Roe v Wade Death Toll

Yesterday was the anniversary of Roe v Wade. According to statistics over 49,500,000 people have been aborted, or killed since Roe. That of course is a lot more than the Nazi’s or even Stalin, but yet abortion remains legal and protected while Hitler and Stalin are treated like the evil murderous villains they are. It is odd to think of your own country as being worse than Nazi Germany, but the facts don’t lie. We have perfected genocide in this country and we decided to call it abortion.

Evaluating Presidents

Now that President Bush is out of office and President Obama is in, now would be a good time to take stock of the two.

First, lots of people think that Bush is one of the worst Presidents in history. You do not have even go to Comedy Central to hear that kind of talk. It is everywhere. Why do they think he is the worst? They do not give reasons. Disastrous policies seem to be the overwhelming reason of choice, but then again when Obama keeps wire tapping or reauthorize the Patriot Act they will not complain about those same policies. If Obama gives any bailouts then the liberals will be unable to hold that against him either. It really is a mystery to me why he is so hated. But, then some are going to far in defending him as well. What really is there to defend? Sure we have not been attacked since 9/11 but can that really be tied to something Bush did? How long did it take them to attack American soil in-between the two Trade Center attacks? One would assume that we should wait at least that long before we declare we have done anything good. He did capture Sadam, but didn’t the world actually get more dangerous with Kim Jong Il getting nukes and Iran getting close enough that we probably will not be able to stop them? What exactly are they applauding?

Which leads me to my point, we have no idea how to evaluate Presidents. It is ridiculous that we have this high office that we do not understand in the least. I have a suggestion. Maybe we should start evaluating Presidents based on the vow they take to defend and uphold the Constitution. This of course means that President Bush was a disaster. His gross increasing of the Federal Government stands against him, especially in Education and his inability to fix Social Security not to mention adding Prescription Drugs to Medicare. All of it totally unconstitutional. His two wars were “authorized” but never done according to the Constitution. Again then failures. Do not even get me started on the bailouts. Nothing he did will haunt him like the bailouts. For that alone he deserves to be paned as a President. I would vote for Franklin Pierce a thousand times before I vote for Bush. Yet, despite his enormous sins against the Contitution, he cannot be considered the worst ever. FDR and LBJ ignored the Constitution altogether. Woodrow Wilson tried to make America subservient to the League of Nations. That cannot look good for someone who swore to uphold America and her sovereignty. And then Bush never got caught doing something truly corrupt unlike Grant and Harding. Those guys were pretty corrupt.

Second, we need to hold Obama to the same standard. All indications are that following or acknowledging that the Constitution exists are way above Obama’s pay grade. Obama wants to make FDR look like a penny pincher. Nationalizing health care was a top agenda item during the campaign. The appointment of radical Tom Daschale shows that Obama does favor the single payer system, and that America should brace for the worst health care in the world. Soon we will be booking flights to Haiti for dental work. Obama also has shown that he will redistribute wealth. The Founders would all have heart attacks at hearing a President express such notions. And the worst offense at all is his plan to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law, which will abolish state laws concerning abortion so that mass murder that would make the Nazis envious will be the norm in America. In addition to moral revulsion at such as suggestion, the Constitution also cries out against such usurpation of power. So, things are not looking good for President 44.

For people who love the American Constitution and the American system, there has not been much to cheer about in the last 8 years. But then again, today is nothing to cheer about either.

Forgotten Reformer #1: Ulrich Zwingli

I will just start this out by talking about Ulrich Zwingli. Now Zwingli is hardly a forgotten Reformer, but he is one that serves more as a punching bag today than how he ought to be treated: as the man who started the Reformation.

Now, I know that Luther is generally considered the guy who started the Reformation, and that in 1517 he posted those 95 Theses and kicked off the Reformation. However, Reformed histories spend way too much time on Luther. Go read the 95 Theses. They are not really even reformed. There were thousands of Romanists who thought indulgences were bad. Luther just wanted to improve the morality, but the Pope saw it as a challenge and the rest is history. That document is only implicitly Protestant and there is good evidence that Luther himself did not yet realize the direction he had set. Zwingli on the other hand knew exactly what he was doing. One of the reasons he does not the get the credit he deserves is because there is not one big event like the Theses you can point to as a jump start. Usually it is pointed out that Zwingli started preaching straight through the Bible and abandoned the Romanist method of preaching in 1519 or the Affair of Sausages in 1522 where he rejected Lenten fasting. However, Zwingli was Reformed before he ever reached Zurich. In 1516 he was preaching in a town called Einsiedeln. This town had a Shrine to Mary to which people made pilgrimages. It was therefore a great economic support to the town. Yet, Zwingli preached against pilgrimages and “Judaizing ceremonies” of the Romish church. He preached Christ was the only mediator and probably other evangelical doctrines making Zwingli the first Reformer. Unlike Luther, Zwingli started out going to the heart of the matter, not puttering around the edges with indulgences.

Zwingli also reformed not just the town of Zurich, but the entire canton. He did this in several ways. First, he instituted a preaching service on market day so that the farmers could also hear the word of God. Second, he hired good men to staff the Zurich Academy and help him preach in the town’s four churches. Men like Leo Juda and Casper Hedio were among his first helpers in Zurich. Third, they together translated the Bible into German so that everyone could have the Word of God. Of course the Zurich Bible was completed five years before Luther finished his. Fourth, Zwingli put good young men into the country churches. Men like Henrich Bullinger started out in the small towns in the canton of Zurich. Bullinger started in the town of Kappel, later famous for the battles and treaties signed there. In this way, Zwingli spread the Reformation to all. Zurich became the leading light of the Reformation. When the other cantons tried to reform they turned to Zurich for help.

Zwingli today is best known for his view of the sacraments. Except the problem is that his view is mangled and misrepresented. Zwinglianism is basically a synonym for Memorialism today. Yet, Zwingli did not hold to Memorialism. Zwingli clearly disagreed with Luther and would not go that far, but he was not a mere memorialist. He held the sacraments truly aided our faith when partaken rightly. Don’t forget that Calvin went to Zurich when he was thinking over the sacraments. It was to Bullinger that Calvin wrote to gain clarity on the subject. It was Bullinger who drew up the Consensus Tigurinus, which both Zurich and Geneva signed. Bullinger’s views were not that different from his mentors. If they had been the signing of that document would have caused an uproar in Zurich. It can be assumed that Zwingli’s views were faithfully represented in that document.

Zwingli is not a “forgotten” or “unknown” reformer, but he is one that does not receive the credit that is due his name. This is not to say that Zwingli is perfect. He clearly made a better pastor than politician, and his rush to arms cost him his life. Yet, Zwingli gets very little attention. Take for example the book, The Reformation Era by Harold Grimm. This book gives 155 pages to Luther, and at least 47 to Calvin by himself. Zwingli merits 13. He garners six more if you give Zwingli credit for the Marburg Colloquy with Luther. This sort of treatment of Zwingli is normal perhaps even better than normal. It is high time we start seeing Zwingli in a better light and acknowledge him as the starter of the Reformed Reformation.

Calvin vs. the Forgotten Reformers

This is the 500 anniversary of the birth of John Calvin. A lot of things will be done this year to celebrate the occasion. In fact for those who are interested at least one month of the Reformed Herald will be dedicated to Calvin if my memory serves me correctly. I am sure the blogosphere will likewise be filled with tributes and things to Calvin, who was without a doubt a great man with a lasting influence.

However, I will be taking the opposite tact. I will be discussing the “Unknown Reformers” and occasionally talking about why Calvin gets too much credit. Now to be clear and up front, I like John Calvin. He is magnificent. His Institutes are a must read. So let no man say that I am opposed to Calvin. I simply think that the Reformed church as a whole is hurt by not knowing more of the founding fathers of the Reformation, many of which I believe play a more significant role than Calvin.

I will of course be trying to back this up as the year continues in several posts, but let me start by showing the need to see more than just Calvin in the Reformation. First, think of the Reformers. Who do you think of first? Luther? Calvin? Knox? Well, those are all bad answers. The Reformation Wall in France has large statues of Luther, Farel, Calvin, and Knox. Now, Luther should not be considered as part of the Reformed Reformation. He was after all Lutheran and in his own words thought the Reformers were “off a different spirit”. I agree with that assertion. Knox did a lot to Reform Scotland, but also did a lot to hinder England. And in the end, his reformation of Scotland was incomplete and Episcopal in nature. It had to be completed by Andrew Melville later. Farel, I could grant as he did a lot as the Barnabas of the Reformation, but in the end, his home was with the Waldenseans and other than that he was run out of a lot of places, including Geneva. And Calvin, well that is a longer subject, but it is always important to remember that while the Reformation was doing the hard work of getting started, he was yet to even write his work on Seneca much less his works on God.

I will write some posts on why we ought to revere Zwingli more and the others whose names are forgotten. Do we even know who John Oecomlampadius is? We should. What of Matthew Zell or Wolfgang Capito? We might know Henry Bullinger but we ought to hold him in higher view. And we would be remiss if we left off Jan Laski, whose influence stretches far and wide; from Poland to England.

In the end, it is important to remember that Calvin did not actually introduce the Reformation anywhere. Geneva was already convinced Romanism was wrong by the time Farel forced Calvin to stay. France was reforming long before Calvin, and Switzerland as a whole protected Geneva so that Calvin could do his work. They protected Geneva because they were already a generation into their Reformation. Do we even know who brought the Reformation to Geneva? Farel did as did Antione Fremont. When was the last time you heard anything about Fremont? Then they got Pierre Viret. Do you remember Viret? Did you know that Geneva paid Viret more than they paid Calvin? Apparently Viret was a better preacher. He was in Geneva before Calvin as well.

We put Calvin on this high pedestal, but I think it clouds our historical view. Calvin did great things. His commentaries are great, his Institutes are great. His work shows his faith. Yet, there were other men of similar great faith and who had many great works, but we forget them. So I am going to take this 500th anniversary of Calvin’s birth to highlight those that laid the foundation and paved the road upon which Calvin trod.

Sports Lessons from 2008

A few things we should have learned from this past year of sports. Lessons that I hope we will not soon forget.

1. The smaller conferences should pull out of the BCS. They have fielded the only undefeated team and were not allowed to play for a national title. They won their bowl game and will not be given the national title. Why stay? Let us also not forget that they had a second undefeated team during the regular season and that team was left out of the BCS altogether in favor of two loss Ohio State. Come on.

2. Brad Childress is the worst coach in the NFL. I will not call for him to be fired because I hate that. However, it cannot be denied that he has the best running back in the NFL, a serviceable quarterback, and a defense that is average, and the team stinks. He should never have benched Tavaris Jackson. And he should run a few roll-out plays when Jackson is in the game. The last possession of the first half in the play off game says it all. There is just under a minute left. They could have taken knees and gone into the half, and no one could complain. They could have made a few attempts to get a first down or two with their two remaining time outs and no one would complain. But Coach Childress runs on first down and the other team takes a time out. He throws incomplete on second down and then runs on third down. The other team takes their last time out and gets the ball back with a full 20 seconds left. That is unacceptable. That is the worst coach in the NFL.

3. The Yankees will continue to fail and will continue to do so spending giant amounts of money. I will go ahead and go on record. They will lose the American League East this year. They will add all sorts of new players, and they will still find ways to mess this up. That is the Yankee tradition. Since they have gone Free Agent crazy they have not won the World Series. They did win it when they relied on their own home grown talent like Jeter, Rivera, and Bernie Williams plus a few random old timers. Since they pay the big bucks for A-Rod and whoever else is on the market they stink.

4. MLB most valuable player awards are a joke. This year in the American League they gave the award to Dustin Pedroia. Why? Because he is from Boston. That is the only good reason. I think Justin Morneau had a better year and Josh Hamilton from Texas makes a better story. However, the guy who deserved the award led the league in Average. He is the only catcher to ever do it. Now he has done it twice. I am talking about Joe Mauer. This guy is the best in baseball. He took the Twins to heights no one thought they would be this year losing out on the playoffs on a tie-breaker game, #163 for the year. Mauer has gold glove quality defense and was leading a bunch of rookies on the mound. Glen Perkins, Nate Blackwell, and Kevin Slowey. He also had two second year players in Scot Baker and Nelson Lirano. That is a resume that screams MVP. I don’t care that Pedroia hit in four different spots in the line up. That is pointless. If you can hit in one you can hit in them all. Mauer could do that too, but his coach is not that dumb.

5. Tom Brady is the most overrated quarterback of all time. The debate about whether he is better than Peyton Manning is now over. Manning wins. Brady is worth about six wins more than a high school quarterback, maybe. Is Brady a system quarterback that thrived on being in the worst division in the history of the National Football League last year? Absolutely. Just as he took his job via injury, he has now lost it for good. So long Tom, it was nice knowing you.

6. I was right that the Nuggets were better off without “Ball Hog” Alan Iverson. They actually have a chance to do something good this year now that their big man is uninjured and they have a point guard. This is perfect. J.R. Smith can now play shooting guard, Melo at the wing and a champion point guard who knows how to play defense can anchor the point. If the NBA were not a league of thugs and pointlessness, I would be excited to watch the Nuggets this year.

Feel free to add your own lessons learns in this past year of sports. Although China being a nation of cheaters is not allowed because we have know that communism cheats in the Olympics for many, many years.

Modern Scholarship: Change for Change's sake?

I have a friend who is very knowledgeable about modern scholarship and has many, many commentaries. I dare say he is easily the most well-read man on commentaries that I have ever met. He often lets me borrow some to aid my small library and I greatly appreciate it. I have some of the old standards like Calvin and Kistemaker, so I always borrow the newer guys. I have noticed a few things while going through the Epistles of Peter, and I thought I would simply share my thoughts here.

What I have noticed is a trend in modern scholarship to move away from older readings, often time in my opinion with very little reason to do so, or at least shaky reasons. I wish I had written all the examples down from I Peter, but I didn’t. Needless to say the controversial passages such as I Peter 3:18-22 is one where you will not find many modern commentators defending the Augustinian view of that passage or even the Medieval Roman view about descending into hell. They have a new explanation. But I am not just talking about confusing and disputed passages, I am talking about passages where no real disagreement existed before.

Take II Peter 1:1 “To those who have received like precious faith with us . . .”

Now you look at Kistemaker and Calvin and even William Barclay the liberal they all agree that “faith” in this passage is the subjective personal faith, the trusting in the Lord Jesus for salvation. Of these only Kistemaker says that there are multiple possibilities in reading the word faith. He defends his choice of the subjective faith rather than objective faith (ie. a body of teaching) in one paragraph consisting of 10 lines where he defines both terms. He takes two sentences to explain why the context makes it subjective.

Now newer commentaries like Gene L. Green’s commentary published this year takes a subjective stance on faith. It is the same doctrinal teaching, not the same receiving and trusting of God. So does Peter Davids who is published in 2006. Both take the objective meaning of faith. Why this departure? Surprisingly little time is devoted to it. David’s mentions that some have read it a different way, but merely states that it fits the context better despite his admission that the more normal usage of the word is subjective.

Now I would not bother posting here if this did not continue. Take II Peter 1:5 “add to your faith, virtue . .” Here again the older commentators all take faith to be the subjective trusting and believing in Christ. But the newer guys all reject that reading. Here, however, both Davids and Green take faith to mean “faithfulness”. Their defense? It means this most often in non-biblical virtue lists. That seems more than a little flimsy to me.

So my question is about modern scholarship in general. Do modern scholars look to disagree with the past? I can see how no one would want to buy a commentary that said nothing new. Do modern scholars prefer newer readings because we believe that as moderns we have more insights? Am I alone in seeing trends like this? Could it be that I have just made a big deal about nothing? I would like to hear your thoughts.

Oh and for disclosure sake, J.N.D Kelly who is newer than Barclay and Calvin, but slightly older than Kistemaker and older than the other new guys splits the difference by taking an objective view of the first faith, but stays with the older crowd by taking a subjective view of the second faith.

National Association of Evangelicals: What is the point?

Recently the National Association of Evangelicals fired Richard Cizik who served as Vice President. The NAE did this because they no longer trusted Cizik to speak for them because of his advocacy of Global Warming and he seems to support government distribution of contraception as well as personally supporting Civil Unions and probably even gay marriage (what else does saying I do not “officially” support gay marriage mean?).

John Armstrong has a nice series of articles about this firing, but I think he stops short of where he should. Armstrong places the blame on the make up of the NAE a “mostly white, male and aging” group. That may be true but I do not think that is the real problem. He dislikes the older way of doing “kingdom business” and prays that it will “die off” sooner rather than later. Armstrong fails to give a new way of doing kingdom business. Clearly Armstrong dislikes the influence of James Dobson and some other in the NAE, and would rather see Cizik lead the group. Potentially because Cizik could reach those younger evangelicals that care about Greenland becoming too green and not icy enough. But is that really the problem?

I think the more basic problem is that the NAE is worthless and always has been. It has over 50 denominations as member denominations, but why? Why on earth is the PCA a part of NAE? What exactly does the PCA have in common with the Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church or the Wesleyan Church? I understand that churches should engage the culture and be active, but is becoming a glorified lobbying group the answer? That worked well for a few years when all the denominations agreed on those hot button issues, but new issues have come up such as global warming and gay marriage and certain denominations have declined in moral values and no consensus can be reached. Thus this group, the NAE, runs around Washington representing “evangelicals” and throws its political weight around like any good lobbiest does. It also manages to have internal scandals such as the Cizik affair or more prominently the Ted Haggart disaster. Haggart was caught with a male prostitute buying drugs, and then outright lied about it on TV. This man was the President of the NAE. The face of “evangelicalism”. Is it any wonder why young people hate the name “evangelical”? It is a K-Street lobbying group that has outright hypocrites leading it.

When Armstrong says he is ready for the old way of doing business to go away, I can’t agree more. However, he means detaching from the Republicans and starting to engage young people by talking about the issues they care about. I mean something else completely. I mean getting rid of the political tools and getting back to basics. Preach the gospel. Teach the gospel. Live the gospel. It is that simply.

Christmas wishes

Merry Christmas. I just wanted wish everyone a blessed day. It is good to have a day to stop and remember the miracle of Christmas: that God took flesh in order to save his lost sheep. Clearly a day of celebration. You all have my permission to feast without remorse.

Political Hate turned Violent

Just in case you think that there is not a growing hatred of Christians in this country, you may want to check out this small story. They just burned down Governor Palin’s church in Alaska. She received a lot of attention during the campaign most for her being dispensational and charismatic, which I have little sympathy for, but at least it was not a church spouting hate for white people and conspiracy theories about everything from 9-11 to AIDS. However, criticizing that church is racist, so I should stop.

It is just a sad commentary on today’s political climate.

Just a few notes about sports

First the BCS. Everyone is complaining about the BCS. They all want an 8-team playoff so that Texas and Oklahoma can both get in. Even the President Elect weighed in for no real reason. The problem is that it solves nothing. An 8-team playoff still leaves out undefeated (one of only two teams) Boise St. Don’t forget that Boise St. defeated PAC-10 runner up Oregon St during the year. Utah, who will make the BCS, but not be allowed in a championship game despite being the only undefeated team in the BCS, also will get messed over. All the system did this year was prove that minor conference teams, even when they beat big conference teams, will not get a shot at the title. The problem is not that it is not a playoff. The problem is that it is completely based on subjectivity. The only fair way to do it is let all the conference champs play. And I mean all of them. Remember that ECU defeated Virginia Tech and West Virginia this year on their way to winning the Conference USA title. They fell out of the top 25 when they lost a couple of games. But, they are healthy now and probably could win at a lot of games in a playoff format. They did lose 13 starters this year and have started 44 different people. Of course Boise deserves a chance. Utah too. Until the BCS goes away it will only serve to oppress the smaller market schools even though they have better teams.

Second, the Hall of Fame of Baseball is being discussed a lot. Greg Maddox retired and is a first ballot Hall of Famer. I agree with that. However, people said the same thing about Mike Mussina. Let us examine that claim.

Player #1 Wins 270 Losses 153. Complete Games 57. Shut Outs 23. ERA 3.68. Post Season 7-7. Strike Outs 2813.
Player #2 Wins 287. Losses 250. Complete Games 242. Shut Outs 60.
ERA 3.31. Post Season 4-1. Strike Outs 3701.

Which one do you think is a first ballot Hall of Famer? I will give you a hint. The other one is not in the Hall of Fame after 13 years of balloting. Player #1 is Mike Mussina. Player #2 is Bert Blyleven. Blyleven has a better ERA, more strike outs, a better post season winning percentage including being undefeated in World Series play. He has more wins and more complete games. Now Bert did play three more years, but that is not too much. Mike would probably have more wins than Bert if they played the same number of years, but nothing else. Mike does not have a world series ring, Bert has two. Mike has more post season games because of the extra round of games. Bert also pitched a lot of time in the National League where it is harder to get complete games, and he has to bat. How can anyone argue for Mussina and not Blyleven? I am not sure. It just goes to show you. Modern Sports writers and ESPN losers no very little about baseball.

I do not watch the view, but apparently Joy Behar made a few off hand comments about how demented home schoolers are and other silly things like that. Her comments can be found about the 7 minute mark and only lasts about 45 seconds. I am not going to bother refuting anything Joy Behar said because it is Joy Behar. If she ever says anything back with argumentation and fact maybe she can be taken seriously. Until then I will avoid her. What was interesting was a blog on the Huffington Post by a liberal homeschooler. This liberal was mad at the comments. What I found interesting was this statement or appeal:

Left-leaning people support the right for men and women to choose marriage, whether they are gay or straight. I support that too. They often support the idea that women's bodies are theirs only and that the government must not make laws dictating their choice to have or not have children. I support that too. So, what's wrong with having the freedom to choose your child's best educational environment?

It struck me that this liberal blogger does not understand why the liberals are against home schooling. Could she not see the underlying issue that made abortion, gay marriage, and anti-home schooling consitent with each other? Could this person not see the fact that “choice” is just one of those buzz words, and not the real issue. Liberals are not for choice. Never have been. They are not promoting an ideology of choice. What is it they promote that unifies these positions (because we can all admit that the "liberal" agenda is public school and not home schooling)?

The answer is these things are all direct attacks on the family. Abortion is an attack on the family. It kills children. Gay marriage is an attack on the family. In order for Gay Marriage to be anything other than an oxymoron, the very definition of Marriage has to be destroyed. Adam and Eve are no longer the example of marriage. Be fruitful and multiply is not even a possibility. One can hardly imagine a more direct attack on families than its re-defining. Is there any value in being a mom or a dad? Not if Gay Marriage is real marriage. Two dads are just as good. Mom brings nothing to table. The same sort of basic level attack on the family is involved in anti-homeschoolers like Joy Behar. Having mom and dad teach their own kids is the worst possible thing because that promotes families. Taking everyone’s children and then having the state dictate what is taught to them is the best thing. Families need not apply. A families values are not to be taught, only the state’s values can be taught. Religion is not allowed in public schools. Spanking is not allowed in public schools. The point of public schools is to indoctrinate children with the beliefs of the state, not the family. Do not forget that public education is one of the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. Marx by the way also was against marriage. Too much like private property I guess.

The point being the Liberal Left is perfectly consistent in being pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and anti home-school. It is all about attacking the foundations of the family and replacing the family with the state.

Obama's Team of Rivals - Repeating a Mistake

I have grown very tired of hearing everyone refer to Obama’s Team of Rivals. Ignoring for a moment what a complete whitewash of Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book really is, let us not forget one very important fact. A fact that President-Elect Obama seems to have forgotten as well. And sadly it is mostly overlooked in Goodwin’s book as well. Lincoln’s Team of Rivals did not work.

Lincoln is praised for putting his major rivals into one team after he won the Presidency. This included William Seward, Samuel Chase, Simon Cameron, and Edward Bates. There were others on the cabinet, but these were the ones who had contested the election of 1860 and made it a team of rivals. Although it should be noted that Bates was too old to be a political threat, too moderate to cause damage in the Republican ranks, and was an average Attorney General at best. Chase and Cameron were complete disasters. Cameron had to resign after only a year because he was incompetent. He was made the Secretary of War (Defense) and he was awful. So bad that his political career was effectively over. His own party despised him after this. Incompetent is not strong enough of a word. It was not until Edwin Stanton took over the post that the War Department was brought into shape. Stanton was not a rival, and would be considered a normal cabinet pick. Samuel Chase was the Treasury Secretary. Now, it is true that he did his job well. The Treasury Department was not corrupt and he was not incompetent. However, he never ceased being a rival to Lincoln. He tried to use his position to gather forces for a run at the Presidency in 1864. He occasionally undercut Lincoln and often second guessed him. He was made Chief Justice of the United States by Lincoln to rid the party of him and remove him from the cabinet. That is how big a trouble maker Chase had become. Seward as Secretary of State is the only one who turned out. Seward was loyal and had great success after Johnson became President. Seward was attacked the same night Lincoln was shot and much of face was ripped off by the assassin. So, in that manner Seward was great. However, it can hardly be taken as the rule. Seward never made up with Horace Greeley who continued to hound the President and even ran against the Republican Party when Grant was President. Greeley was bitter at how Seward never gave his paper work as Secretary or as Governor of New York. So, while Seward never did anything to undercut Lincoln he did help make trouble for the administration overall.

No matter how this idea came to be planted in Obama’s head, it is a bad one. Maybe people should read the book that Goodwin wrote before following the example of Lincoln.

Young Restless and Reformed - A Puritan Love Affair

I know it has been a while since I commented on the book Young Restless and Reformed, but there is at least one more thing worth discussing. This book is filled with new and interesting ways to be “Reformed”. Whether it be Reformed Baptist, Reformed Independent, Reformed Charismatic, or Reformed Emergent, there is a place for you in this book. There was not a clear tie that binds in my opinion. If so the author did not make it clear enough. However, there was a deep appreciation and love for the Puritans in most of them. Jonathon Edwards is mentioned in every chapter including the Epilogue. Puritanism in general is mentioned in every chapter not counting the Epilogue, and it is mentioned twice as much as Protestantism in general. Obviously Collin Hansen defines Puritanism differently than I do. But, the question remains why the love of the Puritans? I am not saying the Puritans are bad. But, the Heidelberg Catechism is mentioned only twice. The Westminster Confession of faith only six times. Oliver Cromwell is mentioned more than Ulrich Zwingli. The only link between all of these reformed movements is the Puritans.

I have a theory as to why this might be. It is not because of how practical the Puritans might have been or anything good they might have done. It is because the Puritans were not a denomination, and only loosely a movement. Doctrinal distinctive did not exist. You could be a Baptist and a Puritan. You could be a Congregationalist and a Puritan. You could even support charismatic outbreaks and be a Puritan much like Jonathan Edwards did.

Let me expand my point. Edwards, Cromwell, and John Owen were all Congregationalists. John Bunyan was a Baptist. All of these guys are mentioned in the book. One could also add several Presbyterians and Anglicans to this list although they are not mentioned in this book. The point is to be a Puritan is not to be a member of anything other than a broad undefined movement. Church government is unimportant and the sacraments are unimportant. In fact the only thing that seems to be important is a Calvinistic view of salvation and a focus on Christian living. This is exactly what I would say seems to be the glue that connects the Young Restless and Reformed churches and pastors.

This brings me full circle. Is this really Reformed? Is it so important to meet the world where it is that we leave behind so many things, or as the Bible puts it ‘the meat’ of God’s Word? I am not saying that all of the churches in this book are doing that. By no means. I am simply saying that trying to make a connection between these many varied churches and theologies is a mistake. And if we want to put such an emphasis on the Puritans, we need to remember their shortcomings. After all the Puritans failed both in England and in America. An important fact to remember.

Stealing Elections

Al Franken will be the next Senator from Minnesota. However, he lost the election. Let us just fact facts, Republicans like to supress minority votes, and Democrats love recounts because they cheat. So it is with Minnesota.

Read this article about what is going on out here in the forgotten country. Remember as you do that the Star Tribune might actually be the most politically liberal paper in America. It is easily top five. If even they can figure out that 100 ballots in the trunk of a election official's car all for Franken is probably not legitimate, then we ought to all be worried that they are being counted.

The Death of Chivalry

It will soon be official, chivalry will be dead. Chivalry of course is that old medieval idea that knights had a responsibility to behave in a certain manner, to comport themselves according to virtue and honor, most especially as it regarded women.

I mention this because it is a tangible thing that can be seen in today’s culture. Chivalry has been dying for some time, probably because Christianity has been waning in this country for sometime. After all it is hard to carry oneself with virtue and honor when the One who defines what such things are is removed from the equation. Chivalry was always connected with Christianity. Just read some King Arthur and the Knights of the Table Round stories (note on the page the code of the Knights with regards to ladies). Even those legends have a search for the Holy Grail, which is found by Sir. Galahad because of his piety. That is what made him the Greatest Knight ever, according to the books of course. Chivalry is to be linked with Christianity. Remove the Christianity and the code falls to pieces. Even in Canterbury Tales, the greatest book ever,Chaucer gives us a story or more about Chivalry (the Knight’s Tale and the Wife of Bath at least), which also show us this Christian duty toward women.

That Chivalry is ailing is not hard to tell. When was the last time you stood up for a lady every time she entered the room, left a table, or tipped your hat to one on the street. Me neither. But, it was not dead. Chivalry still had a pulse. But, President-elect Obama has plans to pull its life support. He will put women on the front lines and register them for the draft. All in the name of equality. Now I believe that men and women are ontologically equal, but they are not economically the same. In other words, we are all humans and have the same rights that cannot be denied, but we have different jobs and that cannot be denied either. One can pretend that men do not have natural instincts to protect females, one can pretend that males will react the same to a woman being tortured, and one can even pretend that our enemies will treat female prisoners the same as they treat male ones, but we must never forget that all of that is just pretend.

The reason women should not be in combat or even the military is that they are valued so highly, not because they are thought incompetent or unable. I Peter speaks of women as the "weaker vessel". Now I do not believe that this means women are physically weaker, although some do. I believe that this phrase is referring to a vessel that is delicate and honored and to be protected. A Ming Vase might be a good example. It is something that you do not let the kids play with. It is something that you put in a place of honor and safety. So it is with women. They are to be honored highly, protected with all that we have. Putting them on the front lines and drafting them against the will to war is about as opposite from that idea as one can get. Sort of like using that Ming Vase for a spittoon.

So if this happens, and I assume it will, we can bury Chivalry. Let us pray that the Lord will resurrect it, and that it will be the last Christian virtue we let die in the country.

Election Post-mortem

I have to say that I underestimated the polls (at least Rasmussen), and I over estimated the American public’s ability to recognize socialism as an attack on personal wealth, but most importantly an attack on Christianity. That is a post for another day. Rasmussen has a nice feature where you can see state-by-state how their polls did. It seems the Republican out performed by a small amount most of the time, but a few key places like Nevada he under performed and that cost him. Just to justify my distrust of polls Rasmussen did not fare as well in their Senate polls. They out right missed Oregon and Alaska. Having followed the site I can tell you as well that they are being a little deceptive about Minnesota. Their FINAL poll may have looked that way, but they had Franken on top for most of the year. They also had the special election in Mississippi as a seat in jeopardy until their final poll too. I doubt opinion turned that much.

I have to say that I am not half as depressed as most of the Republicans I know or even the conservatives I know. I did not vote for McCain, and he probably still thinks I am an agent of intolerance. The question has been raised earlier about the fate of Conservatism in this country. Some think it dead. I do not. After all Obama promised tax cuts, which he will not deliver, but he still ran as cutting the budget, cutting spending, and cutting taxes. He also ran on less foreign intervention, which is fundamentally conservative. The question is really whether or not the Republican Party stays conservative. I stated earlier during the primaries that it was a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. I defined the Reagan coalition as Paleo-Conservatism, Libertarianism, Theo-Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives. With President Bush the Neo-Cons were in the driver seat, the Theo-Cons sat in the passenger seat and the Paleo-Cons were in the back seat and the Libertarians had been kicked to the curb. McCain represented more of the same with less influence for the Theo-Cons. Other candidates represented other arrangements and the Neo-Cons won the day in the primaries. Well, when McCain feared the Paleo-Cons would get out of the car themselves and leave McCain short on votes he picked Sarah Palin who appealed to Paleo-Cons and Theo-Cons. However, it made many Neo-Cons abandon the car leaving McCain without a driver. There was a late mass exodus of especially those Neo-Cons who wanted to remain in power and with popularity in the press. Frum, Powell, and McClellan come to mind as well as some columnists who are women (reinforcing my belief that the biggest obstacle to a woman in the White House is women). This leads to the struggle now of which group will take over the party.

My bet is the Neo-Cons will take the party by blaming Palin for the loss. But, this will not kill true Conservatism (Paleo) in America. Conservatives always get used and kicked to the curb because their nature is one that thinks political power is bad. Less government = good. The side effect of this is that political parties whose goal is control of government end up getting rid of the conservatives. Do not forget that the Conservatives were on the outs with President Jefferson depsite electing him. They were on the outs with President Jackson despite electing him. They were on the outs with the Whig Congress when President Tyler was in office. They were on the outs with the Democratic Party in 1860 (you could define them either as the state’s rights group or the Constitutional Unionists of Bell). They were on the outs in the Democratic Party during their high years of the great depression despite being the reason the Dems always had a majority, and eventually they left the party. Their exodus gave the Republicans the White House with the Nixon Southern Stragtegy and the Reagan years, and finally the majority by 1994, but they were forsaken in 2000 and they have since been removed and made fun of by the party leaders. The point is that Conservatives never go away. Not only do they never go away they also always seem to play a fundamental part in the governing of America. Whether it be the Revolution of 1800 or the Jacksonian Revolution or the Reagan Revolution it is always led by conservatives.

As for President-elect Obama, I will pray for him. My duties to the government don’t really change just because the top man does. Obama is going to be a liberal, but then is our current President, so there is not that big a change. There is a big debate about how Obama will govern, which highlights the pathetic nature of the media that they ask that fundamentally important question AFTER the election. Will he be the socialist that he truly is or will he play pragmatism so that he can get re-elected? I think he will end up in on the left. You do not win by the margins he won by to sit on your hands. But, I think he will take it slowly at first. I think he will back out of his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act that would override state laws about abortion. I do think he will try to push the things he thinks will not cause serious division. Expect Cap and Trade to be put into effect and other climate change initiatives. The one thing we can count on because Obama has always done it, are moves to silence dissent and consolidate power. Thus, I think two things he will tackle early are the Card Check Law, which will increase Democratic fund raising power, and the Fairness Doctrine, which will hurt all of America by making us slaves to the worthless media and might actually kill radio. Expect both of those to come through quickly. The Fairness Doctrine makes me angry because it is simply repugnant to the idea of democracy, liberty, and America as a whole. However, I expect it to pass without much trouble.

There is no doubt that there is much work to be done, but I think it can be done. However, I think the work needs to be done primarily in the churches. Things have to be taken seriously and taught again. A whole generation of people has grown up and they do not understand the fundamental importance of some issues. They see abortion and homosexuality as political issues rather than moral issues. A generation has grown up thinking that socialism is a good idea, and thinks it can actually fit into a Christian worldview if they even care about trying. A generation has grown up and does not see the problem with feeling entitled to things and truly believes personal responsibility is a bad thing. For all the talk and debate about how so many people do not believe the plain teaching of creation in Genesis 1 or the teachings about the role of women in places like Ephesians 5 or the doctrine of Predestination, which is so clearly laid out in Romans 9, the verses that may be the most ignored in the whole bible today by “evangelicals” are the ones found in Proverbs about how to live. We as the church need to fix this problem and the rest will work itself out. Although in writing this list it makes me think that maybe we need to take back education as well and start to take it seriously again.

If this happens, then the politics will work itself out.

To Altar Call or not to Altar Call

Kevin Johnson defends the idea of an altar call on his new blog: Prophezei, which has replaced Reformed Catholicism. He gives several reasons for including the idea of an altar call.

His first is that worship has always been innovative. He gives a few examples such as the Book of Common Prayer, which I find completely unconvincing. I would like for him to trot out a few more examples if he has them. It is my opinion that Reformed worship looks a lot like worship of days gone by, and dare I say it, the worship of NT church. That claim will probably draw some criticism, but it is a claim I am still willing to make until proven otherwise. I do not see the role innovation has played in history.

The one example he does break out that deserves mention is the Great Awakening. There was an innovation in the worship service during that time that serves as the basis for the modern “altar call”. They preached what they called the “terrors of the law” in those days, and that grew into the New Methods which actually used the “anxious bench” and later the “altar call” perfected by Moody and others. I am an Old Sider at heart. I am against the Great Awakening. I do not view it like most do within Presbyterian circles. I think the theology of Edwards has led to as many problems as it has anything else, and that George Whitfield began a horrible trend of Evangelists without a home church, undermined local ministers, and his theology was muddled at best. His sermons were often out right heretical. Referencing the Great Awakening to me hurts his case more than anything else.

His second point is that Christianity is no longer the dominant player in American society and culture. I agree with this, and this point needs a bit more examination. The point made by Kevin Johnson here is that we can no longer assume a familiarity with Christianity and that using old creeds and modes of worship do not connect with modern man. He goes on to state the forming the worship service for the believer rules out unbelievers, evangelism, and the chance to grow the church; thus, we cannot model the worship service to appeal only to those already in the community of believers. I grant his premise about the culture and he makes a solid point about the need for true evangelism. My rebuttal is that the worship service does not have to be the answer for evangelism. He is right that it ought to be accessible, although we doubtless disagree about the accessibility of Reformed worship as it is today. However, I do think that the church is not doing enough to reach out to the unbeliever and is not reaching people where they are in their lives. Churches need to change quite a bit in this area, but changing the worship service is not the answer. If you look back on the history of the church one can see the church reaching out in a myraid of ways other than the worship service. How often do churches have active deaconal help and pass it to someone in the community who is not a member of the church? How often do churches start schools and educate the young of believers and non believers alike? This was the common method of the church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I would advocate reaching out to those who have no history of Christianity, but I do not think that the worship service is the place to do that. It should not be exclusionary, but it should not serve as the main outreach.

The point about preaching and asking people to make a decision for Christ, I think is a different discussion from the one about the altar call that began the post. Asking men to repent and make a decision for Christ is not the same as having an invitation to come forward during Just As I Am. The post referenced the minor prophets as pressuring men to make a decision. To that I could add Joshua telling the people to choose this day or Elijah asking how long they would hesitate between two opinions. That practice is right and should be done, especially when the text demands it. However, ending the sermon with a time for people to come forward is not that. I believe the worship service has a flow, and build up if you will. The heart of the worship service is to be the Word of God and prayer. That is the heart of the service. I am against the altar call for the same sort of reason that I am against weekly communion. It supplants the preached word as the main part of the service. In Southern Baptist churches it is not going to far to say that the altar call is there sacrament. It is the main point and the high point of their service. It then also becomes something that people can put their trust in. I went forward at an altar call and I made a decision. Did they? Billy Graham usually thinks that about 10% of the people that came forward actually followed through on their decisions and went to church. Are we changing the service for the hopes of reaching 10%, if we preach as well as Billy Graham?

I share the concern that churches today (not just Reformed and Presbyterian) do not practice evangelism and the church is receding because we are not sharing the gospel. However, I think it means we are failing outside of the church walls and on Monday through Saturday, not necessarily on Sunday. This is a mounting problem, and one that I pray the church as a whole can address.

Last Chance to Vote for a Third Party

Remember to vote today. And this is my last chance to encourage people to vote for a third party candidate. If you really want change, you cannot expect it from one of the two major parties. How many times do they have to fail before this becomes obvious. I have to admit that the rhetoric against voting for a 3rd Party has become increasing hostile. I have argued in the past that voting for a 3rd Party is the best way to change a national party, but some still insist that working within the bankrupt, corrupt political parties is the way to go despite never having any proof. No one is ever bad enough to make them dissert their party because next time the party will not take their views for granted, and they will not count their vote for a sub-par candidate as an endorsement of his flaws.
The latest example of this mindset is American Vision. American Vision is founded by a Theonomist, Gary DeMar. The whole point of American Vision is to promote a Christian Worldview and even to work for an openly Christian government. He has recently denounced votes for 3rd party small government and openly Christian candidates in favor of working within a big government party who avows no real religions belief and does not even attend church regularly. The mind numbing contradiction in such positions makes my head hurt.
So in closing if you like John McCain go vote for John McCain. If you don’t like him, there are other options. If you like Barak Obama vote Barak Obama, but if you don’t like him and want someone a little less socialist and less liberal, the Green Party does have a candidate and Ralph Nader is running is independent.

Most importantly go vote. There is really no good reason not to vote.

So much happened in the past few days in sports it is a must respond kind of post for me.

First, the Cincinnati Bengals won a game. Yes, it is the first. The season went south the minute Carson Palmer went down. Actually, it was done the minute they resigned Chris Henry. Now our Harvard quarterback finally pulled a win out of his hat. At least we did not lose them all.

The University of Tennessee finally fired Philip Fullmer. All I can say is this is at least 10 years too late. Philip Fulmer has a good record over all with over 150 wins, but the SEC was not always as dominate as it is now. Fulmer enjoyed feasting on the weak SEC, but cannot handle the new SEC where Georgia is good, the coach he cannot beat ever is at South Carolina, and in addition to the yearly loss to Florida, former arch-nemesis Alabama is good again. It is simply too much for Fulmer. He did win a national title in 1998, but if you cannot win a national title in the four years that Peyton Manning is your quarterback then you should be fired. That is all that needs to be said about him.

Finally, I am completely justified by the departure of Allen Iverson from the Nuggets. I predicted the Nuggets would stink with AI, and I was right. They did not improve at all during his time in Denver and in fact, it can be argued they got worse. AI cannot play defense, and is a ball hog. That does not work well in a team game. The addition of Chauncey Billups ought to improve both aspects that AI could not. It also lets J.R. Smith shoot the ball and play more. He is a better outside shooter and is a better fit for the team than AI. Billups is a big game player and can make clutch shots down the stretch. The Nuggets will be releasing McDyess, which is good as well. What they do with Cheikh Samb is anyone’s guess, but does having a 7 footer on your team ever hurt? No. Look for the Nuggets to make the playoffs and challenge to get out of the first round. That depends on how long it takes for the team to come together (which will affect who they play in the first round). If it does not take to long and the Nuggets can pull off a 5th seed or even a 6th, they might could sneak out of the first round.

One last word about Baseball

I cannot help myself, I must comment on baseball as it comes to a close for 2008. First the Tampa Bay Rays. This team lost the World Series, but has a real chance to make a dynasty. I am a little excited to see this team continue. They have lots of young players who are already producing at the major league level. What is even more interesting is that they have some of them already signed to long term deals. This team is built to last. Look out Yankees and Red Sox. The favorite to win the East next year is the Rays with only the Twins looking competitive with this team in AL.

Second, the Phillies avoided the dubious distinction of being the biggest team of underachievers ever. That title still belongs to the Atlanta Braves throughout the 90’s. The Phillies were supposed to be great going back 4 or 5 years, but Pat Burrell always disappointed. Think about it. The Phillies had the last two NL MVP’s, yet they still were losers. Don’t count on them this next year because the Phillies depend on the Mets imploding, which they will not do next year. The Phils will miss the playoffs next year as Howard continues to get worse and worse. I would strike out less at the major league level and that is saying something.

Third, and most importantly, the Pirates are going to be great. I can see the .500 mark for 09. Yes, they will be playing the Rays for the 2010 World Series title. Just go ahead and get used to the newest and best rivalry in baseball the Pirates versus the Rays. In 2010 the Pirates will have a load of offensive talent as top prospect McCutchen will be starting in the majors in the outfield. That will probably be the debut year for Jose Tabata as well, who was the lynch pin in the deal made with the Yankees this year. Pedro Alvarez, the top pick in this year’s draft, is scheduled to make his debut at third in 2010. The two pitching prospects we got from the Yankees showed signs of life this year and the one from the Red Sox will be ready by 2010. We drafted three middle infielders in the 2008 draft. One of them will be ready to take over short if Brian Bixler turns out to be a dud. If for some reason Pierce does not fit in at first, then Jamie Romak (aquired from the Braves in 2006) will probably be ready to add his bat to the line up.
Add to that line up the fact that we will be getting more for Jack Wilson and hopefully Adam LaRoche this next year. If Neil Walker looks good at third and Pedro Alvarez makes his way up as fast as expected, then we might could get rid of Andy LaRoche as well for prospects. The Pirates have four major league quality catchers, which means we could probably part with one of those for a stretch drive helper in 2010, and that will be enough to put us over the top. Surely enough pitching will show up in order to make the Pirates a contender in the years to come.

Look out world, the Pirates are back. I for one could not be happier.