several companies flourished and heroes like Green Lantern, Atom, Batman and Robin, Captain America, Captain Marvel, and the Flash were created. The heroes then were upstanding. They fought Nazis in WWII. They stood for ‘truth, justice, and the American way.’ The Golden Age ended in 1950 as many of the titles were cancelled. The Silver Age of Comics begins in 1956 when a new Flash is created. Sales go up and more heroes are created such as Spiderman, Thor, Iron Man, the X-men, Avengers, and Justice League of America. The heroes again were upstanding, but some had emotional conflicts and issues usually making them reluctant heroes or misunderstood heroes. Congress had established a Comics Code so that no gruesome or troublesome things could be depicted by comics. This was passed to prevent delinquency in children. The Silver Age ends when the code is lifted in 1971. The Bronze Age then begins where comics begin to try and be relevant to the culture and impact it for the greater good, but using real life troubles to do so. Deaths began to find their way into comics as a way to have superheroes grieve and make the villains seems worse. Although they never really killed the heroes, mainly they killed off lovers or family members. Fewer new heroes are introduced, but you see darker troubled heroes like Ghost Rider coming into existence and you see a large influx of minority heroes and comics dealing with drug use and racism. The Bronze Age ends in 1986 when the comic book industry turned yet another bit darker. This introduced the Dark Age. Books like Batman: the Dark Knight Returns and the Watchmen dealt with very dark topics and heroes became anti-heroes where they no longer worked with the law, but above it. People like Wolverine and the Punisher had no problem killing the bad guys. Again death in comics were on the rise, even killing heroes now as in 1988 Robin, Batman’s sidekick is killed by the Joker. By the way the villians during this period are often portrayed much more sympathetically. I personally believe the Dark Age ends in 2004. Obviously this new age is unable to be named at this point, but it is this new age, I want to discuss.

In 2004, a series was published called Identity Crisis where the major superheroes all agreed to erase a villain memory because he knew their secret identities and he raped the wife of one of their members. They of course covered up the rape as well. This is fairly graphic material and it was basically used to advance the action in a story line. During the seven issue series the formerly raped wife dies from an attack, the new Robin’s father dies in a hit, a few heroes die in battle, and in the end Wonder Woman, Superman, and Batman all take a year off to find out who they are. Feminists protested loudly, but the bad things keep coming. Comics today routinely kill off heroes, even long standing heroes. Captain America a Golden Age creation was recently killed off after leading a revolt against the American Government. A series is now running called Death of the New Gods, where all of the characters of a Golden Age comic pioneer are being killed off. Minor characters without titles of their own die regularly. Death tolls and other unspeakable acts happen all the time, and now almost no characters stands up for the ‘truth, justice, and the American way.’ Marvel Comics just wrapped up a summer series entitled Civil War where the bad guys were other Superheroes, not villains.

What is the point of all of this? The point of this little history lesson is to see the motif found in the culture. A few lessons can be learned. In the modern culture, death is good, it is acceptable, and it is not shocking. Another point is that one can be heroic while participating in murder, breaking laws, and other immoral behavior. In fact, heroism is now the same as vigilantism. A final point and one that is very important, things that are old and stand for the way things used to be are hated. Hated. Old characters are being killed off and then reinvented in a new way. Characters that cannot be killed off for financial reasons are being reinvented so that they no longer reflect the value system of the old days. This is what kids are reading and being taught via comic books. Obviously this has a great deal to do with the church, but before we get to that let us plumb the depths of a few other culture barometers.

Why I can't stand ESPN and the BCS

If any of you have not yet converted to I-AA football, your last chance this season is Friday. Appalachian State goes for its third straight title, a feat never before accomplished. They are taking on another traditional powerhouse and former champion, Delaware. Delaware has a QB that has NFL type talent, and they have overcome the tougher road to the final. Appy St. beat their first two opponents by a mere 4 points total, and then blew out Richmond. Appy St. did not have to play either of the undefeated teams in their bracket because they both lost early. Delaware on the other hand defeated numbers 1 ranked Northern Iowa and then took out number four Southern Illinois all after thumping instate rival Delaware St.

If for some reason that drama is not enough, then just think about what you are supposed to believe about the BCS system. This year there is only one undefeated team, Hawaii. Hawaii won the WAC, which last year sent undefeated Boise St. to the BCS and Boise promptly beat Oklahoma. Yet, this year we are supposed to believe than an undefeated Hawaii is not as good as a two loss LSU. Seriously, do you really believe that the SEC is such a good conference that losing twice makes you better than a team that did not lose at all? Come on. That is too much for me to handle. Plus, to add insult to injury, Tim Tebow won the Heisman Trophy. Let us just look at the stats.

QB#1 – 4174 yds. 38 TD, 112.9 rating
QB#2 – 3132yds. 29TD, 122.9 rating
QB#3 – 40424yds. 30TD, 102.4 rating

It is not that much of a contest when they are evaluated as quaterbacks. But in the interest of full disclosure let us make sure we note that
QB#1 – missed one whole game against Charleston Southern (a stat stuffer game) and played only two downs in a second game. Rushed for 65yds, and 8 TD.
QB#2 – rushed for 838yds, and 22TD.
QB#3 – rushed for –46yds, and 3TD.

Who deserves to be the Heisman? Well, maybe it might help to know that QB#1 did not lose a single game. QB#2 lost three games. QB#3 lost six games. In the end, Tim Tebow is QB#2 and won the Heisman? Why? He only scored five more TDs than Colt Brennan (QB#1), and with all of his yards combined did not gain as much as Brennan did passing alone. Tim Tebow did not even throw as many touch downs as Brian Brohm of Louisville (QB#3). Tebow got a lot of rushing touchdowns because Florida did not have a running game and close to the end zone they just gave the ball to Tebow. Yet, in my opinion the case gets worse. Look at these stats.

RB#1 – 2448 yds. 29TD, 188.3 yds per game
RB#2 – 1725yds. 15 TD, 143.8 yds per game
RB#3 – 1463yds, 14 TD, 121.9 yds per game.

Both RB 1 and 2 also caught one TD pass while #3 went empty on that stat although RB#3 rushed only four times in one of his teams blowout wins.

RB#2 is Darren McFadden who finished second in the voting for the Heisman. His team did not win the SEC title even in the West. RB#3 who has stats fairly similar to McFadden is Chris Wells of one loss Ohio State. And of course RB#1 is Kevin Smith of Central Florida who went for well over 2000 yards something even pros do not do and they have a longer season. Plus, UCF and Mr. Smith won their conference. Why did Smith and Brennan get the cold shoulder when it came time to hand out post season awards? Well, because ESPN would have you think that the BCS schools are just that much better than the other schools.

A two loss team in the championship, and two inferior players in the Heisman race. Enough is enough. Give me I-AA anytime.

More NT Wright and The Gospel of John

If I might follow up on my previous assertion that John’s gospel begins with the Second Person of the Trinity and then shows us Jesus taking flesh. I believe that John’s gospel is clearly the hardest for Bishop Wright’s position of absolutely no self-awareness of divinity within Jesus.

John begins with the famous passage, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God.’ This has seldom been debated that it is referring to the fact the Word is the second person of the Trinity. He is both God and with God, a fine description of Nicaean Theology (or perhaps that is the other way around). That Word then takes flesh. Thus, I think implied at least is the idea that the Person of the Word is now the Person Jesus who is both God and flesh. However, I think John gets more explicit as the gospel goes on.

Now I am going to bypass all of the miracles done by Jesus and other non-human abilities such as seeing Nathanael under the fig tree. In many of these such as the one mentioned, we see Jesus being proclaimed to be the ‘Son of God’ and calling himself the ‘Son of Man’, and saying that he is Jacob’s ladder. All of these things cause problems for Bishop Wright’s opinion, but I have said that arguing over the titles deserves another series of posts on its own.

John shows in the teachings of Jesus that Jesus the Person is the Word who was in the beginning and with God, now made flesh. One example comes in John 6:33, ‘For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ Here Jesus specifically speaks of himself and says that he came down from heaven. Someone who is not aware of his divine nature, and only aware of a calling to do things God said he will do cannot make this statement. If Jesus is just a First Century Jew and unaware of any preexistent life as the Second Person of the Trinity, then he cannot claim to be he who came down from heaven.

Chapter 8 presents even more trouble with several statements. 8:23, ‘You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.’ Again, hard statements for a person without any awareness of his divinity. Wright would have to stretch these comments to make them not a literal above, but some sort of figurative meaning. Yet, this seems even more unlikely as we reach the climax of the debate in chapter 8. The most common verse to prove the divinity of Christ, and consequently the self-awareness of that divinity is John 8:58, ‘Then Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am’.’ Here Jesus claims he is the I AM just as God said to Moses in Exodus 3:14. I have not seen on-line Bishop Wright react to that particular verse, and I would be extremely interested to see how he explained it. But, I do not see how this is not Jesus showing his self-awareness that he is the Second Person of the Trinity. Verse 59 shows us that the Jewish leaders thought he was claiming to be God as they took up stones. So, even in the context of the chapter, it is taken to be a claim to divinity. Of course we cannot divorce John 8 from John 1, so we know exactly what Jesus is referring to, the fact that He is the Word who is God.

Of course chapter 8 ends with people rejecting Jesus as God, chapter 9 ends in the opposite manner with the healed blind man accepting Jesus as God. We see Jesus heal him at the beginning of the chapter, and the we follow the blind man through his trials, and finally Jesus finds the formerly blind man again. In 9:37, Jesus tells the man that Jesus is the Son of God, and in verse 38 the man responds with ‘Lord, I believe! And he worshipped him.’ Note particuarly the ending. The man worshipped Jesus. This is not to be done to a mere man. Someone who was a good first century Jew, but did not think himself God would have stopped the worship immediately. Thus by not stopping the worship, Jesus reveals he knows he is God, he is self-aware of his divinity. [Just as a side note, the man worships Jesus when Jesus tells him he is the Son of God, which seems to imply that Son of God contains it not just Messiahship, but divinity, which goes against Wright’s arguments.]

One could continue endlessly through John. There are many other ‘I am’ statements and the great confession of Thomas, ‘My lord and My God!’ in John 20:28. But I will stop for now. I would love to hear from anyone who knows how Wright reacts to some of the verses in John I have quoted. I think it would be educational. However, I do think these verses destructive to Wright’s Christology.