Forgotten Reformer: Ambrose Blarer

Ambrose Blarer is a forgotten reformer although he has contributed a great deal to modern churches and should be remembered by those who appreciate hymnody. Ambrose was born in 1492 to a wealthy family of Constance (sometimes spelled Konstanz). He probably became Reformed in his university days. He studied at Tubingen where he met Philip Melanchthon. Ambrose’s brother, Thomas, studied at Wittenburg under Luther himself, so Ambrose would clearly have been acquainted with Reformation thought. Despite all of the Lutheran contact, Ambrose became reformed and favored Zwingli’s view of the Lord’s Supper. Ambrose became a monk, but his reformed thought got him kicked out sometime between 1520 and 1523. By 1525 Ambrose was preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ in its purity to the people of the southern Germany city of Constance. His brother Thomas was on the city council, which helped give political support to the new preaching. Constance was the seat of a bishop, so it was no small feat when the city declared for the Reformation. Blarer had a great deal of help from his cousins, Johannes Zwick (a pastor) and Conrad Zwick (another politician).

Blarer would not be content to free just the city of Constance from the grip of Rome and the papal anti-christ. He would also serve as the main Reformer for the cities of Ulm and Memmingen. Blarer also aided in the reformation of other towns such as Montebeliard, and countless others through his correspondence. Some of the work would be undone during the Augsburg Interim imposed after the victory of Emperor Charles. Blarer refused to sign the Augsburg Confession and fled to Switzerland in 1548. There he continued to preach in Swiss towns and give out advice to whoever sought it. He died in 1564.

His impact however was greater than this. When the Reformation took cities over they did not always come to the same conclusions regarding music. For example, the people of Zurich did not participate in singing at all at first. It actually took some time before the people took up their voices in song. The people under Bucer, Zell, and Capito, sang only psalms in the beginning. But the people of Constance wrote and sang hymns. By 1533, the Blarers and Zwicks had written a Constance Hymn Book. It was half psalms and half hymns. Ambrose wrote several hymns and he collected hymns from others. He did include many of the Lutheran hymns, and he also got several other Protestant Reformers to contribute hymns like Leo Juda of Zurich. Ambrose wrote catechical hymns, he wrote evening and morning hymns, and he wrote festal hymns. It took less than five years before Strassborg changed their worship style to include these new hymns flowing out of Constance. In 1540, Blarer collected more and published a new edition and had his friend Johannes Zwick write a defense of hymnody for the preface. These Reformers gave us the great tradition of hymns and adding hymns to our services. This is no small accomplishment. These men not only preached the gospel, but loved to sing the praises of their God and Savior. Blarer took a lead in that, and for that alone he deserves to be remembered.

MLB predictions

I have not made my predictions for this year's major league baseball, but better late than never.

First, let me say the Pirates are going to finish above .500. Yes, they are only 1.5 games out right now. That is amazing. If they can stay within 3 games of St. Louis during this stretch where Jack Wilson (hitting over .300) and Ryan Doumit (RBI leader last year) are on the disabled list and Nate McClouth (last year's all star) is missing a few games then the Pirates are going to compete for a Wild Card and perhaps the NL Central Title. This is a great start for them and they still have last year's bright spot Phil Dumatrait to add to the bullpen or rotation where ever he is needed as soon as Phil gets off the DL.

But the team to watch, and my pick to win the World Series is the Minnesota Twins. Right now they are under .500, but only 1.5 games out of first in their division. They are doing this without the person who should have won the MVP last year, Joe Mauer. Mauer led the AL in batting average last year, and when he gets back, the Twins will take off again. They have the best manager in baseball and a really good pitching staff. Expect the Twins to be in the post season this year.

As for the NL, I think you have to say that the Dodgers are going to win the NL. I hate to admit that, but I think Joe Torre is the second best manager in baseball, and they do not have a lot of competition out in the NL West. The Mets are going to fold down the stretch as always and leave the Dodgers without serious competition. I do not think that Pujols can keep the Cardinals in the running by himself and Chirs Carpenter is already hurt. The rest of the Cardinals are on steroids so you never know what you are going to get from them. The Cubs made a giant mistake in the offseason with Milton Bradley, and their pitching is not good enough. So, there you have it. My 2009 picks.

Paedocommunion vs. Confirmation: Part 2

I just want to take a brief glance at the history of Paedocommunion in the Church. Venema apparently does this in his book and comes to the conclusion that some churches may have practiced it and others probably did not. I agree with this assessment. In fact some of my thoughts can be found in the comment thread on this post. You can find some arguments that Paedocommunion is the historical practice by Tommy Lee on the web.

The Reformers rejected the practice and Wolfgang Musculus is the only one with any sympathy toward it at all. But even he rejects it in the end. The Roman Catholic Church had long since rejected the practice and Eastern Orthodox Church kept the practice. If you read the articles in favor of Paedocommunion you will see that many scholars think the Roman Catholic Church did not practice infant communion in the first and second century. I will not undertake a refutation of their refutation at this point as that would be tedious. However, I simply want to point out the fact that scholars are not as agreed as they would have you think. But more importantly I want to draw attention to their reasoning as to why the Roman Church dropped the practice. Mr. Lee writes:

If paedocommunion was the common practice of the church in ancient days, then why do we not practice it today? Keidel asserts that infants and children were forbidden from the Lord's Supper because of "the doctrine of transubstantiation and the doctrine of concomitance (i.e., that Christ is present entirely under either kind)... The fear that infants and children might spill the wine and thereby profane the actual body and blood of the Lord appears to have been the primary reason for this discontinuance."49 Actually, it was not only the infants and children who ceased drinking the "transubstantiated" wine. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries all of the laity (in the West), adults included, began to back away from the cup. 50

Yet, I see this as a blatant attempt to spin the historical debate in their favor. If the only reason to forbid the Table to infants was a heresy, then we should give it back right? There are several things that make it obvious that this reason is not the best, if one at all. First, Transubstantiation was not official, but was the primary understanding as early as the beginning of the Eleventh century as Pope Leo X had condemned views opposing Transubstantiation by 1050. That is a few centuries earlier than most of these people admit that infants no longer took the Supper, and it seems likely that Transubstantiation must have been around prior to that in an accepted way for Leo to be able to make such a decision. Second, people withdrew from the cup at different times in the history of the church. Pinning down one reason is difficult. In footnote 49 Mr. Lee does admit a growing demand for intelligent reception. Then he also has this important toss away phrase.

Other contributing factors may include the separation of confirmation from the time of baptism (made necessary because Christianity grew rapidly while the number of bishops did not) which encouraged a break down in the three part rite of initiation into the church (baptism, confirmation, eucharist) and the development of the idea of childhood.

Note the dismissive italics. Yet, it is clear that this separation is important. Confirmation used to be handled right after baptism and then the Supper was placed in their mouth. All three signs of being a member of the church crammed into one ceremony. Interestingly you will note that the Eastern Orthodox Church still does all three at once, and the Roman Church does not. Do you think this has any bearing on the fact that the Eastern Orthodox still communes infants and the Romans do not? Probably. The rite of confirmation moved, and with it communion.

Confirmation has already moved by the time of Charlemagne as Ratramnus of Corbie defended the removal of Confirmation from baptism by declaring it the ordination of the laity. In other words they were called into true service of God now at Confirmation, declared of age to participate in the fight. It should be noted for the theory above that Ratramnus rejected Transubstantiation. Confirmation prepared people for the fight of Spiritual Warfare, which necessitated maturity. This language can be seen with regards to confirmation as early as the fifth century in France. We also see that Confirmation for the Welch in Great Britain was not done until they were seven as early as the 9th century. Egbert Archbishop of York in the early part of the 8th century makes it clear that in England (at that point still separate from the Welch) a seven year old is confirmed and then they receive Communion. The Council of Lambeth (1281) made it clear that no child should partake of Communion until after Confirmation. They were not introducing a new idea, but strengthening the neglected rite of Confirmation. Pope Leo XIII in 1897 stated that the practice of the ancient church was to confirm children before their first communion, and that practice should be maintained. I will just assume the Pope has access to more ancient documents than I do, but I do realize that trusting a pope is not a good idea.

The point being here is that Confirmation has always played an important role. Even in the churches that did give the bread and wine to infants, they were almost always confirmed first. Now, I am clearly not arguing for a Roman Catholic doctrine of Confirmation, but I am saying that it is something that cannot be left out of the discussion.

And in fact when the Reformers re-examined everything they of course did not believe Confirmation a sacrament, but they did find it a useful rite of the church. One based now on catechism, instruction, and knowledge. And it served as a wonderful way to make sure children were ready to take the Lord’s Supper. Bucer introduced catechism based Confirmation into the churches of Germany and the churches of England. This of course rubbed off on the German speaking Swiss cantons. The French speaking cantons followed the lead of Calvin, who also performed catechism based Confirmation usually at about age 10. The historic Reformed position then is pretty clear. It is not just allowing people with a profession of faith to the Table at a certain age, it is allowing people to the Table after Confirmation, which involves instruction from the church.

And that in the end, is what I am arguing for. I am not arguing for some random age. I am arguing for participation in the Lord’s Supper to be after a church based examination that involves more than just a profession of faith, but an actual in-depth time of study and knowledge before being allowed to the Table. I shall call it Confirmation Based Communion. I think it is biblical, historical, and the proper thing to do. I hope to expand some basic Exegetical arguments in the next posts.

Paedocommunion vs. Confirmation

I am afraid that the paedo-communion discussion has been lost by the reformed side of the debate. I don’t wade into this lightly because I have some friends who are adamant about the issue, but I fear they are losing. Why? Because it has already been accepted in principle, now all that is left is to haggle over the age. The serious problems of paedo-communion are too often left out of the discussion, or worse, assumed to be true.

Let me give some examples. Steve Hays at Triablogue asks this question.

I have one question: If a pregnant woman takes communion, is that a form of paedocommunion?

Now I admit Hays is not arguing for either side just looking for some clarification, but you would be really surprised to see how often this argument comes up. Hays does not comment on the incipient sacramentalism in the thought. If the baby in the uterus partakes of communion through the mother then clearly we have the transmission of a spiritual blessing through a physical act: the act of eating. Which by the way is exactly what they say. Wilson calls it "eating grace" (Reformed is Not Enough. Pg. 93).

Rev. Douglas Wilson and Rev. Lane Keister are currently blogging through a book by Rev. Cornelius Venema about the issue of paedocommunion. I have great hopes that this will still end up in a strong rejection of paedocommunion as carrying with it a latent sacramentalism. However, Rev. Keister informs us that the book will make a difference between the "strict" view of anyone capable of eating coming to the table and the “soft” view which accepts young professions of faith. Rev. Wilson rightly called this a major flaw. More to the point Rev. Wilson informs us that the book considers the "soft" view a mere modification of the historic reformed view. Things get worse when we see that Rev. Keister admit he is a soft paedocommunionist. This debate is now between a "Strict Paedocommunist", a "Soft Paedocommunist", and a book that thinks "Soft Paedocommunism" is acceptable.

This is why I fear the debate is lost. The practice of allowing children and people in general to the table has been very lax in America for generations. The entrance to the table for most people is merely a Conversion Narrative (an invention of the New Side Presbyterians in the First Great Awakening). If you can tell people when you were saved or that Jesus is your savior, and the Session/Consistory believes you then you are allowed to the Table. Is that the historic Reformed Practice? More importantly, is that the Biblical practice?

In the next several posts I would like to examine this question as thoroughly as my meager efforts can. You will notice the title of the post involves the issue of Confirmation. I think that Confirmation is left out of the discussion far too often, and perhaps is the reason that all the important ground has already been ceded to the Paedocommunists. Few churches practice this rite of the church that was fully endorsed by the Reformation and a prerequisite to the Table.

Tax Day Protest Thoughts

The Tax Day Tea Parties illustrated several major things that ought to scare everyone of us.

The first is a point that cannot be stressed enough. There are some people out there that actually think Keith Olbermann is a journalist. That is astounding and proof that some people will believe anything. Self-Delusion of course is the greatest and Keith himself may actually think his sexual joking about the Tea Parties was real journalism. There is no doubt in my mind that as big a liberal as Edward Murrow was that Murrow would be horrified that Olbermann was on TV and using his catch phrase. I think Murrow would slap Olbermann and tell him a few choice words.

Second, the media as a whole is completely biased. Journalism is dead. It will never come back and it will be hard to maintain a free country and be informed since TV stations are tools of the political parties now. MSNBC was disgraceful in its coverage as was CNN. Fox News went the opposite rout and tried to act as if they were are a part of the Tax Day Tea Parties, which is just as unjournalistic. Not good.

Third, people do not understand taxes. This is what worries me the most. This CNN reporter shows her complete hatred of the protestors, but also her complete ignorance of taxes in this clip that is a must watch. Notice how her response to the man’s complaint about his liberty is to cut him off. In the reporter’s mind taxes and liberty are unrelated. Then she goes even further when the man speaks directly to his taxes been too high, she states that his state is getting a lot of Money from the Federal Government, as if that makes taxes okay. She clearly thinks taxing people in order to give the money to other people is a great idea and does not understand why this guy is not on board. She clearly did not do a lot of listening to the people while she was out there.

The flaw that not only this reporter, but just about all 500 plus representatives in Congress make is that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” as was noted by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v Maryland. That was of course an undisputed point because that is exactly what Maryland wanted to do the Bank of the US, destroy it. Maybe now it will be clearer to all why liberty is at state when we discuss taxes. If you tax it, you can destroy it, and you will at one point if the people do not keep vigilance. The Federal Government now taxes your phone calls, your gas, and most importantly your income. They have the power to destroy your income. That is why people go to the streets and fear for their liberty. That is why the original Boston Tea Party also. If Parliament had the power to tax anything and everything then there was no liberty. They were slaves of Parliament, slaves to the will of Parliament.

Every civilization before America understood this. Taxes are not Patriot as liberal Democrats want you to believe. They are a necessary, but they are far from patriotic. More revolts are about taxes than about anything else. You can even look in the Bible to see a tax revolt under Rehoboam. It is not because people are selfish and want their money, it is because taxes destroy. They destroy their liberty, their freedom, and cannot be tolerated at certain levels. Either the people end up revolting, the government listens and lowers taxes, or the nation collapses on itself. This is just fact. Sadly a fact that no one notices today.

Oscar De La Hoya: A Sports Legend

You may not have heard, but Oscar De La Hoya retired the other day from boxing, and it could be very well be the end of boxing.

De La Hoya was overall 39-6 and sadly is most remembered for losing 4 of his last 7 fights. Yet, it needs to be remembered that he lost to undefeated Floyd Mayweather Jr., boxing legend Bernard Hopkins, Sugar Shane Mosely twice one of which he admitted to using steroids, and Manny Pacquio who is the best pound for pound fighter in the world right now. His other loss was to Felix Trinidad, which was such a bad decision that an investigation was actually launched into the decision, but then again De La Hoya won a decision against Pernell 'Sweet Pea' Whitiker that was equally as bad.

But the important thing to remember about Oscar De La Hoya is his impact on the sport. He has single handed kept boxing a float in the past decade. He has not avoided the big time boxers. He fought and won titles in four different weight classes. He fought Mayweather and set records for PPV. He had previously set records with his bout against Felix Trinidad. He has also promoted several fights, such as the Mayweather bout, that have done great things for the sport. Yet, without De La Hoya boxing will probably die. Mayweather retired and then tried to come back versus Ricky Hatton, but that was not the success that boxing needed. Now Mayweather is back in retirement. Hopkins has retired, and Pacquio has no one of worth to fight plus he is not a draw in America. And the heavyweight division is destroyed and worthless.

The sport of boxing has always been of interest to me, but now it is being surpassed as it is full of drug users, violent criminals, and bad actors. It is a shame that the days of Sugar Ray and Marvolous Marvin Hagglar are all gone. It is a sad thing.

Meacham's misinformatin, misunderstanding, and out right missing it

Jon Meacham has his ignorance on display again in Newsweek. The article is proclaiming the End of Christian America. Of course Jon litters the article with his own opinion.

I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance.

The End of Christian America is a good thing according to Jon Meacham, but is his opinion informed, or is he as reckless in this belief as he is in his scholarship and books. The answer is obvious, he is completely misinformed, misunderstanding, and missing the boat.

I will start with misinformed, and the above quote is a good place to start. Have Christians in America tried to force religious belief? Or even observance? Of course not. Trying to outlaw abortion or stop gay marriage cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seen as forcing religious belief. Protecting people that cannot protect themselves is not forcing religious belief. But, for some reason Meacham thinks that this is what is going on in America. Not surprisingly Meacham is also misinformed about history. He has proven this over and over in his books, but he wants us to really see how stupid he is. Meacham's inability to tell the difference between a Christian Nation and a nation in which Christianity is the warp and woof destroys almost every argument he has ever made. Meacham tries to show some places where he believes Christians have overstepped and forced religious belief. He cites Prohibition, which may have had some Christian support, but failed because it was decidedly anti-Christian. Jesus himself would have had to been arrested since he used alcohol. Hardly was the Christian world united behind Prohibition, which was just as much driven by those who thought the state could fix the world, Progressives, not exactly a Christian haven. Meacham also cites evolution. Here he thinks Christians have argued that evolution not be taught in schools, and in fact they did . . . in 1920. However, now Christians are just asking that evolution not be taught as fact and that maybe alternate theories can have a place in the school room too. Meacham sees no problem with Evolutionists enforcing their belief on Christians, but thinks Christians should not have the right to have their belief mentioned. Yet, Meacham cannot see this obvious flaw at all. Meacham wants toleration, except of course for tolerating Christians or at least Creationism. Then abortion is mentioned as if being against murder is something only a "fundamentalist extremist" would do. These are all awful examples, but it is also all he can come up with. Meacham remains clueless about history and misinformed on reality.

The misunderstanding makes his misinformation look benign. He lectures us with this phrase.

Religious believers should welcome this; freedom for one sect means freedom for all sects.

This statement is poetical, sounds great, but it is completely false. Did Meacham ever stop to think if this statement was true? Let me give a few examples. Islam often desires to go by Sharia Law. This is not just confined to the Middle East, but also is emerging in places like Canada. Does this freedom for Islam result in freedom for all sects? Does it result in freedom for women? Of course not. Women are mere objects in Sharia Law. They can be divorced by mere word of mouth, they often are forced to cover up from head to toe. Is that freedom? Hardly. One can use the Secular Humanist or the Feminist who thinks that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with the baby in her womb. They wish to murder it. Now is this freedom for the dead baby? Hardly. The Culture War, which MSNBC and Newsweek try hard to pretend ended with the election of Barak Obama, exists because of what Meacham fails to recognize. There are such things as Contradictories. Two things that cannot both be true, and cannot both be accepted, thus they cannot both be tolerated. Take Public Schools for example. Can you teach in public school God at all? No. Can you allow prayer? No. Can you teach Creationism? No. Is that freedom and liberty in the government schools? Is that laying all ideas side by side and letting them fight it out on equal footing, which is Meacham’s pet idea? Or is that intolerance of Christian ideas, and a promotion of atheism, communism, and/or humanism? You cannot have them both. They are at war. Meacham fundamentally misunderstands the nature of belief, the nature of truth, and the nature of what logic calls the "Square of Opposition".

Still further Meacham is missing the boat. He starts by missing his own quote from Al Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention. Mohler states in the article.

"The post-Christian narrative is radically different; it offers spirituality, however defined, without binding authority," he told me. "It is based on an understanding of history that presumes a less tolerant past and a more tolerant future, with the present as an important transitional step."

Mohler has identified what he believes is a problem. The attempt to hold society together without a unified understanding of concepts. Removing the foundation so to speak. Only a paragraph or two later, Meacham comes up with this piece of worldly wisdom.

What we value most highly—what we collectively love most—is thus the central test of the social contract.

And then explained:

If we apply an Augustinian test of nationhood to ourselves, we find that liberty, not religion, is what holds us together.

My question for Mr. Meacham is this: What is liberty? Can he define it in terms that we will all agree? Then the second logical question. From whence does liberty come? Now, I promise you he will lose most of the people with his answer to that question. In other words, Mohler is right. We may all love liberty, but the one who thinks liberty comes from giving up powers to the President in the Patriot Act and the one who thinks that liberty is stronger without the government are going to differ. I did not even have to bring God into that question to prove Meacham a man full of platitudes, but no real deep thought. When your liberty endangers another’s liberty, whose liberty wins out? Meacham has no answers. That is because he missed the boat about Christianity completely. Liberty comes with Christianity, and from no where else. What force has civilized the world? What force has brought liberty to the world? Christianity is the answer. Did not Christianity civilize the Roman world? Christianity put an end to the gladiator games and feeding people to lions. When the barbarians came, they came without Christianity. Then they were civilized by Christiantiy and civilization was restored. Education, reform, and prosperity came with the Christianity promoted by Charlemagne in what we now call the Carolingian Renaissance. The University was created around the idea of Christianity. The Renaissance is linked fundamentally with the Reformation. Communism was stopped as much by where the Reformation had come as by any military force. Were the American Indians civilized before the induction of Christianity from the settlers? No. It was Christianity that ended the slave trade through men like William Wilburforce doing exactly what Meacham is against. Meacham is just petulantly raging that tolerance is good and those who are against him are just intolerant extremists. Meacham’s complete inability to see that this is a much deeper divide than just mere words means he has missed the spiritual, philosophical, and intellectual boat.

It should be noted that even leftist bloggers like Jeff Schweitzer can see that Meacham is just babbling like a child. Schweitzer can at least see that the Christianity and Secular Humanism cannot be tolerated on the same field. They are Contradictories.

Arnold J. Toynbee, a historian, once stated, "Civilizations are not murdered. They commit suicide." This article from Jon Meacham is trying to get our civilization to take a cyanide pill.

Forgotten Reformer: Matthew Zell

I have often wondered why we do not speak more of Matthew Zell. When we think of the reformation in Strasbourg we almost always speak of Martin Bucer. Yet, Bucer was the last reformer to arrive on the scene in Strasbourg. He was beaten by Hedio, Capito, and Zell. In fact, Zell is the first Reformer in Strasbourg. He deserves the lion’s share of the credit. Yet, he is mostly a forgotten reformer today.

Matthew Zell was born in 1477 and educated in Freiburg and Mainz among other places. He went to be a preacher in Strasbourg in 1518 and by 1521 (perhaps earlier) he was preaching the Reformed doctrines. This makes him one of the very early Reformers just slightly after Zwingli and Luther himself. For several years he labored by himself for the Reformation in Strasbourg. The Roman bishop, Wilhelm Honstein, tried to have him removed several times, but the City Council supported Zell because the people of the city loved his sermons. He was far too popular. In fact, at one point the Cathedral pulpit was closed to him and he was not allowed to preach in it. So the Carpenters Guild of the city built him a portable pulpit and they placed it in the sanctuary for Zell to use. From that point on Zell preached in the pulpit made especially for him. An indication of how beloved he was in the city.

Perhaps, we have forgotten Zell because he cared only for preaching. He did not participate in any of the controversies of the city or the broader Reformed world. He did not attend Marburg Colloquy. He did not participate in any of the attempts to unify Luther with the Swiss Reformers. He simply preached and shepherded his church. This means that in D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation Matthew Zell is only mentioned once when he houses Zwingli while Zwingli visits Strasbourg. Surely he played a more important role than that. Yet, he only seems to have wanted to be left alone to preach the gospel and teach the members of his church. And by all accounts he did just that. He even wrote a catechism around 1536 directed at children so that they might more clearly understand the biblical truths.

It should also be noted that Zell had no problem moving over. When in 1523 others began to arrive in Strasbourg to hold pulpits of their own and preach for the Reformation, Zell was happy. He did desire to see his city serve the risen Lord, and it was great news that now the pulpits were being filled with other men who preached the truth. Zell, who had been the unquestioned leader in the city, does not show any signs of anger or resentment when Bucer and Capito take the lead and begin to direct the city council of Strasbourg or lead the church into a wider community. Zell had no problem letting men who might have been more gifted at such things use their gifts and lead the church. Zell reminds us of Barnabas in that way. Barnabas had no problem stepping from the lime light to let Paul do the leading, but that does not mean that Barnabas did not do great work. Indeed he did. As it is also with Zell. A constant reminder of how laboring in one’s own vineyard can produce dramatic results. Zell is a forgotten reformer that probably would not mind being forgotten. Truly a pious example for us all.

Multiple Book Reviews

It has been a while since I have done a book review, so let me try to do several at once.

Decision in Philadelphia, by Christopher and James Collier, is a magnificent book. It takes a look into the writing of the Constitution of the United States. It introduces you to the major players with nice biographical sections, gives insight into the debates, the politics, and the outcome. This book has some wonderful things that really challenged and changed my opinion about the Constitution and the Convention. One such change is whether or not Madison was truly the “Father of the Constitution”. The Colliers do a fairly convincing job showing that the real father of the Constitution might ought to be Charles Pickney of South Carolina, and that Madison launched a smear campaign to remove the importance of Pickney even going so far as to never record a single speech given by Pickney during the Convention. This is just a small glimpse of the fun and enjoyable discussions on the heart of the U.S. Constitution that happen in this book. Even if you disagree with where the authors come out, this book is a great read. And it is readable, which is also nice too.

Teaching the Reformation is widely overpriced, but still very good. The book examines the Reformation specifically how it was passed on in the 100 years after it came to Basel. The book only examines Basel. Thus, the author breaks down preaching patterns, teaching methods, ministering practices, and other factors in Basel from 1529 to 1629. The book is hampered slightly in that not much is available from Oecolampadius and his contemporaries who brought the Reformation to Basel. It would have been more enlightening to see that. However, the book still does a good job of showing the impact of cultural trends, educational trends, and the goals of the Reformers in the city. I have a few complaints. She is far too nice to Simon Sulzer and his Lutheranizing. That hurts the book in my opinion. It is also obviously scholarly work, which makes it a fairly hard read. Don’t expect to finish it in a weekend. And be familiar with Ramism before you get into the book. I was surprised to see what an extensive role Ramism played in Basel. Also she references graphs of ages of pastors and education levels and stuff like that, but all the graphs are in the back. I do not like to flip to the back while reading. I found that annoying. The book is good if you are a pastor who cannot get enough Reformation history. If you are a casual reader, wait until the book comes up on e-bay.

1066 was recommended to me in 11 Grade English. My teacher there was a drunk and taught us nothing. However, she raved about this one book. I never read it because that teacher stunted my education. I mean she watched kids cheat on vocabulary tests and did nothing, but threw one kid out of school for crossing a chalk line that put him to close to her “secret” stash of booze. Anyway, the book is about the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, except it comes at the story from a very interesting perspective. You learn about the conquest, but you are actually reading a book about the Beaux Tapestry, which tells the tale of the Conquest. This tapestry, which is in Beaux France and dates from about 10 years after the conquest is traditionally thought of as giving the Norman account of the Conquest and the controversy that led to the war. Yet, this author, hypothesizes that the tapestry was actually a clever way to tell the English (Anglo-Saxon) side of the story while not getting its creator’s head cut off by his new rulers. Very intriguing. I do not know enough about the Tapestry to really pick sides, but I like books that argue a point, and I learned about the Conquest while being entertained in this man’s quest to discover the true meaning of one our ancient works of art and history. It is part history book and part detective novel. Good book. And yes, frame by frame pictures of the tapestry are provided so that you can follow along with her analyzing of the tapestry.

I have also read several short stories, the most notable one being The Problem of Susan by Neil Gaiman. Neil Gaiman is a very famous fantasy/science fiction writer. The recent movie Coraline is written by Mr. Gaiman. This short story is clearly a response to both C.S. Lewis’s Narnia books as well as Christianity as a whole. It takes a character named Susan who is all grown up and has dreams about Lions and White Witches and battles where winter turns to spring. She mentions a train wreck that killed her whole family including a brother named Ed. It is clearly meaning to follow the life of Susan from the Narnia books who you will recall does not return to Narnia because she likes lipstick and boys too much. One of the draw backs of the short story is that the theme of sex is a bit too graphic. However, Gaiman clearly thinks that is the problem with Christianity. He views Satan and God as together. The two are a heartless pair that have their fun with people and are really only out to please themselves. The short story is very blasphemous, but then what else do you expect from a non-Christian writer. He does actually spend a brief moment or two critiquing children’s books and Narnia as a book as well. Too moralistic and preachy the characters assert in this story. Gaiman clearly thinks that old time literature that was not so Puritanical was better for children overall. In the end, this short story was interesting and a look into the mind of someone who rejects Christ. But it’s not exactly a story for the ages.