A World Series in Perspective

Let me just take a minute to speak about the World Series. The worthless Boston Red Sox have won again, and we are going to have to sit through the pro-anything-New-England rants that ESPN will fall into for who knows how long. I just want to set a few things about this year’s fall classic in perspective.

1. The Red Sox had the added benefit of the man investigating steroids for major league baseball working on their payroll. That probably explains why David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez never surface as possible steroid users. It also puts into context the timely steroid accusation against Cleveland pitcher Paul Byrd before crucial Game 7.
2. The Rockies suffered not so much because of their 8 day lay off between games, but because there was absolutely no punishment for the Red Sox going 7 games. They went the distance against Cleveland, but got 3 days off themselves before the World Series began. The World Series should start the day after a scheduled Game 7 or no later than one day after a Game 7. It was possible for the Red Sox to throw their best pitcher in Game 7 of the ALCS and then pitch him again for Game 1 of the World Series as pitchers often go on three days rest in the playoffs. It allowed the bullpen of the Red Sox to be completely rested and let them fix their rotation how they wanted it. The problem is not the long layoff for a team that wins their Championship Series in four, the problem is there is no downside to going seven games.
3. The Red Sox did not beat the best team in the National League. They did not even beat a division winner. Hardly a feat worth celebrating.
4. The Red Sox drastically underachieved their Pythagorean Win total by 5 games.
5. There were a lot of people talking about how Josh Beckett is one of the great all time pitchers in post season play. He does have an impressive record of 6-2 with a 1.73 ERA with 82 strikeouts. But just compare him to Bob Gibson. Gibson has a record of 7-2 with an ERA of 1.89 with 92 strikeouts. Now at first glance these look comparable. But then one should remember that Bob Gibson only pitched against the winner of the American league in every one of his 9 games, 8 of which he completed. Beckett pitched only 3 of his 10 appearances against the champion from the other league, and Beckett managed to only complete 3. In other words, Josh Beckett has good post season numbers because he faces lesser post season competition. In World Series play he is only 2-1. That is the number one ought to compare to the likes of Bob Gibson.
6. A lot of ESPN commentators are falling all over themselves to declare Josh Beckett among others as a lock for the Hall of Fame. Beckett currently has a record of 77-52. Hardly awe inspiring. He has only broken 20 wins one time (this season), and has only broken 10 wins 3 times out of his seven year career.

I just point these few helpful things out so that we can remember that every team that wins the World Series is not automatically the Best Team of All Time, nor is it necessarily filled with Hall of Famers. In fact, Curt Schilling is the only person I would consider for the Hall of Fame at this point on the Boston roster.

Now that I have baseball out of my system, I will get back to theology.

Whatever happened to Paleo-Conservatism?

I found this map on Patrick Ruffini. I find it an insanely interesting map. I think it demonstrates the break down of the Republican Party very well. The Neo-Conservatives have risen to power by aligning themselves with the Theocrats, who value social issues and are willing to have big government fix it. They are also then willing in return to let the Neo-Cons have some other big government programs.

Not surprisingly the Theocrats live in the Bible belt and are the most dedicated to riding the party machinery that got them this far. Thus, Ron Paul and his traditional paleoconservative / libertarian values are rejected out of hand. These states prefer instead people like Gov. Mike Huckabee. It produces a constant supply of Republican Senators who are not going to change government, but use it. Example, Trent Lott. The Neocons also reside in the South, but also reside in the Ohio River Valley and in some Mid Atlantic states. Thus, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia give little to paleoconservatives like Ron Paul. The best example of this is Rudy Gulliani, but one could also use some of the ousted Pennsylvania Congressman and the current Minority Leader in the House. Now we also see light pink in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and North Dakota. The reason here is that these states are Democratic to the core. It is one of the great shames of the Democratic Party that they fail to win Iowa and North Dakota in Presidential election years.

Thus, Paleoconservatives live in Plains and in the West. Here are the people who would rather not have government messing things up. These people are also not so free trade oriented. This is where real conservative values still live on. Senator Tom Coburn serves as one example. Perhaps a more poignant example is the Constitution Party actually got a man elected to the Montana State Legislature, a legislature that has an equal number of Republican and Democrats with one Constitutional Party man to break the ties. A harbinger of the futuer?

The only surprise is that so much of New England is dark red or red at all. However, it could be because that region is anti-war and give money to the anti-war candidate. It also could be that Libertarianism is stronger than I thought in New England.

Regardless, this map shows that Ron Paul is not a lone wolf. His thorn in the candidacy of the Republicans will continue. He has won most of the debates despite being attacked by every moderator in every debate. If something does not change, I am not sure the Republican Party will survive. Look for more losses for the Republican in Congress in ’08, and then remember this map. I bet it will keep bearing true that the darker red the state the more the Neocons in office lose. In ’06 the Republicans lost seats in Montana, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Maine, and narrowly won in Tennessee.

National Disgrace in our National Game

The Colorado Rockies are in the World Series. As a former resident of Colorado, I am excited. As a baseball fan, I am sick. This is just more proof that the Wild Card is the worst thing ever for baseball. The Rockies had an incredible stretch run to make the playoffs, but they fell one game short of the Arizona Diamondbacks for the NL West crown. The Rockies had an exciting one game playoff with the Padres to make the playoffs, but in reality it was a game to see who finished second and third. Those are called consolation games, and they should be pointless. Now the Rockies have beaten the Diamondbacks in a four game series, and are going to the World Series. The 162 game season did not matter. The Diamondbacks were better all season long, but in the end it was all overturned and the first loser is now in the position to be the big winner. This has already happened an embarassing four times (1997, 2002, 2003, and 2004). Many more wild card teams have made the World Series and failed to win such as last year's Detriot Tigers. It is a disgrace to the game of baseball. It is a disgrace to those who care about winning, and it makes those who play a full season of quality baseball look like idiots. I hope we all come to our senses soon.

Era of Good Feelings

The Era of Good Feelings by George Dangerfield is an interesting book primarily because it has a view of American history that is almost a polar opposite to my own. Dangerfield writes engagingly about the history of America from the War of 1812 to the election of Jackson in 1828. Dangerfield views the Monroe administration as a complete failure. He thinks the John Quincy Adams adminstration a visionary one that was ahead of its time. Dangerfield thinks such things as the Missouri Compromise led to the Civil War, and were failures overall of government. He blames men like Daniel Webster for being unwilling to take that next step to abolition. He thinks very little of Henry Clay even Clay’s role in the Missouri Compromise. All of this and he does not view the War of 1812 as an impressive victory for America. That is just a sampling of the many things upon which we disagree. I on the other hand often view this time period as the highlight of America. It was the Constitution at its finest hour and the beginning of the Golden Age of the Senate. Dangerfield’s major problem is that he views history from the results rather than the parameters. He thinks the end of slavery was a good thing. On that he and I agree. However, Dangerfield views slavery from a post-civil war mind, and thus, the war is a good thing since it ended slavery. I think that unfair to pre-civil war history. Jackson, Clay, Webster, and others tried to end slavery without war. They felt war was the great evil, and they tried to end slavery in a matter according to the Constitution rather than just brandishing the bayonet.

Despite these things which do come out in his book, the book does a good job of giving a thorough account of the Era of Good Feelings. He does especially good work on things like the Panic of 1819, and the attitude of John Quincy Adams as a whole. The book is fairly long, but if you like history books, this one is pretty good. Feel free to check it out for a little light reading on the weekends.
The Era of Good Feelings by George Dangerfield is an interesting book primarily because it has a view of American history that is almost a polar opposite to my own. Dangerfield writes engagingly about the history of America from the War of 1812 to the election of Jackson in 1828. Dangerfield views the Monroe administration as a complete failure. He thinks the John Quincy Adams adminstration a visionary one that was ahead of its time. Dangerfield thinks such things as the Missouri Compromise led to the Civil War, and were failures overall of government. He blames men like Daniel Webster for being unwilling to take that next step to abolition. He thinks very little of Henry Clay even Clay’s role in the Missouri Compromise. All of this and he does not view the War of 1812 as an impressive victory for America. That is just a sampling of the many things upon which we disagree. I on the other hand often view this time period as the highlight of America. It was the Constitution at its finest hour and the beginning of the Golden Age of the Senate. Dangerfield’s major problem is that he views history from the results rather than the parameters. He thinks the end of slavery was a good thing. On that he and I agree. However, Dangerfield views slavery from a post-civil war mind, and thus, the war is a good thing since it ended slavery. I think that unfair to pre-civil war history. Jackson, Clay, Webster, and others tried to end slavery without war. They felt war was the great evil, and they tried to end slavery in a matter according to the Constitution rather than just brandishing the bayonet.

Despite these things which do come out in his book, the book does a good job of giving a thorough account of the Era of Good Feelings. He does especially good work on things like the Panic of 1819, and the attitude of John Quincy Adams as a whole. The book is fairly long, but if you like history books, this one is pretty good. Feel free to check it out for a little light reading on the weekends.

N.T. Wright Methodology

Bishop Wright has done a lot of study on First Century Judaism or more broadly Second Temple Judaism (from here on 2TJ). His knowledge is far beyond mine in that area. Bishop Wright makes Second Temple Judaism the centerpiece of his theology. He uses it to frame his questions. Just one example:

Can we, as historians, describe the way in which he might have wrestled with this question within the parameters of his own first century Jewish worldview? (Jesus and the Identity of God)

It is through the lens of 2TJ that Wright redefines Christology as well as other things like Justification, Covenant, etc. Some of objected to his understanding of 2TJ, and they may indeed be right. Again, my knowledge would be far to inferior to even weigh in on that debate. However, I would like to see more time spent on debating whether or not Wright is doing the right thing by framing all his understanding of the New Testament off of 2TJ literature. That seems to me a more basic and more methodological question. Allow me to list several things that I believe need further clarification from Bishop Wright before his redefinition can begin to be debated.

1. Judaism in the First Century was not monolithic, how can one know which framework Jesus fit? Much like Christianity today Judaism had lots of different types and differing understandings. We know of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. These two could not even agree on what constituted the Bible. First Century Judaism would have embraced both Josephus the Romanized Jew as well as Zealot leader Eleazar ben Yair whose followers committed suicide rather than face being conquered by the Romans. We also know the Essenes would have been in existence adding yet another sect with yet another different outlook upon all the questions that Wright deals with. Which 2TJ framework do we impose on Jesus when we seek to understand how he used the word ‘Logos’ or his view of the temple and of the prophets?
2. Why must we sift the NT through a 2TJ view of the world rather than a Hellenized Jews view of the world? It is true that all of the writers of the Bible were Jews, but were they Hellenized Jews or more strict 2TJ Jews? This seems an important question when it comes down to deciding whether or not to accept a Jewish spin on a word or a Greek spin on a word. Paul, the author with the most books in the Bible, was from Tarsus, a highly Hellenized city whose philosophers and library rivaled Athens. John who five books of the NT seems to be writing to a highly Greek or at least non-jewish audience. He even goes so far to define the word rabbi in John 1:38. This has great import in the reading of the Christological passage of John 1:1-5. Remember that Joseph the earthly father of Jesus spent time in Egypt a place more inclined toward Greek views of life than Judaic views on life. Could that not have played a pivotal role in Jesus’s upbringing?
3. If Jesus is self-consciously divine would not this place him above the discussion at hand. This gets back to my criticism from the last post of assuming the answer in the question, but it is worth mentioning again. Jesus as God could be far above the fray of Judaism as it existed in the first century.

Most importantly is this last and final objection.

****Why should we take a Jewish understanding of Jesus since it was the Jews who misunderstood Jesus, turned him over to be killed, and persecuted the early converts to Christianity.*******
It is a legitimate question to ask if any of these Jewish sources should be used in our understanding of Christ in the first place. Just look at what the Scriptures say on the matter.

John 5:46, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me."
John 8:39, "Jesus saith unto them “If ye were Abraham’s children ye would do the works of Abraham."
2 Corinthians 3:14, "But their minds were blinded: for unto this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament, which vail is done away in Christ."

The point is this: why do I want to use the First Century Jewish understanding to enlighten the Bible. The First Century Jewish understanding did not understand the Old Testament, let alone the New. Bishop Wright can argue about what 2TJ thought about God until he is blue in the face, because their actions show they did not understand God at all. Bishop Wright has made no reasonable argument to show why the 2TJ should be accepted as a legitimate way to understand the OT or the NT. I hope that in the books that I have not yet read he deals seriously with the verses quoted above and the several more just like them. Until he does, he has not proved anything. Until he does, his methodology must be rejected.

However, I would be remiss if I did not deal with the Scriptural arguments he uses. So next we will turn to those arguments.

Air Travel Dislikes

I just got back from a trip to sunny Sacramento, and I have to make a few comments about air travel. Needless to say, I hate it. Let me just list a few things about air travel that make me sick.

1. It is designed for business, and not family. I was on this trip alone, but as a member of a big family, I find it disheartening to see travel by air become the property of the business class. The people on planes hate children. They will ask stewardesses to move them away from young children, they will shoot mean looks at kids under the age of 10, and they mutter under there breath about how awful children are.
2. The sole reason Democrats are able to play the ‘rich vs. poor’ card and get it to work is air travel. I understand people buying first class seats get better service, and I can even live with them getting on the plane early. However, United Airlines has given their ‘premium’ customers a special lane to help them get through security faster. Security is about safety, not about money. That one just annoys me. And, United also provides a red carpet for those ‘premium passengers’ during the ticket taking process. I am serious. There is a red carpet at every gate that people who miles points or in first class get to stand on while their ticket is taken, and then it is roped off so everyone else has to go through a different line. Just for the record cutting across the red carpet to get to the second class passenger line is frowned upon.
3. LAX is the worst airport in the world. Oddly enough it has nothing to do with air traffic or crowds. It is too big to appear clean. It was not really dirty, just not overly clean. In addition to that, I expected more out of LAX. It is a giant airport, larger than most normal sized cities. Yet, if you don’t like McDonalds or are not adventures enough to eat Mexican right before getting on a plane with one bathroom, you are going to starve to death in LAX. The Delta wing had nothing besides those two options. The United Wing had a few other highly overpriced stores like ‘Wolfgang Puck Express’ (isn’t the point of Wolfgang Puck restaurants to eat Wolfgang Puck type food? Is not an Express version of that self-defeating?) or one pizzeria that I saw make at least three different people late for flights. Minneapolis has tons of restaurants, Denver at least has multiple fast food chains like Burger King, but LAX has nothing.
4. People never obey the rules. It does not matter how many times flight attendants, gate keepers, or ticket takers tell the business passenger that the suitcase designed to fit in overhead bins of a 747 do not fit into the overhead bins or under the seat of ‘puddle-jumpers’ they will take them on and try it anyway. You have to pry those things from their cold dead fingers. Then the airlines let them put it under their feet, but not properly stowed away. That way it serves as a nice projectile if turbulence hits and can crowd the already non-existent space of the person sitting next to them. Don’t even get me started on staying buckled until the seat belt light is off.
5. Cell-phones. I am the only person in America that does not own a cell-phone. One is not allowed to use a cell-phone during flight, and that is good. However, I was unaware that not talking during the flight necessitated people to talk on the phone until the very last minute when the stewardess asks them to turn it off. It also means that as soon as the announcement states it is okay to use cell-phones again (if not before), everyone must either text someone or phone someone. If you have a cell-phone and are not on it as the plane is on the way to the gate, it is a sure sign that you are a social outcast.

Those are my thoughts about the trip. I will get back to blogging as soon as I can.

N.T. Wright on Person and Nature

Bishop Wright is attempting to navigate difficult academic questions by reformulating Christology. He puts the difficulty this way.

I think it offers a way through the impasse between saying either ‘Jesus knew he was the second person of the Trinity’ or ‘Jesus was just a human being who had no thought of being divine’. But to pursue this further we must come to the substantial topic.

He goes on to show again his distaste for traditional formulation of Chrisology especially the formula of Chalcedon. Again using his words:

I simply don’t think it’s good enough to talk about two minds (or one), two natures (or one), or about the various combinations rind permutations of persons and substances. Any such discussions should be grounded in Jesus himself. But when we try to talk about Jesus himself we may find that, in the first instance at least, our enquiry leads in quite a different direction.(Jesus Self Knoweldge)

Before we examine Bishop Wright we should see what the Ancient Councils have to say about Christ’s person. Here is the relevant portion of the Formula of Chalcedon.

recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation;
the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union,
but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence,
not as parted or separated into two persons,
but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ;

Chalcedon makes the claim that Jesus has two nature, one divine the other human, but is only one person. The question immediately comes up what is the difference between nature and person. I believe the creeds are fairly consistent on this point, and looking at some of the others we can discover what is meant. Chalcedon itself mentions that Christ has a ‘human body and reasonable soul.’ So we can chalk reason and physical bodies up to nature. The controversy erupted and was settled in the next ecumenical council about whether or not Christ had one will or two. The answer given by the church (from Scripture of course) is that Jesus had both a divine will and a human will. Chalk the will up to nature.

Other creeds give us more a glimpse of what is considered part of the nature or substance when we examine the Trinity itself. God is three persons in one substance or one nature, ie. divinity. The The Athanasian Creed states that the one nature of God includes three persons. That shared divine nature includes the glory, majesty, and power of God. All of that is found the substance, not in the person. What then is left to the person? It seems something akin to consciousness. It seems in the Trinity (remembering this is a bit of a mystery that we will not know until the Lord comes again) there are three consciousness that are distinct and separate, but share one will, one power, and one glory because they share one nature, the divine nature.

So we can apply that to Christ, and say that Jesus Christ has only one consciousness, but two wills, two powers (a divine power and human weakness in this case), so on and so forth. It is this that I believe Bishop Wright has openly violated. Asking the question what does the human Jesus of Nazareth know about being the Son of God is denying that Jesus Christ has one consciousness. It is implicitly saying, the human nature of Jesus is not conscious or aware of the divine nature within him. It necessitates two consciounesses in Jesus Christ, one for the ‘unaware’ human and one for the divine second person, assuming of course N.T. Wright believes Jesus to be both. Simply by the statement of Bishop Wright’s question he has already rejected the Chalcedonian formula.

Admittedly this leaves us a little in the dark as to what Bishop Wright would ascribe to nature and what he would ascribe to person, if he would even hold to such a position. I have not been able to find anything online where he dives into that topic. However, he does show us that much of his position is motivated by a rejection of Western Ideas of knowledge, in favor of his First Century Judaism view of things. Notice also the inability of Bishop Wright to answer a question straight, which should be enough to worry us all. It is one thing to be scholarly and understand words may have meant other things in bygone days, it is another to use that excuse to duck the obvious questions asked of him.

It seems obvious that from here we must now proceed to an examination of Bishop Wright’s methodology since he uses it to exclude the historic orthodox Christian position.

Jena 6 displays racism

I promise I will get back to the N.T. Wright discussion, but something have to be commented on. Let me start by saying Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson are the two most racist people in America. If you have not read about the Jena 6, it is basically a story about racial tensions that still exist in the Deep South. It started with a bunch of white idiot teenagers making an incredible insensitive and racist display by hanging nooses over tree branches. The school suspended them, and the tree was cut down to prevent further acts of stupidity. However, they were not charged with any crimes. Then six black teenagers took matters into their own hands and beat one of the white kids severely, after three months had elapsed by the way.

Now I am not trying to defend the incredibly racist demonstration of putting nooses in a tree. That is sinfully wrong, but I don’t know enough about the law to know if it is illegal or an act of free speech. Let us not forget that I have seen nooses in trees on Halloween many times. The kids were suspended from school, but the federal government decided it did not fit the bill of a ‘hate crime’. So it is not as if these kids received nothing, and it is not as if the federal government did not investigate. Either way, the racism of the white kids is appalling, and sinful. Let us be clear on that.

However, what I find more appalling is Al Sharpton and his gang of racists. They are actually protesting the fact that the six black kids were arrested for beating a white kid up and putting him the hospital. The charges were originally attempted murder, but they were lowered. Is Sharpton happy with that victory? No. Sharpton actually took over this town by busing people in from all over America. Notice in the article that the lone resident interviewed thinks racial tension in the town is low, or at least was low until Sharpton came to town. Businesses closed, schools closed, people left town. This is not the way to win friends and influence people. In fact, I would bet that Sharpton and Jackson’s constant tactics of playing the race card creates more racists than it stops.

More to the point notice that Al Sharpton says Jena is the beginning of new civil rights movement. He compares it to the march on Montgomery by Martin Luther King Jr. Let us just compare for a moment. Martin Luther King Jr., went to Montgomery because a woman was forced to the back of the bus. Al Sharpton went to Jena because some black kids beat up a white kid. Martin Luther King Jr. thought violence was not the answer and pioneered the non-violent protest. Al Sharpton thinks that violence against whites is justified if it is a six on one beat down and three months after anything that might have offended them. Rev. Jesse Jackson thinks putting a kid in hospital from a racially motiviated gang beating deserves only probation. How much do you want to bet that Jesse Jackson would think it deserved more than probation if six white kids beat a black kid into the hospital. And this is my main point, Sharpton and Jackson see only skin color. Their sense of justice changes depending on the color of the person’s skin. This is the definition of racism. And just in case you don’t agree that these two gentlemen act this way, then notice Rev. Jackson’s comments about Barak Obama not being angry enough over this beating. Jackson claimed that Obama is acting like he is white. Which means that all blacks have to be super angry and that acting like a white person is morally inferior. Put aside for the minute that I am not even sure what acting white is, Jackson is clearly stating that acting white is wrong. And if it is wrong for a black person to act white, it must be wrong for a white person to act white. If it is not wrong for a white person to act white then Jackson has clearly showed us that different standards exist for the different races, again the definition of racism.

I don’t know much about racial issues, but I do know this: Barak Obama is a much better leader for civil rights than Jackson and Sharpton. I know that Clarence Thomas is another fantastic example. I also know that those men will be rejected by those who make money off of keeping racism alive like Jackson and Sharpton. I also know that Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., would be disgusted at what is being done in the name of Civil Rights. He had a dream that all people would be equal. That is not a dream that Sharpton and Jackson share.

Wright, Chalcedon, and Nestorius

As I take on this task of N.T. Wright and his Christology, I freely admit that I have not read any books published by him on the subject. I take all my Wright quotes from his on-line articles which better fits my budget. I hope someone more familiar with his work can come and show me where N.T. Wright repudiates Nestorianism, and where he affirms a historically orthodox position, which is the Biblical position. I do think that with the amount of his stuff on the web, there is enough here to raise the legitimate question of whether or not Bishop Wright is orthodox in his Christology.

We should begin by defining quickly the major points of Nestorianism. Nestorianism is the doctrine that states the human being, Jesus, is morally related to the Divine Son of God or Logos, but Jesus is not united to the Second Person of the Trinity as one person. Thus, they are two persons, not one. The orthodox position, called the Chalcedonian position, is that Jesus is one person who has both a complete human nature and a complete divine nature. The two natures are hypostatically unified into one person.

Bishop Wright makes clear that he is no fan of Chalcedonian formulations. " Chalcedon, I think, always smelled a bit like a confidence trick, celebrating in Tertullian-like fashion the absurdity of what is believed, and gave hostages to fortune which post-Enlightenment fortune has been using well."(Jesus and the Identity of God). Bishop Wright’s main point is that Jesus had a vocational understanding of being God. What that means is that Jesus felt called to do and accomplish what the Scripture said only YHWH would do. But that is a long way from saying that Jesus is God incarnate, or that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. Wright himself is willing to admit:

‘If I am anything like on target this creates a context not only for understanding Jesus within his historical framework, not only for discerning the real roots of New Testament Christology (the reason, for instance, why Paul so quickly took to using the LXX [56] kyrios-passages for Jesus), but also for rethinking traditional systematic debates. What would it do, for instance, to questions about hypostatic union? How might it affect the use of words like nature, person, substance, and so forth? I think it might open up a flood of new possibilities; it might even slice through the denser thickets of theological definitions and enable us to talk more crisply, dare I say more Jewishly, and for that matter more intelligibly, about Jesus and about God.’(Jesus' Self Understanding).

So I do not think the claim that Bishop Wright is not a believer in Chalcedonian Christology should cause a great stir. It seems to be something he is very willing to reconsider by his own admission. That Wright is not comfortable in the formula of Chalcedon then is some what obvious.

It still remains then for us to look at how well he fits in a Nestorian view, and I am the first to say it is not a perfect fit. However, it is not unfitting either. The Right Reverend Wright asks these questions:

‘First, in what sense, if any, can we meaningfully use the word “god” to talk about the human Jesus, Jesus as he lived, walked, taught, healed, and died in first century Palestine? In what sense might Jesus conceivably have thought in these terms about himself? Can we, as historians, describe the way in which he might have wrestled with this question within the parameters of his own first century Jewish worldview?’(Jesus and the Identity of God).

Wright likes to focus on the ‘human Jesus’, and what this First Century Jew knew about being divine. This ascribes full personhood to the ‘human Jesus’ by ascribing to him self-consciousness. In effect, Wright is asking what the human person Jesus knew about being the divine person of the Trinity. The answer that Wright produces is that Jesus knew he was vocationally related to YHWH of Israel. But Wright never says Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. Wright prefers the language that Jesus embodied the return of YHWH, or that Jesus was ‘God-at-work-in-the-world.’ This is language accepted by Nestorius. The ancient Bishop of Constantinople states:

"If any one says that the man who was formed of the Virgin is the Only-begotten, who was born of the bosom of the Father, . . .and does not rather confess that he has obtained the designation of Only-begotten on account of his connection with him who in nature is the Only-begotten of the Father . . . let him be anathema."(Nestorius’s Counter Anathema 7).

Wright and Nestorius here drive home the same point. Jesus is in connection with the Divine Person, but is in union with Him. They have a conjunction, but not a hypostatic union. Jesus does the work of YHWH because he is God With Us, but Jesus is not necessarily YHWH. Jesus can be identified with YHWH because of their connection, but not because Jesus the human is YHWH.

I can see that this is going to take much more than one blog post. So I think I will break it up into multiple posts. What is Wright saying about Person and Nature? Critique of Wright’s Methodology. Scriptural examination of Wright’s claims.

Again, this is my impressions from his online articles. I welcome feedback, discussion, and comments.

6th Anniversary of September 11th

This week saw the 6th Anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. It was interesting to me, how little attention it got. Sure, MSNBC ran the NBC coverage of the events, but who watches MSNBC in the morning? Since then the talk of the anniversary quickly faded into accusations. There are always the accusations that America blew up their own building or knew that it was coming. Merinews (which I found via the Huffington Post) even trotted out the expert opinion of the Housing Director in France to bolster their claims of Bush’s prior knowledge. Keith Olbermann, taking his lead from the Huffington Post, began making accusations that the Iraq report was timed to be so close to the 6th anniversary. I find that ironic sense the anniversary passed with only scant notice. OJ Simpson’s alleged armed robbery is getting more press than the 9/11 anniversary.

Six years ago, I was driving to work when I heard the news. It was my second day of work at a new job, so while everyone else in the mail center went to watch the coverage live, I folded 1200 child letters. I did not see any pictures of the Trade Center until almost 5 that evening. I lived in Colorado Springs at the time, and I remember a lot people running around talking about the terrorists attacking NORAD, and then people running around saying the President was coming to NORAD. Neither of which happened by the way. There was a lot of talk about September 11th being the day that changed a nation. Six years later no building have been built and the American government bickers more than it did. That is not a very good change.

The question everyone has been asking this week is ‘Is America safer now’? Sadly, most people asked it because of the report of an army general and the presence of TV cameras rather than because one ought to reflect on such things on important anniversaries. My answer would be no we are not. For two reasons. One is that I still think communism and especially China is a bigger threat than any terrorist group could ever be. Two is that I am not convinced that we understand our enemy yet. I don’t think we understand our enemy because we go out of our way to detach a person’s actions from his religion. American politicians love to talk about how they believe life begins at conception, but they promise not to act on that belief. One of a million examples. The Liberal press goes out of its way to detach terrorist activities from their Islamic religion. Even the republicans like to call it Islamic-Fascism, as if the problem with the terrorists was Fascism some how. I am not saying there are no peaceful Muslims. I know Muslims like Mohammed Ali exist. My point is that Bin Laden is a terrorist because of his religion, or at least his take on it. Either way it is a religious belief. And we can safely conclude he is not alone in that belief. Is our government equipped to fight a religious belief, and is the military the best way to fight a religious belief as the Neo-Cons claim? Is allowing Afghanistan and Iraq to write Islamic based constitutions that Bin Laden would probably approve of the best way to defeat terrorism? The debate today seems to center on whether or not we should pursue a military or a political solution. To me the solution is primarily spiritual, but that is the one solution our government is not equipped to deal out. The Afghan Constitution which we support has made that solution illegal and highly dangerous. To me this is not understanding the enemy.

I suppose the point to my wandering rant, is about lessons. What lesson did we learn from 9/11? The answer is none. What lesson should we have learned? That man is more than a physical being, and thus, he needs more than a physical solution. I hope we learn it soon.

Defeating Xerxes or Enabling Stalin?

There seems to be a lot of talk about the Reformed tendency to devour its own rather than fight the enemy. First off, I do not grant that the Reformed really fight among themselves more than they fight against unbelief and atheism as a whole. But, I do want to interact with the flurry of essays about this very topic on the web right now. Dr. Reggie Kidd uses a history lesson and a pop culture reference all rolled into one. Following up on the movie 300’s success, Dr. Kidd gives us the rest of the story. Athens apparently waves its typical right to lead the sea battles in order to ensure the war is won. Dr. Kidd wants this to be a lesson to the Reformed world. Maybe we should work together in order to defeat the common enemy. Maybe, as he puts it, "civil war in the face of external threats is suicide." He then goes on to list many external threats to Christianity, and he is right about everyone, and I am sure we can come up with a list twice as long.

The problem with historical metaphor is there is almost always a counter example. In this case the example of WWII. In that America and Russia put aside their differences and defeated the evil Axis powers. America waved its right to conquer Berlin, and let the Russians do it. After all, civil war in the face of external threats is suicide right? Despite the pleadings of General Patton, Russia went into Berlin first. What happened? Oh, only decades of a split Germany, complete Communist domination of Eastern Europe, and a nasty Cold War that taught a generation of children Nuclear Bomb drills. Not to mention the fact that blood would be shed in the downfall of the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe as a whole still suffers the ravages of Communism today. In the example of Dr. Kidd the cooperation expelled the enemy and gave the victory to the good guys. In my example the cooperation expelled the current enemy and enthroned one just as bad. Dr. Kidd provides some examples that he thinks we should rally behind and follow. Topping that list is the ever popular N.T. Wright. It is an oddity that Right Rev. Wright is a conservative in England and a bit of a liberal in America. But, should we rush to embrace him and default to his lead as Athens did to Sparta? Dr. Kidd thinks so, but if Bishop Wright is vague on the atonement, promotes a faulty Christology (as I am convinced he does in the articles he publishes on the web, a type of Nestorianism), and compromises biblical authority, then perhaps the following of N.T. Wright will free the people of Poland from Nazi rule only to enslave them to Communist rule, metaphorically speaking of course. Dr. Kidd’s examples assume that the attacks are unjustified. But, isn’t that the whole point in dispute? If Dr. Kidd agreed that N.T. Wright was shaky on the atonement of Jesus Christ then surely he would not argue he should be our leader simply because he reaches post-modern people with his shaky gospel message.

Dr. Frame has a long paper on the history of in fighting in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and thinks perhaps they inherited the problem from Machen’s fighting of the liberals. This historically entertaining and well thought out piece is worth a look. He points to 21 issues where the Reformed devoured their own with the obvious conclusion that it was needless. Now in some of the points he is quite correct. In others he seems to miss the point entirely. Machen led a split over the fact that the PCUSA no longer required people to believe in things like the inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, or miracles, etc. John Frame views that as a good reason to leave, but thinks that Justification by faith alone is not a good reason and chastises those who would reject new positions that rewrite or outright deny justification by faith alone. Frame also seems to think that believing God created the earth in six days is unimportant or following the bible’s teachings on women in the ministry are not the same as rejecting the virgin birth of Jesus or the miracles of Jesus as the PCUSA did during Machen’s day. Do not all those positions state what the bible says is not literally true, and that culture and sciences must have their say before we hold to the Bible as the Word of God? And then of course, I think Dr. Frame pads the debates in order to reach a higher number. The debate about Tradition in Theology (his number 18) is just made up, or at least is so internal that I am unfamiliar with it. And then he adds his own Multiperspectivalism to the debate. And while I will be the first one to say I dislike the multiperspectivalism of Dr. Frame, I hardly think it fits in a paper with the Days of Creation, Shepherdism, and Women in the ministry. It seems an attempt to be persecuted.

The same critique applies to Dr. Frame as applied to Dr. Kidd. It really only seems like devouring your own, if you think the error, not an error at all. Can a female minister stand behind a pulpit and tell people to live a life in obedience to the Word of God when the hearer reads for himself I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2? At the very least can Frame not admit a similarity to the events leading to Machen’s estrangement from the PCUSA?

I can understand people who want to make an argument that the Church should be at peace and have a broad tent. I may disagree, but I think I can understand where they are coming from. I certainly understand a call to arms against those things outside the church which need to be confronted. What I do not understand is saying that ‘the Church should be at peace, unite to fight common enemies, and the only reason it is not is because many people are nit picky and devour their own.’ This seems to be what Dr. Kidd and Dr. Frame are saying. It is difficult to comprehend why two doctors cannot understand the difference between quibbling over beer drinking and debating justification by faith alone. The first is a civil war that can cost you everything. The second is a war against an enemy of another color.

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.

All I heard was Blah, Blah, Blah

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

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

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

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