The Pittsburgh Pirates 2008

The Pirates are about to embark on another campaign, and it is time for my annual predictions. The Pirates have some major questions going into this year.

Question #1 – Bullpen – the Pirates lost a good deal of their bullpen, which was not that great anyway. They are keeping John Grabow, Desmond Marte, and Matt Cappas. However, they are adding a great deal of unknown material. Fraquelis Osario is a hard thrower who has no real experience. Phil Dumatrait is a former starter who never broke into the big leagues and is now trying out long relief. Evan Meek is a right hander with potential, but never thrown above AA in his life. The Pirates made a last minute trade to acquire Tyler Yates from the Braves. He has 152 games under his belt, but he had a rocky spring with a different team. These people have to step up if the Pirates want to go anywhere.

Outlook – Good. I think the Pirates actually did well in reconstructing their bullpen. The last minute trade probably helped, and Marte and Cappas are solid at the back of the pen. Osario pitched very well and Grabow has too. The only questions for me are Meek and Dumatrait. Both were out pitched by Sean Burnett, who was sent to AAA. Those two got the job because neither would have remained with the Pirates if they had not made the major leagues. I hope to see Burnett before the year is over and he does provide solid back up to any failures in the pen.

Question #2 – Manager. The Pirates fired their manager from last year, and have hired a relative unknown. John Russel is the new man at the helm. What will he do and what kind of coach will he be? Who knows that is why this is a question mark.

Outlook – Great. Their last coach was a loser. The decisions made by this guy during spring training make me happy with the lone exception of Burnett, but you can understand why that one had to be done. Every other choice, like taking only two catchers to free up an extra spot on the bench, are great decisions.

Question #3 – Consistency. Can the Pirates starters put together multiple good years. Zack Duke was 8-2 with an ERA under 2 in 2005. Since then he has been a train wreck. Ian Snell was 14-11 in 2006, but failed to win 10 games in 2007 (although he did improve his ERA). Tom Grozelanny won 14 last year, but the trend is to take a step back. Someone has to put up a good year and someone else has to live up to past performances.

Outlook – Good. Duke has pitched great in the spring. Snell has done well and Paul Malhom has steadily improved in his couple of years. Grozelanny had a shaky spring, but strong last outing. I think that at least two of these pitchers will have a good year, and hopefully Matt Morris will not stink. He had a bad spring and keeps this outlook from being better.

Question #4 – Bounce back years. Last year many of the Pirates had career worst years. Ronny Paulino went from a .300 hitter to below .250 without the power. Jason Bay had his worst year ever. Adam LaRoche had another very slow start not breaking the Mendoza Line for the first two months. Freddy Sanchez was injured all Spring Training last year and so struggled out of the gate and Xavier Nady had injuries off and on all year (although he put up normal numbers when he played).

Outlook – Encouraging. Sanchez has an injury, but it does bother his hitting. And surely Bay will return to form and Nady looks healthy. That should be enough. Paulino probably will not be a .300 hitter, but he will improve on last year. LaRoche cannot have another slow start. Things hinge on that.

Over all I am happy with the way the Pirates are looking. They have the talent at the plate. They have talent on the mound. McClouth won the center field job out right and Nijer Morgan is a great back up for the outfield. These two ought to fix the leadoff hitter hole. Jack Wilson will perform wherever he ends up in the line up and the other guys are ready all coming off really bad years so that has to look good. The only hole is third base with Jose Bautista. It is enough of a problem that it could cost the Pirates the playoffs. Their bench is a little shaky, but Doug Mientkiewicz shows signs of being solid off the bench. The rest of the bench needs to grow up quickly. Ryan Doumit is the power on the bench and will see a lot of starts at first, right, and catcher. However, as the back up catcher he will not get so many pinch hits.

Prediction – I think the Pirates can with the NL Central, but will get bumped in the first round of the playoffs. The Central is weak as the Cubs are vulnerable. The Cards are weak, the Reds are weak, and the Brewers are young. The Astros are garbage. Thus, the Pirates have as good a shot as anyone, and I think this is their year.

Prediction #2 – If they are not in a serious playoff hunt at the trading deadline the management will blow this team up. Nady will be traded in a heartbeat. Matt Morris will be on the block. Jack Wilson will be gone. Even Jason Bay is not safe. If they could find someone to take Jose Bautista they would get rid of him too. The Pirates next year will feature Pearce in Right, McCutchen in Left, Bixler at short, Walker at third, and Dumatrait in the rotation.

Iconography

Easter has now come and gone. Easter is one of the times when pictures of Jesus and icons of all sorts come out of the woodwork. So, it seems like a nice time to review the controversy surrounding the use of icons.

The early church was against pictures and representations of any of the trinity. Clement of Alexandria (2nd century) stated, “The habit of daily view lowers the dignity of the divine, which cannot be honored, but is only degraded by sensible material” (Schaff Church History Vol. 2. Pg. 267-268.) Symbols, not direct pictures, began to make their way into the churches as paganism gave way to Christianity. However, there was always a large segment of the Christian Church that rejected these things. In 306 the Spanish Council of Elvira forbade pictures in the churches. The cross became one of the first signs used and accepted in the church as a whole. It started as a clever way of combining Greek letters and became an accepted symbol allowed in churches. This was beginning as early as the late 2nd Century, but again with some great opposition. Even pictures of Mary barely date back to the 3rd century. And they were not wide spread at that time as the controversy of whether Mary should be called the Theotokos shows the opposition to Mary, and ironically led to the promotion of Mary and the making of images of her.

The crucifix (the cross with Jesus still hanging upon it) does not date back beyond the end of the 6th century, but is fairly prevalent by the end of the 7th. Pictures of Jesus were completely rejected by the early church. Even Eusebius (early fourth century) scolded Empress Constantia for asking for an image of Christ. This means real opposition to images must have been still remaining because Eusebius adored Constantine and his family. There are also stories of bishops in the early 5th century still tearing up pictures of Christ as contrary to the Scripture. In the middle of the 5th century we begin to see pictures of Christ. The Greek churches had long loved paintings of biblical scenes, but had not yet accepted physical representations of Christ. With the settlement of the Christological controversies and the rise of depictions of Mary, came with it the pictures of Christ, often in the arms of Mary as a babe. The suffering Christ with thorns on his head also became popular. A theology of images was slowly worked out in the East beginning in the mid-6th century. Despite growing acceptance in the East, it never did become as accepted as one might think now, since they often show up even in Protestant churches, and will overwhelm you in Catholic ones. The church suffered through long wars and debates about icons in the 8th century thanks to Leo III Emperor of Constantinople. He had immediate support from many bishops, and in fact many of them were iconoclasts long before Leo came to power. Asia Minor particular appears to have been a place were images of Christ were not accepted. Constantine of Nacolia, Thomas of Claudiopolis, and Theodosius of Ephesus were all against images (see Seven Ecumenical Councils by Davis. Pg. 296). It is true that during the official policy of destroying images there were many who supported the images. John of Damascus is foremost among the iconophils, and Pope Gregory III had a council of Rome that condemned those who opposed images. In addition the monks stood in favor of images because they often made them in their monastaires. If the images had been forbidden, their source of revenue would have dried up. In 754 the Council of Hieria met. Here 330 bishops signed a statement saying the only proper represenation of Jesus Christ is the Eucharist. This council is often forgotten and overlooked since it is later overthrown by Empress Irene in the Second Council of Nicaea, but there are 330 names attached to that document. Even after the restoration of images in 787, they were still opposed by a great number of churches, bishops and never received support. Even in the East opposition to icons remained. John the Grammarian, a future Patriarch, led renewed opposition to the icons, and the 754 statement became the official position of the church again briefly after another council in 815. Only in 843 were icons restored. It bears noting that both times the icons were restored it was done by an Empress, never an Emperor

Of course the West had a more immediate rejection of the 787 restoration of images. Under Charlemagne the Libri Carolini was written that rejected images, but also rejected their destruction. In 794 Charlemagne headed the Council of Frankfurt where the use of images was rejected. A position that would continue under Louis the Pious. Another council condemned the use of images at Aix-La-Chappel. Theodulf of Orleans appears to be one of the leading spokesman against images during this time. Theodulf clearly believed the use of images was dangerous and would led to errors Pictures and representations of Christ contained errors while the Scriptures did not. Theodulf saw no reason to use a fallible source when an infallible one was available. Agobard bishop of Lyons was also around at that time and he wrote a book against images as well. Slightly later, about 840, we run across another icon-hater, Claudius Archbishop of Turin. Turin hated the images and went on the rampage against them. Even some of those who opposed Claudius, such as Jonas Bishop of Orleans, merely liked the images as decorations, but opposed the Eastern Orthodox use of them. Later Roman bishops would try to trace the Waldenses (12th century) back to Clauidius because the Waldenses also rejected icons and the pope and many other things that Claudius rejected. Thus, the West has a long standing tradition of opposing images on the grounds of the 10 Commandments, the one person and two natures of Christ, and as something degrading to God and Scripture.

It is sad that today’s Protestant churches so openly accept the idea of pictures of Christ. The heritage of the church speaks against them. The early fathers are unanimously against them, and the church itself has never fully embraced pictures of Christ. That is until the last century when the Protestant Church unthinkingly decided to use pictures and images of Christ willy-nilly. Now few churches continue the historic church’s teaching against the use of icons. Something to remember next time you are faced with Easter images of Christ.

March Madness becoming March Cheating

I am not going to spend a long time continuing my rant about how stupid ESPN analysts are or how the mid-major conferences are getting cheated. I do just want to mention Jay Bilas saying that the mid major teams could not compete day in and day out in the big conferences. In other words Jay Bilas and Hubert Davis think that Arizona who is below .500 in the PAC 10 is a better team than South Alabama who got one of only 6 mid major at large bids. South Alabama beat Mississippi State on the road this year, but according to the ESPN crew, they would not be able to beat five more teams if they had a big school schedule. Ignore the fact that they would actually get to play these teams at home, and they have already shown they can win on the road. Stupidity thy name is ESPN.

Rather that moan, I would like to simply point out what is going on and where the NCAA is heading with the help of ESPN. Jay Bilas and Bob Knight (who is awful TV) both openly agreed that the small conferences should not get automatic bids, thus opening the way for all the teams in the big six conferences to make the tournament. Bilas, Knight, and ESPN would rather do a way with the small conferences in order to make the regular season pointless and turn March Madness into Power Conference money making time. As stupid as this sounds that is clearly where the NCAA is going. Remember just a few years ago (2006) when George Mason made the Final Four. That year also saw Wichita St., Gonzaga, Memphis, and Bradley all made the sweet sixteen. 25% of the Sweet Sixteen were mid-majors. Memphis and George Mason made the Elite Eight (again 25%) and George Mason made the Final Four (again 25%). It was a year where the Colonial got multiple bids and so did the Missouri Valley. That year also saw Bucknell, Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Northwest St. all beat Major Conferences in the first round. Well, since then the mid-major bids have not gone up, but down. Last year of the 34 at large bids only 6 went to mid major conferences and the rest went to power conferences. The same thing happened this year. But, this year of the 6 mid-major at large bids, 3 of them went to teams that have been ranked in the top 25 all year. Last year we did not see a 5 versus 12 upset, and that was used by the ESPN jerks to point out that the mid-majors are not better. However, they failed to point out that last year that most of the 5 versus 12 games were two teams from the power conferences playing against each other. The upsets occurred every year when the 12 seed was from a small school, so the NCAA put a stop to that by making the 12 seeds major conferences. This year we have a Clemson versus Villinova game as a 5 v. 12 match up. The main thing the NCAA is doing to stop the mid-major teams is making the so called Bracket Busters play each other in the first round. One 5 v 12 match up is Drake versus Western Kentucky. We also have Gonzaga playing Davidson in the first round, UNLV playing Kent St in the first round and Butler playing South Alabama in the first round. That way the mid-major teams can be limited since they have to beat each other. Also by moving the mid majors away from the 5-12 game you can put them in the 7-10 game and make them have only 1 day to prepare for the second seed. This can help prevent a repeat of 2006 when Bradley beat a 4 and a 5 and George mason beat a 6 and 3. Davidson and Gonzaga have a week to prepare for each other and then only a day to prepare for Georgetown. The same is true for the UNLV/Kent St. game. It is clear that the small schools are being phased out. March Madness is officially ruined and I hope ratings are low. My ultimate hope is that a new sports channel drives ESPN out of business. I watch a lot more FOX Sports because of my hatred for ESPN.

Barak Obama, Rev. Wright and some thoughts

I should probably comment on the recent intrigue regarding the Rev. Wright. Rev. Wright got a lot of attention because he is the former pastor of Barak Obama, and Rev. Wright happens to hate America and have said a lot of really strange things. I just want to make a few observations about this that you are not going to get on the news.

1. I have been really surprised to see the level of vitriol that exists in the black community or in at least the proponents of Black Liberation Theology. What shocked me is not so much the odd comments and damning of America, but the crowd reaction. The people are not shocked. They agree with it. It has been an eye opening experience for me, as a pastor, to see the level of hurt and anger that exists in a segment of the American population, what may be a very large segment of the population.
2. Senator Obama’s speech was very good, challenging, well done, and also completely wrong. While it is refreshing to hear a politician speak plainly and openly about a very sore subject. I think he is wrong for a couple of reasons. One, while he did condemn the comments of Rev. Wright, he seems to say it is legitimate for those of that generation to still be angry about the fight they had to go through. Anger held onto will eventually turn into Rev. Wright’s sermons. Yes, segregation is wrong and evil, and so was slavery, but continuing to be angry about those things is wrong, and not healthy. Rev. Wright is exhibit A. Perhaps Obama thinks I just “widen the chasm” by condemning it. However, I think the chasm is widened when we see that anger burning hot after 50 years and the best condemnation it receives is “that anger is not always productive.” Two, and more importantly, Obama looks for the answers in the wrong place. He places the answer in "self-help" frequently mentioned in Rev. Wright’s sermons. The answer to racism is found only in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The government has tried to fix it for years, and most of those attempts to fix it found a place in Obama’s list of reasons white Americans are angry and racially charged today. Other non-Christian answers include the ethnic cleansing found in places like Bosnia, Serbia, and Sudan. There is no hope for unity unless a basis for unity can be found. The gospel is the best place for that. This is what makes this whole situation so sad. Barak Obama got these racist messages and messages of self-help in the one place that should have given him the right answer; help from the Son of God.
3. The third point is about the root problem that exists in many churches. Politics. Yes, Rev. Wright made some horrible sermons and the Sunday after 9/11 too. But, then so did Pat Robertson and Jerry Fawell. A McCain supporter, televangelist Rod Parsley, made a comment that America existed to destroy Islam. These things are all wrong. The main reason they are wrong is because they have lost sight of the true answer. Jesus Christ. The gospel and church are not about America. They are not pro-America and they are not anti-America. What is important is the gospel and building up the Kingdom of God. The churches on the Religious Right and the Religious Left have been placing politics on a level with the gospel. I am strongly anti-abortion or pro-life if you prefer. I vote for pro-life candidates because it is an important issue to me. However, the way to end abortion is not through legal fiat, nor with Supreme Court justices. It is best ended with the promotion of God’s kingdom, His gospel, and teaching people God’s view of mankind, personhood, and responsibility. You can tell the hope of a minister from his sermons. If the sermons are always about politics, the Republican party or upcoming elections that minister places his hope in government. If the sermons are about do this and don’t do that, the minister places his hope in works or in himself. If the sermons are about the gospel and about Jesus Christ and trusting in Him, then the hope of that minister lies in God.

Those are my thoughts about this debate. It has raised some interesting things to think about.

The High Point of Puritanism

It is often stated that the English Civil War and the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell are the high point of Puritanism. This is after all the time the Westminster Confession of Faith is written, although it bears noting, it was never really implemented. I think a lesser known even is actually the high point of Puritanism and it fits into my case about the nature of true Puritanism. It is the Millenary Petition. This Petition was given to the incoming King James in 1603. The contrast between this Petition, the resulting Hampton Court Conference and the Westminster Confession is striking and revealing.

The Millenary Petition, which probably only contained 800 signatures, was a protest from the Puritans about the state of the church and suggestions on how it should be fixed. They asked for many things such as the abandonment of the vestments, sign of the cross, baptism by women, confirmation, bowing at the name of Jesus, and terms like priest and absolution. They wanted stricter Lord’s Day observance, reform of church music, and a required sermon before communion. They also asked for only able men be allowed into the ministry (an obvious slap in the face of many Anglican ministers), allowance of marriage for the clergy, and the removal of certain monetary loopholes like double benefices. They also asked for church discipline reform including no excommunication for light matters and in a round about way protested on the king becoming too involved in church matters of discipline. A few other things were addressed, but you will notice that the form of government is not attacked at all. Nor was it attacked at the Hampton Court Conference where the Puritans won a few concessions such as the forbidding of baptism performed by women. The King as the head of the church was not really even addressed, although perhaps hinted at in the section on discipline. The Puritans presented their request with over 800 signatures and it was in no way a destruction or even a restructuring of the Church of England. Mainly it was a petition designed to remove the last elements of popery, and clean up some of the abuses in discipline and monetary matters.
The Westminster Assembly on the other hand came up with a , and it is not in favor of the Episcopacy. They have it in chapter 31 of the Confession and in more detail in "Form of Presbyterian Church Government" which is not part of the modern day standards. The Westminster Assembly completely replaced the Church of England with a new church. It was an Assembly dominated by Presbyterians who created a Presbyterian Church, not a Puritan one. The difference between the two documents is one that is not given enough stress. They are of a different mind. One has no problem with bishops, and strives to have a biblical church, and sees no problem of that existing with Bishops. The other wants a Biblical church and does not believe that is compatible with bishops at all. The first, attempts merely to purge the existing church of offenses and the other attempts to construct the framework for an entirely new church in England.

It should also be noted that King James was a king in Scotland where the Presbyterian Church was the state church. If anyone should have been open to Presbyterianism is England, it should have been James. James had already defended Cartwright, the English Presbyterian extremist when he ran afoul of Elizabeth. He had offered Cartwright a job teaching in Scotland. He had shown that he was not against Presbyterians at all. Yet, the Puritans did not come to ask for Presbyterianism. Why? I think it has to be concluded that it was because Puritanism is not the same as Presbyterianism.

Tucker Carlson - the end of an era

I just watched the last Tucker Carlson show. It was sad. They even brought back Willie Giest. If you did not watch Tucker’s show, then shame on you. He is about the only journalist you can trust to give it to you straight. His libertarianism made him free to criticize both Republicans and Democrats. However, in the increasingly liberal MSNBC, Tucker was out of place. MSNBC ruined his show about a year and half ago by trying to turn it into a real long news show. Originally his show was a late night show where Tucker was allowed to be Tucker. The first 30 minutes were serious and sometimes it would go longer if real important things were happening. The last 30 minutes were pure fun. Tucker would interview Richard Simmons or the Brat eating champ, or have some strange animal act on. Tucker had a voicemail segment where he could respond to viewers, and it was hilarious. Tucker started a mini-war on Canada that lasted for about a week. My wife actually made the voicemail segment once. It was a lot of fun to watch the show. You could tell as they did the ‘Cutting Room Floor’ segment with Willie Giest for the last five minutes that those guys had more fun than people should be allowed to have. Now the show is over, and I cannot help but feeling sad. It is almost as if the last person who enjoyed just being a news show host was fired. Now all that are left are partisan attack machines like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and a few losers like Anderson Cooper. TV news is now officially worthless.

Stat One: a horrible attempt at a baseball book

I have not done a book review in some time and since it is baseball season, I need to sneak in this review. I could not help myself on a recent business trip. I picked up Stat One by Craig Messmer. The book examines the best players at all positions excepting pitcher. After taking you through the eight positions and giving you the top ten at every position and a discussion of them, he gives a section to those who are considered multi-position like Pete Rose and Rod Carew. He also takes a short chapter on the Negro League Players and Players before the World Series era beginning in 1903. Those last two sections of people are not eligible to make his Top 100 players of all time list. He then proceeds to produce that list.

Now let me end the suspense and tell you that Mr. Messmer puts Babe Ruth as the best player of all time and his top 3 of all time are all Yankees (Dimaggio, Gehrig, and Ruth). Sadly, he does not deduct for steroid use and Barry Bonds ends up number 5 all time. Needless to say, I hated the book. Let me list a few reasons why.

1. His choices did not make any sense. One can agree with some of his position choices, but in the end they were way too subjective for me. Take First base. We can all agree that Lou Gehrig deserves to be in the number 1 slot for that position. Fine. However, Messmer puts Mark McGwire at 6 and Albert Pujols at 4. He leaves George Sisler out of the top 10 and has him ranked only as a Category 4 player (Category 5 being best). Sisler is a player you may not have heard much about. Sisler once had 257 hits in one season, a record until recently. Sisler hit over .400 multiple times in his career and was over .350 five times. He was over .300 13 different seasons. He is punished in this book because his run production dropped as he got older and for his lack of homerun power. Mark McGwire’s career batting average is .262. Yet, somehow Sisler is not in the top 10 best first baseman and McGwire is? Please. Plus, Pujols is still playing. If Sisler gets punished for failing to produce as he aged, where does that leave Pujols who has yet to face that criteria? That seems unfair, and completely subjective.
2. Bad editing. We can stick with this same category to continue the examples. Messmer states at the end of Sisler’s entry, “He had negligible power, however, and that prevents him from placing in the top five for this position. He does make the top 10, though” (pg.64). Fine. Let us check where he falls in the Top 10 first basemen. Here is the list in descending order. Jim Bottomley, Bill Terry, Eddie Murray, Johnny Mize, Mark McGwire, Jeff Bagwell, Albert Pujols, Hank Greenberg, Jimmy Foxx, and Lou Gehrig. George Sisler does not appear on the list. You can look up later that George Sisler is the 74 best player of all time and Jim Bottomly the 71st. So, despite the comment that Sisler makes the Top 10, he does not. That stuff should be caught.
3. His main stat. Messmer is of the new sabermetric school that thinks regular stats stupid. However, most sabermetric stats are designed to favor the homerun, and thus the newer players. Messmer is no different. He uses a stat called P/E Average. It is (net runs + net runs + complete bases) / plate appearances. The question is does this really show us how good a player is or how good his team is? Net runs is Runs Batted In + Runs Scored – Homeruns. Now we can take the example of First base since we are already familiar with it. George Sisler may have been one of the best hitters in the game, but he played for the St. Louis Browns, one of the worst teams of all time. Thus, there are less people on base to drive in and less people who are able to drive him in once he was on base. Thus, his Net Runs will be low. Mark McGwire was always on a better team. Yet, ignore that fact for a minute. McGwire can post a better P/E average simply by hitting homeruns. That gives him higher Net Runs despite being on an equally bad team. Thus, McGwire can look like the better player, but actually be a worse hitter. Put him on a better team with the likes of Ricky Henderson, and all of a sudden McGwire can have an extremely high P/E compared to Sisler. But, if Sisler played with Ricky Henderson it would be a different story.
4. He also uses a silly stat that is called MVP share where he gives you points for every vote someone cast for the player for MVP. Since the MVP did not exist until late in baseball history, it favors the modern players.
5. Has some sort of Yankee bias. It is fairly clear from putting the best three players of all time as Yankees and he also has Mickey Mantle in the Top 10. No one in their right mind thinks Joe Dimaggio was better than Ty Cobb. He lays out the case for the two side by side. For Cobb he mentions .366 lifetime batting average (highest ever). 892 stolen bases (2nd best ever), 4,189 (2nd ever), unanimous MVP in 1911 and triple crown winner in 1909 (no MVP award given in that season) and on retirement he held or shared more records than anyone. Dimaggio’s credentials? 10 Pennants and nine World Series. Is that a Dimaggio accomplishment or a Yankee accomplishment? Are we punishing Ty Cobb for playing for the Detroit Tigers? How many Hall of Fame players did Dimaggio play with? How many did Cobb? Would that not make a difference if the qualification for best centerfielder ever had to do with team victories? Dimaggio gets credit for missing seasons because of WWII, but Cobb does not get credit for missing a season for WWI, nor does he get credit for actually getting hit with mustard gas during the war that damaged his lungs and ended the career of Chris Matthewson, who was with Ty. Dimaggio played baseball at Pearl Harbor during WWII. Pretty dumb in my opinion.
6. Ignores advice of the ancients. This is what Messmer writes about Cobb, “The fact that [Cobb] received more Hall of Fame votes that Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson in 1936 says something to me that I can’t ignore” (pg. 242). Yet, he does ignore it and puts Babe Ruth as the best player ever leaving Cobb at 6 behind Ted Williams and a trio of undeserving Yankees including Babe Ruth. In other words, despite saying he cannot ignore that the sports writers of 1936 thought Cobb a better baseball player than Babe Ruth, he ignores it completely and puts Ruth as a better ballplayer.

There are a lot of those kind of example in this book. This guy is out of his mind. I still await a book that will not reward the Homerun, the modern player, and take a look at real stats to discuss who is the best of all time.

Why Presbyterians and Independents Cannot be Puritans.

In an earlier post I defined Puritan as someone who was working to purify the Church of England as a member of the Church of England, among other things. Today the most famous pastors commonly called ‘Puritans’ such as John Owen do not fit my definition. Owen was an Independent minister and others like Thomas Cartwright do not count either because he was a Presbyterian minister. The main reason I have to reject them as Puritans is because they are not working to Purify the Church of England. Rather they are working to destroy it and build a new church in its place. They were wanting to burn the Church of England to the ground and then on top of the ashes build up a new church with a completely different form of government. Let us examine some evidence.

King James was right. ‘No bishops, no King.’ The Episcopal system needs someone to be the top of the hierarchy. In the Roman Church it was the pope. In the Eastern Orthodox Church it became the Caesar. In the Church of England it became the King. In churches that try an hybrid of Episcopacy and equality disaster is always present. Take a look at the United Methodist Church. They have bishops, but try to govern with some courts and with a Triennial conference. What do you have? A giant mess. In the South you still have conservative bible believing churches, but elsewhere in the same denomination you have people being cleared of charges even though the people voting not-guilty admit that the rules were broken. That is hardly an effective system. Episcopacy demands a head. Thus, an attempt to change the Church of England into the Presbyterian Church or a bunch of Independent churches is an attack on it head. To pull down the bishops was to try and pull down the king. The English Civil War should bare that out. The Westminster Confession that was put together during that time did not attempt to reform the Church of England, it built a completely new church.

It should also be remembered that originally the Presbyterians and Anabaptists did not consider themselves Puritans and that they more often than not took the above mentioned path; namely that the Church of England was not a true church and needed to be replaced. The Presbyterians were for a while called Brownists after Robert Brown who was often imprisoned for his activities. The Brownists openly called for the end to the Church of England, and they did not think it a true church. The Puritans were openly enemies of the Brownists and the Brownists thought the Puritans enemies as well. The Brownists would go so far that they would even be denounced by Cartwright, but the Brownists thought Cartwright, himself a Presbyterian, simply inconsistent in his old age. These divisions are even apparent later duirng the Civil War when the Independents and Presbyterians work together to overthrow Charles, but soon turn on each other after Charles is gone. Of course both groups hated the Anglicans. Of course there were still actual Puritans as seen in the fact that a few Anglicans attended the Westminster Assembly. Thomas Gataker for example and William Twisse.

In my opinion those who advocated a change in government of the church were advocating for a new church. With the intertwining of the church and state in England this was a revolutionary idea. The Puritans wanted the removal of the papish superstitions in the Church of England, but did not want to overthrow the church as it currently existed. Thus, I do not believe it right to lump those who wanted church purity in with those who wanted church revolution.

Puritans - Who are they?

I have to say that the Puritans are a fascinating bunch of guys, but exactly which group of guys they are is a matter of some historical debate. Usually in Reformed circles and especially in Presbyterian circles Puritan is a good thing and thus Puritans are anyone who agrees with you that ever lived in England or New England. Joel Beeke has a book out called Meet the Puritans. I have not bought this book out of protest. Beeke, who is interested in the Puritans because of their influence on the Further Reformation in Holland, does not seem to have a good definition of Puritans. He does not include John Dod, who has to be labeled a Puritan, but is not known because nothing of his work is currently reprinted. John Dod is included in the The Puritan Bookshelf collection, but so is Samuel Rutherford who is a Scottish Presbyterian and should not be considered a Puritan in anyway. Just in case you doubt the wide range of the Puritan Bookshelf they also have Theodore Beza, who I am pretty sure never set foot in England. Fire and Ice, an internet site dedicated to Puritan and Reformed writings, has a Puritan Quote of the Week. This ‘Puritan Quote’ can come from Jonathan Edwards, a New England Congregationalist, Ralph Erskine, a Scottish Presbyterian, or Thomas Watson an English non-conformist during the Civil War. Quite a range.

The problem comes in trying to define what is a Puritan or what are the fundamental beliefs that make one a Puritan. This is something not enough people wrestle with and it leads to the wide broad strokes that is used for Puritan today. In the next few posts I want to try and define this term. The term Puritan does not really appear until the reign of Elizabeth, and thus it seems odd to think of Puritans existing prior to Elizabeth. Even Bishop Hooper, who began the first controversy which the Puritans would take up, the Vestments, should probably only be considered a pre-Puritan. The main tenant of Puritanism has to be the desire for a pure worship and making the Church of England Scripturally pure. Thus, to be a true Puritan one must be a member of the Church of England. They begin in earnest with the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity in 1559 that required the wearing of the vestments and several other things that Puritans found offensive. The Puritans continue as members of the Church of England until Archbishop Laud right before the English Civil War forces them out. Puritanism has to be said to end on St. Bartholomew’s Day 1662 when the Act of Uniformity that had been passed in May went into effect. Over 2,000 ministers left the Church of England and the idea of purifying the church from within ended.

Thus, I think we can lay down a few ground rules for who is a Puritan and who is not. First, there is the time constraint. It has to be between the ascension of Queen Elizabeth in 1558 and the Act of Uniformity of 1662. They have to either be members of the Church of England or forcibly removed from the Church of England. In other words those who are separatists should not be considered Puritans because they do not wish to Purify the Church of England. Americans should be a category unto themselves. Presbyterians should also not be considered Puritans because of the inherent conflicts between Presbyterian Polity and the Episcopal system. This will be explored further at a later time. No real theological test should be applied as some Puritans may favor the Queen as the head of the church and some may oppose it. Some may be strict Calvinists and others favor universal atonement. The only unifying theological theme is the opposition to unscriptural traditions within the Church of England. Usually this revolves around vestments, the Book of Common Prayer, kneeling, and occasionally authority and other such things.

In the end this means the majority of people usually associated with Puritanism should not be considered Puritans at all. I will give a quick list and this too can be discussed further in the future.

Fits my conditions to be a Puritan:
William Perkins
William Ames – was removed, but only by royal decree.
John Dod
Laurence Chaterdon
Archbishop Grindal
Richard Baxter – he seemed to favor presbyterianism, but always appeared ready to accept Episcopalianism
Joseph Hall

Do not fit my conditions to be a Puritan:
Thomas Goodwin
John Owen
Thomas Cartwright
Thomas Watson
Jonathan Edwards

I hope to have more discussion on the reasons for my qualifications up soon.

Theological Renewal or Defining the Conversation?

Jeff Meyers has a post up about a recent conference lecture. The lecture is by a man named Jeremy Jones and is entitled Renewing Theology. From what Rev. Meyers discusses it seems that the talk spoke of how Reformed Churches often become ‘Police States’, and tries to explain how that happens so it can be avoided in the future. This post intrigued me and I think deserves a thoughtful response. I will use the same number used in the Meyers post for ease of reference.

An unnumbered point is that all Reformed churches or theologies begin with a ‘golden age’. The example of the 17th century is used. When you read someone attacking a golden age and equating the golden age with the 17th century you can simply substitute in Westminster Confession of Faith. It sounds better to attack an idea of golden age, but I think it is also a vain attempt to hide the real source of the attack, the creed. Likewise if you ever read of someone attacking a 16th century golden age you can substitute the Heidelberg or Belgic Confession. So reading the post, understand that point. The creeds are in view.

1. Presupposed theological decline – This sound interesting. If we start with a golden age (creed) one can only go down and not improve on the creeds, or at least that is the supposition attacked here. Thus, the inverse is being argued, that theological progression is indeed possible. Not only is it possible, but it is desirable. There really only appear to be two options on understanding point number one. Either it is wrong to require adherence to the creed and punish people for failure to adhere or theological progression should be the norm and thus creeds are only a “necessary evil” as John Nevin once said. I would bet that the latter is in view, but it is a debatable position. Theological Development is not universally accepted and a full fledged debate on that point has yet to occur.

2. Equating current disputes with past ones – Again this is well put. It seems wrong to compare one position to an older already condemned position. Almost as if it is a logic trick of some kind to poison the well of debate. However, what of the Biblical admonition that there is nothing new under the sun? If nothing is new is it not possible that many of the ‘new’ ideas are really old ones with a new coat of paint? And if so it is wrong to demonstrate similarities? If we can never equate current events with historical ones then why study history at all? What purpose does it serve if not to warn? It seems the real objection ought to be the lack of listening or the sloppy connections or the lack of proof. But, that is not how the objection is phrased. The objection is the comparison in the first place.

3. The use of slippery slope argumentation – Here the objection is made that opponents will say that someone’s thinking leads to some other outright error even if it is specifically denied by the defendant. Is arguing the ‘logical consequence’ of a position a wrong or the sign of a police state mentality? A quote is given from Dabney who argues that false principle will always work out to their logical conclusion. A sound statement in my opinion. Logical consequences must be examined. At the very least there seems room for disagreement about whether or not false ideas will work out to their logical consequences in time.

4. An interconnected system means one problem threatens all – Here again I believe real and deep philosophical possibilities are simply rejected out of hand. Coherentism is an espistemological position that does seem to say that breaking one strand of the spider web damages the whole. That all beliefs are interconnected. Even such recent theologians as Gordon Clark thought that how coherent a system of thought is should be the ground to judge it as a legitimate system. Like it or hate it, it is a real philosophical debate. One cannot cast it aside as if it were wrong outright.

These things add up to show a denomination police state according to the lecture/blog. One wonders at the real nature of the objection when the comments are read. Look at the first comment by James Jordan.

You know that there is much, much more that is going to come forth from the Word as new cultures are converted and bring new questions and perspectives. The Spirit has only begun His work. We are in a Conversation.

I believe the real objection at work here is the whole idea of creeds. Creeds are not a conversation. Creeds hold people back from moving along with the developing culture and questions. What one needs is to be open to theological development. The real objection is to the resistance to tearing down the old spider web and building a new one. Mark Horne also comments in the sixth comment.

But in general, everything in the past is meant to be surpassed. Everything we know will one day seem uncivilized and tainted with error by future generations that know better.

Everything we know will be overthrown as tainted with error? Jesus Christ as the eternal-godman will one day be seen as an outmoded way of talking about Jesus? Nicaea, Chalcedon, Ephesus, all will be in the dustbin of history with Marx and the Westminister Confession of Faith? I beg to differ. I do not hold to Theological Development, nor do I hold to golden ages. It is interesting to me how the word postmillennial is now co-opted to mean Theological Development. I know that people can hold to a return of Christ that comes after a 1000 year reign and not think that all knowledge is meant to be surpassed and that the church is still an infant.

I could talk about how this was argued by Schaff and Nevin, but that would break one of the rules. I could talk about how such a position logically is an attack on history and those who have gone before, but that violates another rule. I could talk about how such a belief in theological development necessitates developing and changing the rest of your beliefs, but that was also forbidden. I do not think this Renewing Theology Lecture is so much an attempt to show the police state nature of modern churches as to frame the debate so that there is no way for Developmentalists to lose.

I am not defending the PCA, but I do not think this helps further the discussion

Theodulf of Orleans and the Libri Carolini

It is no surprise to long time readers of this blog that I really enjoy the Carolingian era of history. So, when an avalanche of sales, discounts, and gift cards piled high enough to make Ann Freeman’s Theodulf of Orelans: Chralemagne’s Spokesman against the Second Council of Nicaea available I jumped at the chance. I wanted this book for several reasons. One, I cannot get enough about the Carolinigian era, a time that is ignored by historians both secular and religious. Two, I want to know all I can about Theodulf. Three, the general consensus is that Alcuin must be the author of the Libri Carolini. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia claims Alcuin as the best possibility. This book argues, I believe convincingly, that Theodulf of Orleans is the author.

The book is scholarly, so if you are not interested in the subject save your money. Also, if you are limited intelligence like me be prepared to read many sections multiple times. However, the book is really a collection of essays and articles so that each chapter makes a nice breaks and some chapters recover material often in an easier to understand format before expanding your information base. The book does deal with other issues other than just authorship. It has a great chapter about the view of images and icons put forth by the Libri Carolini, as well as books that speak to the general history of the Frankish church about images and about Theodulf himself.

The main point of Ann Freeman’s contention is that the original uncorrected version (found only in this century) provides much new information. Seeing the corrections made by the correcter over the original shows us that the corrector was a person who learned Latin as a second language or book Latin and the original author was a native speaker whose Latin was already turning colloquial. In fact, one can even track the author’s Latin to Visigothic Spain. This makes Theodulf a leading candidate since he was a Visigoth from Spain. It hurts Alcuin as the candidate since he would have learned Latin as a second language in England. The thrust of her research revolves around the Liturgy in common use in Spain. She is able to show that many times in the Libri Carolini the scripture quotes are from the Liturgy. There are a few examples of the corrector not taking off the liturgical phrases like ‘and the people said Amen’ (my example, the real ones are in the book). The Spanish Liturgy at the time was not using the Vulgate, and the Scripture quotes can be shown to be from this alternate version. This evidence makes one overwhelmingly favor Theodulf as the author. When matched up with the traditional objections to Alcuin, such as it does not fit his known timeline (he is supposed to have been in England at the time) and that his earliest biographer does not include the Libri Carolini as one of his works, the evidence demands a verdict of Theodulf of Orleans as the author of the Libri Carolini.

I do admit that this evidence does not point to Theodulf directly, but rather only to a Visigoth from Spain. This is the weakness in the book. There were more than one Visigoth at Charlemagne’s court, and they cannot be ruled out from any of the arguments I read. However, it is not disputed that Theodulf was the greatest Visigoth scholar at the court and probably stood only behind Alcuin when ranking the scholars at court (an argument could be made Alcuin stood behind Theodulf). It is obvious from other actions that Charlemagne trusted Theodulf with big responsibilities. Thus, it stands to reason that Theodulf would be the author. It just needs to be noted that the arguments do not point directly to him, but rather to his region of the world and he is the top candidate from that region.

All in all, I really enjoyed this book, and I learned a great deal from it.

Pittsburgh Pirates '08

Today begins my other passion, Pittsburgh Pirates baseball. Yes, the official pitchers and catchers work outs have begun. Again, I have very high hopes for the Pirates, but will wait before making predictions for the Pirates until we have a better idea of their lineup.

The reasons for my high hopes revolve mainly around the departure of Jim Tracy the now former manager. This new manager, John Russell, is a mystery. I have to admit that it was depressing when they hired him. He has no real track record on which to be judged, so that may still turn into adulation. However, Tony Pena was available, and I thought it would have been better to go get the former Pirate standout who does have previous managerial experience and has been learning with the Yankees for a few years now.

Still, the line up for the Pirates looks good. Jason Bay will probably not bat 50 points under his career average again. Ronnie Paulino showed a lot of life at the end of the season, and hopefully he will be back up to a .300 hitter in his third year, and hopefully improved defense. Freddie Sanchez started this past season hurt and basically had his Spring training during the Pirates games in May. He now has a long term deal in his back pocket and should be able to be an MVP type player. Xavier Nady, despite a few injury problems, did exactly what you would expect of him. He hit about his career average of .275. If more people were on base in front of him, his RBI’s would be higher. And Adam LaRoche might actually put together an entire season of being good. He starts every year off ice cold. Hopefully this year he can at least keep the cold start to hitting above .200. I am not counting on much from him, but his bat will heat up with weather and he does provide long ball power. The constant question mark of center field may finally be answered as well. Chris Duffy, Nate McClouth, and Nyjer Morgan will all compete for the starting job in center with the runner up earning a spot on the roster and the loser going to the minors. I think that Duffy and McClouth were greatly misused by Jim Tracy as their speed was never taken advantage of, and Nyjer’s late season call up ended with a man hitting nearly .300 and making highlight real grabs in the outfield. If he wins the starting spot, I will be overjoyed. I fully expect McClouth to earn the back up spot, and Duffy (who is recovering from an injury to start off in the minors). Duffy will be traded before the season is over as the outfield is crowded considering the top prospect, McCutchen, in the organization will probably be called up in September to play center. Third base is still a hole, but Neil Walker may be ready by mid season, and that would turn that position around.

This year the bullpen will be almost totally new. That makes it a question mark, but also makes it hopeful. The best of the best were kept, such as closer Matt Cappas and set up man Desmond Marte both had ERA’s under 2.50. John Grabow probably has a safe spot in the bullpen, but the last four spots could be open. With Grabow and Marte both being lefties one would think that Franqueils Osario and Evan Meek have the inside shot at making the team. Meek is a ground ball pitcher with a big fastball making him very intriguing. Jonah Bayliss and Josh Sharpless played some with the club last year and are in the mix as is Japanese Masumi Kuwata who started strong last year, but ended up in the minors. Hector Carrasco and Jaret Wright were invited to camp and are veterans of other clubs. However, I am hoping for a youth movement. Shawn Chacon, Tony Armas, and Solomon Torres are all mercifully gone, and there is no need to replace them with aging veterans when so many young guns are in the organization. If too many of the older guys make the team, it will be a bad sign for the organization. In addition to about a half dozen other young arms vying for spots in the bullpen are big time starting prospects John Van Benschoten and Bryan Bullington. The starting five appears to be set with Matt Morris as one of them (I am less than thrilled with him). It would make sense that one of these guys deserves a shot at being the long man from the pen.

It will be a fun Spring Training to watch with so many open spots on the team. The bullpen competition will be strong, and the back up first base position is up for grabs as is the third string catcher spot. The starting center field spot as well as back up utility infielder, which brings with it the heir apparent title to aging Jack Wilson. The Pirates ought to be able to compete in a still weak NL Central. If they cannot, expect wide spread trades and changes.

Wright on Life After Death

Bishop N.T. Wright recently gave an interview to Time Magazine where he explained why the traditional view of life after death is wrong. I found this article because of Barb at Whilin Away the Hours who defends Bishop Wright as teaching "very good" and did not see this article as a rejection of Christian teaching despite the name of the article which Wright agreed with when asked. So, I thought I would quickly show exactly where Wright is rejecting orthodoxy and the traditional view of heaven and life after death.

I should start with some agreement, so let me agree with Barb that the main point of Bishop Wright’s’ article is to describe the ultimate state, the one of a reunited soul and body after the return of Jesus. Bishop Wright wants to put more emphasis on this final state. That is not wrong. All Christians have believed that the ultimate state is one of a resurrected bodies, and perhaps one can make the case that this is too often ignored. Bishop Wright’s motivation comes from a desire to recapture that doctrine of Christianity. However, it seems he may desire to emphasize that because he thinks that the traditional view allows people to do whatever they want with their bodies now, and that might lead people to not care about "acid rain or greenhouse gasses" or even if we bomb "civilians in Iraq". So, it is fairly clear that Bishop Wright wants to draw attention to an orthodox point of doctrine; however, his motives may indeed be based in politics and social gospel stuff.

Now that we all agree the ultimate state of man is both resurrected body and soul, we can move on to his rejection of what happens to the dead believer prior to the return of Christ. Of course, Bishop Wright mischaracterizes it and uses a book by Maria Shriver (Arnold’s wife) to buttress his point rather than an actual book by a theologian. The traditional view of life after death is that a man’s soul goes to be with the Lord in heaven, and there awaits the final resurrection, but while there the soul is engaged in activity such as worship. Bishop Wright does not deny that we are somehow in the presence of God, but Wright goes on to say we are:

resting and being refreshed. Paul writes that it will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep.

He quotes another idea favorably:

"God will download our software onto his hardware until the time he gives us new hardware to run the software again for ourselves." That gets to two things nicely: that the period after death is a period when we are in God's presence but not active in our own bodies, and also that the more important transformation will be when we are again embodied and administering Christ's kingdom.

Of course the ultimate reason that church has believed the wrong thing for so long is that we are too Greek and not Jewish enough. Same old, same old. Plato is the real enemy and Second Temple Judaism is the savior. Yada, yada, yada. He does briefly touch on a few verses that uphold the traditional view. He rejects Jesus saying to the thief ‘Today you will be with me in Paradise’ because Jesus is not resurrected for three days, so it must be some intermediate state. Wright here ducks the question by trying to answer it as a resurrection question rather than what happens right after you die question. He also seems to imply that Revelation 4 and 5 are about the worship of the church on earth right now and not in heaven, but I must admit I may not be completely understanding him at this point as there really are a lot of possible views on the book of Revelation.

So in essence Bishop Wright is advocating some sort of peaceful conscious sleep that is like being uploaded into God to wait until we get bodies. This is not the traditional view, and allow me to give some Scriptures that more clearly deal with life after death. The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus given in Luke 16 is the best example. There the rich man is suffering torment and Lazarus the beggar is with Abraham. Yet, communication is possible. The Rich man pleads with Abraham, who is also there, and the two talk. Clearly, no bodily resurrection is in view, but hell exists, punishment is being given and rewards are being given. The Soul, sans the body, is able to feel and communicate. They are not sleeping nor simply downloaded. They both seem very active. Another place is Revelation 6. Regardless of how one reads 4 and 5, chapter 6 presents a problem for Bishop Wright. Verses 9-11 tell of the fifth seal where the Martyrs cry out. Here the martyrs are under the altar and crying out for God to avenge them. So we can see we are pre-bodily resurrection because the word "souls" is used in verse 9 so this is not soul plus body. We know it is pre-return of Christ because that appears to be what they are asking for. And we know that the souls are crying out. Speaking. Communicating. They are active in a sense that Bishop Wright seems to reject. 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 prove problamatic for Wright as well. As Paul speaks of a man being caught up into the Third Heaven which he also calls Paradise (providing problems for Wright’s rejection of the Thief on the Cross), and in that third heaven Paul heard wonderful words. It was not a place of rest, but rather a place of revelation from God. Of course Elijah provides problems as a man who avoided death. But even more of a problem is the Transfiguration where Elijah and Moses appear with Christ. Clearly we do not yet have a bodily resurrection, but two men are seen with Christ and they are recognized. And then John 14:2-3 seem to militate against the Wright redefining of life after death. There Jesus tells the people he goes to prepare a room for them in His father’s house. And he shall receive them Himself. Now Wright seems to indicate that Jesus always spoke of coming again to us, but here is one clear occasion where Jesus spoke of us going to Him.

In conclusion, I think that Wright wants to place more emphasis on the body, and there may be a real place for that, but Wright has gone to the other extreme and minimized the soul. He seems to say that without the body man is unable to do things like worship, communicate, and exist in a physical place. He prefers the software to hardware analogy. Software is useless without hardware, but that is hardly the picture we get from the Bible of our souls after death. He starts off worrying that we ignore our bodies, and ends up making us almost nothing but bodies.

[The following should be viewed as redacted. I did not corretly remember and represent the position of Philip Schaff. I leave it set off in italics for historical purposes. See discussion in comments for more details]
And for those of you wondering about how this fits into the thesis that most of the FV/Shepherd/Wright stuff is a revival of Mercersburg Theology, Philip Schaff taught a Middle State very similar to this. It was the only time he was censured by the Board of Visitors of Mercersburg. He promised to not teach it, and the Visitors agreed not to turn him over to Synod for a trial. However, we now know that it appears he continued to teach it anyway. There is nothing new under the sun.

My Day as a Lobbyist

I spent the better half of Super Tuesday lobbying state legislators. I have to admit, I felt dirty. It was sort of sprung on me. Another pastor friend of mine and I went down to Pierre for Pastor’s Day put on by a group loosely affiliated with Focus on the Family (name of the actual group withheld to protect the pseudo-innocent). It was advertised to us as a chance to tour the capital, meet with some lawmakers, and pray for them and talk with them. Then we were to have a nice lunch where lawmakers would come and talk to us, and it was sort of understood that there would be some sort of recruiting speech as well. Well, it turned out the ‘meet and pray for the legislatures’ was actually a lobby these two bills for us. The one I was given, I didn’t even really agree with. It had to do with restricting ‘Adult Content’ business. I feel that is more of a local matter and the state government should not bother trying to zone municipalities. So, I walked around with a few guys and was shown the lobbying ropes, but I never said anything. I did meet one of my representatives and one state senator. I discovered that lobbyists are treated like bothersome flies by most legislators, and with good reason. We wandered around the floor of the House and Senate bothering people while they looked like they were trying to work. I did end up having a few good conversations. I just did my own thing after a while. I did ask a few legislators if there was a way I could uphold them in prayer, specific needs, that sort of thing. I thanked a few of them and that seemed to get the best response. And I got to talk with one Pro-Life Democrat who knew someone in Herreid. We chatted for some time until the professional lobbyist saw us together and made my friendly conversation a dirty lobby-like one. Still the legislator wanted his picture taken with me and my friend. The rest of the day did go about as expected, but it was an eye opening look into political life and the work of lobbyist. I came away with a few lessons.

1. Lobbying is a lot like bribery. A saw lots of gift bags from different groups.
2. Lobbying is a lot of intimidation. The professional lobbyists are ignored, so they bring in ‘constituents’ like me and try to make it look like I am not with him, but just a concerned citizen. Our badges said ‘Pastor’ so that it looked like I was representing not just myself, but a lot of other voters too.
3. Legislators have to hide to do real work. I saw a lot of them do this. And a few would stop the group I was with after the first sentence or so because they had already been talked to twice that day. I bet it gets annoying.
4. There are lots of lobbyists. I saw at least a large group of Midwife lobbyists and I met the Planned Parenthood lobbyist leader, or was shown whom she was without being allowed to speak to her. I also saw ‘Blue tag lobbyists’ those are the lobbyists from the government. They often lobby themselves. Yes, my taxpayer dollars pay for the Depratment of Education to come lobby the Legislature about taking over preschools around the state.
5. Theocrats love the government no matter how much they pretend they don’t. This organization was a Theo-conservative organization. They wanted the government to require lots of things in bills that supported their worldview. They had no problem with the government coming in and taking away a bookstore owner’s right to sell smut within a certain distance of about everything in a city. Yet, they were upset about a bill that would take away the right of a Pharmacist to not sell RU486 and other contraception. Their view of government is a bit contradictory. If you are wondering about the Republican Party dilemma, Theo-conservatves are the reason the Republican Party is moving left.
6. Lobbying without knowing what you are talking about is ridiculous. We were given large sheets of paper to discuss things about each bill. Try talking to a legislator sometime having to look down at a sheet of paper to get your talking points, not to mention the name of the bill. I bet a lot of people laughed at us all day.

Those are my early thoughts about a day of being a dirty no good lobbyist. I did get a lot free books and got to see government up close and tour the capital without a tour guide. All in all, I guess it was worth the day trip.

Primaries

I simply find the Republican Primaries fascinating this year. You see a lot of people pulling the pragmatic argument out for John McCain. You hear Rush Limbaugh make the Idealist argument, which now only applies to Mitt Romney. And you hear people on Meet the Press giggle with joy about McCain downing the Republican establishment. It is not all that dissimilar an argument from the Church Growth movement about do you make people Christian so they will join the church or do you get people to join the church and hope they become Christians later. I am unable to get enough of this much for same reason you have to slow down to watch trains wreck.

Long time readers of this blog will know that I prefer the Idealist argument made by Mr. Limbaugh. However, after listening to Limbaugh rant today I still do not think he has it right. Limbaugh blames John McCain for wanting to pull the party to the left, and so did a lot his callers. However, I do not believe that is the case. The blame rests mostly on President Bush and a little on Limbaugh/conservatives himself/themselves. Let me explain.

People are up in arms about the perceived left-ward stance of ‘Maverick’ John McCain. They point to Campaign Finance Reform, they point to McCain’s stance on Amnesty, and they often point to other things like his environmentalism on display after his endorsement by Gov. Terminator in California. Opposition to tax cuts also makes the list, but I will deal with that in a minute. When you look at all of the above things (tax cuts excluded) John McCain is no more to blame than George Bush. Bush signed into law Campaign Finance Reform. Bush promoted Amnesty. Bush had liberal Republicans like Arnold and Rudy Guiliani speak at the Republican Convention in 2004. That was the glimpse of the future of the Republican Party, and commentators like Limbaugh missed it. Or at least they did not make enough of a fuss. It makes no sense to fight against McCain and accept President Bush. President Bush was elected in 2000 on a more conservative platform, although he told Republican it would be a modified Conservatism by the simply title ‘Compassionate Conservative’. He passed things like No Child Left Behind and then went completely away from his conservative roots after 9/11. 2004 saw everyone stand by their Commander-in-Chief, and they overlooked the non-conservative nature of his governing. He tried to push Harriet Meyers as a Supreme Court Justice and tried to push Amnesty for illegals. His short lived attempt to revamp Social Security did not receive the same sort of effort put into adding Prescription Drugs to Medicare.

The only difference between George Bush and John McCain is tax cuts. McCain has a stronger belief in a balanced budget than does President Bush, but neither actually believes the government should shrink. Not at all. They fundamentally believe that the government ought to have your money to fill its needs first, then maybe you can have some back. That is what not voting for tax cuts until the budget is balanced means. Government first, tax payer second. The conservative revolt ought to be a revolt against Bush, but for some reason it is completely directed at John McCain. They are two peas in a pod.

The other thing that I do not think is getting enough attention is Congress. Lots of people talk about the 2006 victory for the Democrats. Some, Rush included, chalk that up to the Conservative base being upset. To some degree I believe that is true, but what no one really ever mentions is that this is the effect of having a liberal Republican heading up the party as the Conservative Revolution of 1994 expired. Many people were stepping down because they promised in 1994 to only serve 12 years. Bill Frist is a good example. He was the majority leader, but had served his time. Senator Frist is not the most conservative of men, but he is just the first example off of the top of my head. True conservatives were not able to be recruited because the leadership of the Republican Party was not conservative. They pulled funding from winnable seats like Representative J.D. Hayworth in Arizona because he stood for being conservative. You won’t find any conservatives running this time either and very winnable seats like South Dakota’s Senate seat occupied by Tim Johnson will go without a challenge because what conservative can follow John McCain as a standard bearer. Again this fact has been passed on by powerful leaders like Rush Limbaugh. He broke the immigration bill when it was in the legislature, but he seems slow to speak out on the liberalization of the Republican Party under President Bush. Now he wants a return to conservative roots rather than follow Bush’s example with McCain. It is too late now. The only option conservatives have is a new party.

The Deeper Debate about Westminster Theological Seminary

There is a debate raging on-line about the direction of Westminster Theological Seminary. Some are worried that those who favor the more liberal direction of Biblical Theology and lean toward Shepherd and the Federal Vision are concerned that their voices may be silenced. They have started a Save Our Seminary website with all the details. Others like Rev. Lane Keister are concerned that the conservative voices are being silenced in favor of the Biblical Theology department and their innovations. Basically they are concerned for the exact opposite reasons as the Save Our Seminary group. This could be a new front in the war about Federal Vision-like theology, but it is really a strange battleground, one that has me thinking about seminaries in general.

Westminster Theological Seminary is an independent seminary. It serves many denominations, but it is not under any of them. Yes, it has a long-standing tradition and yes it does have a lot of control in the OPC, but it is not under any one denomination. This is not uncommon as most seminaries today operate as independent non-profit organizations including for self-disclosure’s sake the one from which I graduated. There is a long standing debate, especially in my own denomination, about whether or not it is appropriate for an organization that is outside of the church be allowed to train ministers to serve inside the church. And if the Bible gives the job of training men to the church, can the church then give it to these outside groups? We can argue some other time about whether or not seminaries are the way to go or whether or not the apprenticeship model is better. The question before us today is whether any of these people complaining about the direction of Westminster Theological Seminary have a right to complain or should they have expected change and drift from an independent organization?

I do believe that independent seminaries will change and cannot be expected to stay faithful to creeds or even their own original vision statements because they are organizations not under any real authority. It is not a church. One can do a lot of things to pretend a seminary is a church in and of itself. Some have chapels and other worship like activities, but that does not make it the church. It is true that most seminaries would consider their authority to be the church, but in reality it is the Board of Directors. And a Board of Directors is a lot of things, but it is not a church court. It is also shabby for oversight. Most directors do not live in the same area as the actual seminary and may not make every meeting. It may be that the Directors are cobbled together to try and spread the influence of the seminary around to other spots rather than to limit the seminary, to check the seminary, and to oversee the seminary. The President might have some sort of oversight, but the faculty usually has free reign over minds that have come not to oversee, but to be taught and learn. In a local congregation a minister preaches and teaches his congregation that hopefully has an attitude of coming to learn, but he is also preaching and teaching to elders who have oversight or at least a standing to bring complaints before an appropriate body.

Historically Westminster Theological Seminary has already seen trouble with this line between church and institution. It occurred with Rev. Norman Shepherd’s problems there back in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Shepherd was investigated by the seminary several times, but the church not so much. Then Shepherd was fired from WTS for not adhering to the Westminster Standards, but he remained a minister in good standing in the OPC. That was about to change when he transferred to the Christian Reformed Church. But the point here is that a man was suspected of teaching heretical doctrine in his class and the discipline stayed within the bounds of the seminary and did not go directly to the church courts. Years later because the workings of a Board of Trustees is not the same as the workings of a church court, the teacher is removed. Now he is in the unenviable position of being fired for unorthodox statements, but is considered orthodox by his denomination. It is just one example of many that could be referenced of trouble that comes from independent seminaries.

There are other reasons that independent seminaries will drift away from their standards other than the complete lack of oversight and authority. Namely the fact that seminaries are academic institutions by nature, and the fact that they are businesses that make more money the broader they become.

This controversy about the direction of Westminster Theological Seminary is an interesting one. However, it is only a symptom of a greater problem. Maybe this new uprising at WTS will lead to a bigger discussion.

PCA and FV Update

Perhaps you have already heard but Rev. Steve Wilkins and his entire church have left the PCA and are seeking union with the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CRE). This is not surprising per se as the CRE is the final destination for all FV men or at least it will be.

It is a little bit of a surprise that Rev. Wilson seems to call it a victory. He is quite happy about the church joining his denomination, but a few months ago he seemed excited about the PCA being exposed by having this process done out in the open. The PCA did seem to encourage the strategy finally employed by Rev Wilkins in their ‘Leave or else’ declaration. Both sides decided in the end to avoid a fight, and what exactly happens now is up in the air. Does the PCA continue to prosecute the Louisiana Presbytery? Will other members of that presbytery flee to the arms of the CRE? Will the PCA turn its attention to others like Rev. Leithart? The issue is not dead, but it is ducked for another year or so.

Another interesting post is the one at Reformed Catholicism. Read the interaction in the comments especially response #9 from Rev. Sandlin. Sandlin has a very large rebuke for the CRE.

I have been reading one of my Christmas gifts lately. It is An Emergent Manifesto of Hope. This book is a collection of essays by leaders in the Emergent Church movement. It is an attempt to drive home their viewpoint and their goals to those who are unfamiliar with the Emergent Church. I will be blogging about some of the individual chapters because there is so much in this book worthy of blog posts al there own. However, one thing is standing out and coming across as an underlying and unifying factor in the Emergent movement. One theme continually pops up that unites these very different men and different theologies. Well, two themes if you count ‘missional’ as a theme, but really what is ‘missional’ and what does that mean seems to be different for each writer, but another post for another time.

The main unifying factor seems to be an open rebellion against the Religious Right. And by that I mean a rebellion against those religious leaders who jumped into the political arena like Jerry Fawell, Pat Robertson, and Dr. Dobson, but also the more theological leaders like Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. This is one of the reason these people like to call themselves ‘post evangelical’. The word evangelical is as much a political word today as it is a religious one. These people do not like the politics of the ‘evangelical movement’ and its leaders and have rejected the whole system. Listen to the words of Brian McLaren:

Here in the United States we see large sectors of the Christian community associated with American hyperconfidence, white privilege, institutional racism, civil religion, neocolonialism, and nationalistic militarism – often fortified by a privatized faith in a privatized nationalistic/tribal god. (pg. 148)

Other writers make similar comments. In fact, Tony Jones specifically mentions the hope of the Emergent Village being something that can counter the work of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins (pg.130). These men and women really seem to be the next step in evolution of the Liberals and their Social Gospel from the early part of the 20th Century. Then the Social Gospel took over and the message was changed from one of salvation to one of helping the needy. However the Social Gospel took over the institutional churches and made few other changes besides the message. Thus, people sang the same sort of songs, sat in the same pews, and worshipped in the same manner while hearing the social gospel message. The Emergent Church wants a return to the social gospel of liberalism, but they are also throwing off the system itself. Why keep the same old trappings? Why not throw off all vestiges of that old authoritarian system and find a new way more in keeping with the message? This group is on board with Progressive/Democratic politics and it is angry at the Republican domination of the Evangelical message.

While I can agree that Evangelical as a political term is a bad thing and the mixing of the Republican Party with Christianity as is done by Robertson and others is a serious error, I do not agree with the radical solution. There is of course a middle ground, the ground always held by the church. Preaching Christ and Him crucified along with being living sacrifices of thanksgiving. I am against the ‘Republican Party will save us’ mentality that pervades so many, I am equally appalled at the ‘throw everything overboard and hope the Democrats can save us’ mentality taken by the Emergent church as well.

Battle for the Soul of the Republican Primary

Fred Thomson is right, this primary season is a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. And since I am not a Republican, I can view this war for the soul of the party from a distance and analyze what I see.

First, there is always talk of the Reagan Coalition that really helped the Republicans start winning Presidential elections. That coalition grafted into the Republican Party Libertarians, PaleoConservatives, and Theoconservatives. What it also did was place some of the budding NeoConservatives in a places of power in the administration. Thus, Reagan held together a large coalition of people. President Bush the Older continued that tradition by trying not to change much, but his appointments show a growing power for the NeoConservatives, who were not making much hay on the campaign trial, but doing a good deal of work in the backrooms of the White House. The Republican Revolution of 1992 was primarily a PaleoConservative Revolution with great help from the TheoConservatives and the Libertarians. The 1996 race for the White House ended in disaster for PaleoCon Bob Dole and with the fall of Newt, another PaleoCon thinker the Neocons forged a new alliance with the TheoCons to take the White House with President Bush the Younger. As Younger President Bush continued his term in office the NeoCons showed complete control leading to great disenchantment from the Libertarians first, the PaleoCons second, and finally even the TheoCons are getting nervous.

That brings us to this year’s historic run for the White House. Each candidate really represents a different slice of the pie and a different attempt to forge bonds between the four separate groups.

Mitt Romney – Romney tries to be the complete package and is making overtures toward the TheoCons, but he is not really their man. Romney is stuck somewhere in the middle. He is trying to forge an alliance with the PaleoCons, TheoCons, and NeoCons. He is promising less government spending for the Paleo branch, he is promising anti-abortion activism for the TheoCons, and a continued foreign policy laid out by the NeoCons. His attempts at this have so far fallen a bit flat, but he is the best at naturally appealing to al groups.

John McCain – McCain has a long career as a NeoCon. He has some PaleoCon tendencies such as a hatred of wasteful spending, but his willingness to increase government in education, Medicare, and restrict freedoms in campaign reform shows he is really the establishment NeoCon candidate. The reason he is not fully supported by the NeoCons is his constant criticism of how the first true NeoCon administration ran things has hurt him. The PaleoCons and Libertarians are not behind him because of the above reasons as well as opposition to tax cuts. The TheoCons are not with him because of how he insulted them when he lost South Carolina in 2000.

Rudy Guiliani – He is purely a NeoCon candidate and was counting on big support from the White House and from 911. He has no credentials as a PaleoCon, Libertarian, or TheoCon. His presence in the race has also hurt McCain. Although Guiliani really angers the TheoCons by hjs open support of abortion.

Mike Huckabee – Huckabee is a smooth talker, but his version of the Republican Party contains only NeoCons and TheoCons. He has completely abandoned the PaleoCon and Libertarian wing of the party. President Bush always kept up a veneer of tax cuts to try and placate the PaleoCons, but Huckabee has never done that. The other difference between Huckabee’s version of the Republican Party and the President Bush/John McCain version of the party is that Huckabee will invert the power structure. Huckabee wishes to keep a coalition of NeoCons and TheoCons, but would put the TheoCons in the driver seat of the party for the first time.

Fred Thomson – Fred is the best attempt to keep alive the old Reagan Coalition. Unlike Romney, Fred keeps trying to bring in Libertarians and has a smaller place for the NeoCons and TheoCons, although he clearly tries to keep them by not renouncing President Bush’s foreign policy. Instead of giving the TheoCons what they want in Federal Amendments he actually tries to appeal to the forgotten Libertarian wing of the party by rejecting the need for such amendments. His pro-life stance may not be enough to make TheoCons happy and the NeoCons do not want to be replaced in the driver seat by a PaleoCon such as Thomson. Thus, his attempt to keep the Reagan Coalition alive is almost dead.

Ducan Hunter – Hunter is an old fashion PaleoCon who does not try to keep the NeoCons in his alliance. Hunter has the pro-life positions to satisfy the TheoCons, and although he is not advocating a withdrawal from Iraq focus his foreign policy more on economics and returns to the threat of Communism as a main talking point. Hunter is an old fashion PaleoCon who barely tries to reach out to anyone else. His view of the party is solidly PaleoCon.

Ron Paul – Ron Paul is the attempt by the Libertarians to gain footing again in the Republican Party. Paul’s positions are considered extreme today because they are solidly libertarian. He does appeal to PaleoCons as well, but stands more in the Libertarian position than the Paleo. He out right rejects the NeoCons as true conservatives and will not give the federal government to the TheoCons. Paul’s version of the Republican party is Libertarianism in control with PaleoCons sitting shotgun.

Thus, this race is real interesting when seen as a fight for the future and soul of the Party. Will it stay with the Reagan Coalition, is that even possible? Will it become the party of TheoCons? Will the Libertarians win, or will they run off and make Paul a third party candidate? It is an extremely interesting primary season on the Republican side. The question on the Democratic side is whether or not they will hide their Progressivism behind nice rhetoric or not? That is the only thing going on the Democratic side.

12 Principles of Protestant Catholicity: A Response

I would like to draw attention to a post over at the new Evangelical Catholicity blog that is very helpful in understanding the mission and thinking of the modern ‘catholicity movement’ for lack of a better term. This post by Mr. Bonomo has 12 principles for Protestant Catholicity. I find them honest and the post is a great starting point for discussion regarding Protestant Catholicity. I hope that this response will be seen as an attempt to further that discussion by asking some refining questions and making a few comments on each of the 12 Principles.

1. The Centrality of Jesus Christ – I do not have any disagreement with this one. I do question the need to add the phrase ‘and not mere speculation about him’, but I agree with the point. We are unified only in Jesus Christ, He alone is our center.
2. The Essential Unity of the Church – Again, I have no objections here. Another good point.
3. The Diversity of the Church – Here again I agree. However there is a problem. That problem is in how one defines ‘secondary matters’. I agree that secondary matters should be left up to the individual and should not bar union and unity with fellow believers. I also know of no one who does not agree with that statement. The problem lies in defining ‘secondary matters’.
4. The Supremacy of Historic Creedal Orthodoxy – Here I must depart for a moment. The argument here is that the original historic creeds of the Apostle’s, Nicene, and Chalcedonian creeds should be the basis for unity. I suppose this is the attempt to define what is an essential and what is a secondary matter of faith. I have two main objections: one historical and one theological. The historical objection is that those creeds were not meant to serve that purpose ever. The Apostle’s Creed was originally a baptismal creed and the other two were written in response to specific heresies, not as a source of unity. Plus, which Nicene Creed are we talking about. Do we include the Filoque clause that teaches the Spirit proceeds from the Son or not? This is a serious matter to the Eastern Orthodox church. This, in my opinion , is forcing something on these creeds that they were not made to do, namely be the definition of the essentials of the Christian faith. My theological objection is that I do not believe these creeds sufficiently cover the basics of Christianity. Paul makes clear in Galatians 1:8-9 that the gospel is essential and those who reject it or pervert it are to be accursed. That book goes on to talk about the gospel and deals mainly with justification by faith, a subject not covered in any of those three creeds. Thus, if I am to be faithful to Paul’s words, I need more than those historic trio of creeds.
5. The Heinousness of Schism – Here I will claim ignorance. The claim is made by Mr. Bonomo that division in the body of Christ is as bad as propositional heresy. This I have not thought over enough to comment upon. I also would like to investigate the idea of schism without some sort of underlying sin and/or heresy being involved. Is it possible for a schism to occur without some deeper issue being involved? I prefer to ask for more time to study this issue before I agree or disagree with this one.
6. The Hope for Inter-Confessional Unity – To this one I must strongly object. Mr. Bonomo argues “All Christians ought to hope for a day when believers in Christ from all the various orthodox confessional traditions can exist in one visible Body while yet retaining their confessional identities. This may seem impossible from our perspective, but with God all things are possible.” What I do not understand is why? Why cannot I hope for a day when people from various confessional traditions exist in one Body and share the same confession? I believe that Baptist churches are Christian churches. However, why would I ever hope to have a church where some people believed in baptizing children and some did not? Why should we not hope for a day when Baptists give up their position and join in agreement with the Heidelberg Catechism? As Mr. Bonomo says, ‘with God all things are possible’. I do not think that visible unity should come at such an obvious theological disunity. Can real unity be based on so little? I don’t think so.
7. The Catholicity of the Reformation – Here we are reminded that the Reformation was a movement within the catholic Church. Now, if ‘catholic’ here means ‘universal’ or ‘historic’, then I am in agreement. If it is meant ‘Roman Catholic”, then I disagree. I do not believe the Reformation was really a movement within the Roman Catholic Church. Luther burned the papal bulls, which is just revolutionary as it was reformatory. Others left their monastic vows being convinced they were completely wrong. Other disobeyed their bishops and ran the churches according to the Word of God rather than the word of the bishops. There were plenty of reform movements within the Roman Church. See the Cluniacs for example. They never rejected the fundamentals of their church such as the primacy of Rome, and they were successful reform movements. The Reformation was not like that at all.
8. Non-Protestant Communions are Christian Churches – Again this I believe is wrong. Perhaps this one goes back to my earlier disagreement about the nature of the essentials of the gospel. However, I do not believe that the Eastern Orthodoxy nor the Roman Catholic have valid ministries of the word or sacraments. While some in those churches may trust Jesus Christ for their salvation and be saved, it does not validate the system of those churches just as God speaking through Balaam’s donkey does not validate taking advice from farm animals.
9. Sola Scriptura not Solo Scriptura – Here I would like to see some clarification. Things that concern me in this section are the tendecy to talk about the Church as an institution and not as people. If the Scripture is given to the Church for Her to interpret, how is that different from saying that Scripture is given to the people of God for them to interpret? Are we saying that only the professionals of the Church have the right to make applications and interpretations from the Scripture? Are we saying that the Church is something different than the people of God called out from the world? This phrase also concerns me, "The Scriptures are for the Church, to be interpreted and expounded upon within the context of the church’s life, as she is led along by the working of the Spirit to reveal to her the glorious truths contained therein." Here it seems like one is arguing for theological development throughout time, but it is unclear especially when considered next to the claim that we should hold historic truths in reverence. I would like this phrase parsed out more. I am against the idea that new truths within the word will be revealed that previous generations could never have known or understood. I am not against the idea that new technologies will lead to new applications of age-old truth.
10. The Need for an Apologetic for Our Times – An apologetic for unity is not a bad idea, but this list is a search for exactly what that means. Also I see the verses listed where unity is commended, but there are also verses where disunity is commended. ‘What fellowship does Christ have with Belial?’ or that Jesus came to ‘divide mother and daughter, brother and sister’ or that the Word is ‘sharper than a two-edged sword able to divide bone and marrow’. The Word is a sword and swords cleave not unite. I wish that would be taken into consideration more in any future apologetic for unity.
11. The Need for a Proper Christian Epistemology – I am all in favor of sound Christian Epistemology. I do not consider myself a follower of Enlightenment thought nor do I think I am a Foundationalists. These are popular critiques right now. However, what confuses me is this phrase, "From a proper Christian perspective, truth ought to be conceived irreducibly as an incarnate, crucified, resurrected, divine Person, through faith in whom all of our seeking of understanding must be mediated." What exactly does that mean? Is this a denial that truth is propositional? Is it stating truth is only relational? What exactly is in view here?
12. Moving Past a Hermeneutic of Suspicion – I can agree with this. We need not always think the worst of one another. Christian brothers and sisters ought to be given benefit of the doubt at all times and that Reformed People can find great biblical insights in the words of a Baptist minister or a Presbyterian pastor. It should be pointed out that part of the disagreement here is over who exactly should be considered Christian and that debate has impact in this section, but I can agree that too often people glory in controversy.

I hope that this post furthers and prompts much discussion. I will try to make sure and send a trackback to the Evangelical Catholicity blog in an attempt to have a fruitful discussion about some of these principles. I look forward to any comments.