A People's History of the Supreme Court

I just finished reading a very informative book, A People’s History of the Supreme Court by Peter Irons. Now Mr. Irons is up front in his introduction that he is a liberal who views the Constitution as a living document that should grown and change with the times. So the book is full of subtle liberal ideas (for example extolling the ACLU as a liberty protection group while calling the ACLJ a "right-wing" organization), and many not so subtle liberal ideas. If one can look past such things, the book is very readable. It avoids getting bogged down in legal mumbo-jumbo, yet explains the issues plainly. In the more recent cases, he quotes quite freely from arguments before the court and the courts opinions are always quoted.

However, I still recommend this book because of two main reasons. First, it does take you through the most important cases in Supreme Court history, many of which you had probably never heard about before. The book goes all the way up to the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito, so it is very up to date. And if you have the desire to watch confirmation hearings on TV, you will recognize all the cases that are discussed. Americans should be familiar with the third branch of government, and this book is a great way to get a historical overview of the Court.

Second, this book is a great peek into the mindset of liberals. Peter Irons’s view of the court is astounding. He never questions the idea that the court is meant for social change, cannot stand Justices who think social change should come through the ballot box, and has outright for contempt for judges that fail to change the culture. This book introduces you, at least briefly, to everyone who has ever sat on the court. The vast majority of Justices are reviewed as incompetent for not breaking new legal ground. Justice John McLean appointed by Andrew Jackson is a prime example. He authored 247 majority opinions, but is said to have “plowed old furrows”, and this quote is stated with approval, “Few justices have worked so hard, for so long, with such little impact.” A harsh statement, but one that shows social change, not following the law, is the goal of the Supreme Court.

Irons lavishes his highest praise on John Marshall and Joseph Story, and then later equal praise is given to Oliver Wendell Holmes, William Brennan, and Thurgood Marshall. These men were all quite liberal and extremely in favor of Federal power. William Brennan is the one who came up with the quote, “With five votes you can do anything around here.” Now contempt was poured out on many, but concentrated contempt found its home mainly with five Justices. Chief Justice Roger Taney received a great deal of bashing because of his Dredd Scott decision and because of his constant judicial restraint and state’s rights view. The other four men are known as the Four Horsemen of Reaction. They are Justices George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, Willis Van Devanter and James McReynolds. These men are hated because they believed in laissez-faire economics. They are the ones who opposed Franklin Roosevelt and did many things prior to FDR such as strike down the income tax, minimum wage laws and other pro-capitalism type decisions. I personally was amazed at how up front Mr. Irons was about his detest for the laissez-faire view and he propounded instead the ‘mixed’ system of FDR, which he was admitting was socialism mixed with a little capitalism. Mr. Irons went so far as to mock the Four Horsemen for stating that socialism was taking over America. He mocked them not for being paranoid, but for not having a better view of the Constitution. These five justices received the harshest treatment, even though Clarence Thomas gets quite a drubbing himself in this book. Even Jusitce Scalia comes off in a better light, mostly because Scalia ruled the first amendment protected flag burning and thought courts had the right to review the ‘enemy combatant’ label placed on those taken in the War on Terrorism (Thomas was the lone dissenter in that case).

In addition to learning liberals really did not mind socialism, if not outright communism (Mr. Irons gives a great deal of praise to Eugene Dubbs, Communist candidate for President), a rejection of the idea the Constitution is color-blind (reverse discrimination cases made Irons upset), I discovered a real hatred for the South. Not just conservatism, that is expected, but the South as a whole. He openly attacked the South in many off hand comments. He had no problem with Thurgood Marshall calling Southerners “white crackers”. He constantly let the reader know how backward he thought the South’s anti-sodomy laws really were, and had no problem with the 14th Amendment being imposed on the South because they needed it. He seems to have problem with the idea of Reconstruction, but did have a problem with President Hayes ending it. Irons also made it plain he thinks many southern towns still violate the law according to Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe, which outlaws prayer before Friday night football games. The list could go on, but I think you get the idea.

The Eucharist, John 6, and the early church

It has been asked of me to find some examples of the use of John 6 in the early church fathers, to see how they read this section.

It cannot be denied that some church fathers read John 6 as referring to the Eucharist. Cyprian stands as one clear example. But, did anyone ever read John 6 as not referring to the Eucharist, the answer is yes. Eusebius the Historian reads John 6 as referring not to the Supper, but to his words, which Eusebius holds to be the true food to the soul of believers (as quoted in Schaff History Vol 3. Pg. 495). Basil also ascribes the 6th chapter of John to the words of Jesus Christ (ibid., pg. 497). These men specifically relate John 6 to his words rather than the Eucharist.

Clement of Alexandria also seems to see John 6 as meaning something other than the Eucharist. He uses John 6:54, "Whosoever eateth my fles and drinketh my blood shall have eternal life" which he says, "describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and promise" (ANF vol. 2 pg. 218). He does not seem to equate it with the Eucharist, and even when he quotes from John 6 and talks of the Eucharist, it involves more metaphors rather than a direct correlation.

Tertullian has a clear exposition of John 6 to mean one must believe in Christ and His words, and makes no mention of the Eucharist at all. His very nice summary of John 6 includes this idea "Constituting, therefore, His word as the lifegiving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because too the Word had become flesh" (ANF vol. 3 pg. 572).

This does not mean that everyone else believed that John 6 related to the Eucharist. Many of those properly called Apostolic Fathers did not directly quote John 6 nor explain it. However, Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans speaks of desiring the ‘bread of God’ and the ‘bread of life’ which he says is the flesh of Jesus Christ and then the drink he defines as ‘incorruptible love and life eternal.’ Here, it is unclear whether or not Ignatius is referring to John 6, but he is clearly speaking about the ‘bread of life’ in a non-sacramental manner, as this discussion appears in his reasons for wanting to die a martyr (Romans chapter 8). He is desiring the bread of life, which seems to be given to him when he dies, not here on earth. Such comments from Ignatius and the prior citations (for they are citations from leaders of the early church) seem to indicate that John 6 was not read ‘liturgically’ by the early church, at least a great many of them read John 6 as referring to Christ's words.

I was also asked to see if the early church fathers viewed the Supper as ‘anything more than a symbolic spiritual representation’. Why that wording is mine, it is clearly not the best wording. But, not wanting to back down from a challenge, I shall endeavor to show that the Zwinglian interpretation has precedent in the Church Fathers. Oecolampadius’s view is almost directly taken from Tertullian who claimed the bread and wine figured the body and blood. Cyprian too here favors a figurative interpretation with the focus on the "is" in the words of institution being figurative. Augustine followed those African fathers in teaching a symbolical theory of the Supper. He maintains a distinction between the outward sign and the inward grace, and maintains the figurative character of the words of institution. Of course still talking of spiritual feeding by faith (with which Zwingli agreed) in the Supper. From Augustine we can see his view disseminate throughout the church’s history. It can be easily seen in men like Facundus, Fulgentius, Isidore of Sevilla, the Venerable Bede, the Carolingian bishops, and finally Ratramnus and Berengar. Both Augustine (d.404) and Ratramnus (ca.944) each used John 6 to point to the Eucharist, but came out with Spiritual views of the Supper. Ratramnus’s book, which quoted liberally from Augustine, was republished by the Zwinglian Reformers as proof their position on the Eucharist was the historic position of the church. Other men who held this view during the 10th Century were Rabanus Maurus, Walafrid Strabo, Christian Druthmar, and Florus Magister, not to mention the book received royal endorsement from Charles the Bald. John Scotus Erigena appears to have written against a Real Presence view, but his work is lost, so we cannot be certain. The Eleventh Century saw Berengar agree with Ratramnus along with Eusebius Bruno (bishop of Angers) and Frollant (bishop of Senlis), but he was condemned for his views. Thus, the Zwinglian claim that the church held their beliefs about the Supper is not entirely without merit, nor then is my claim that a symbolic and spiritual view of the Supper is the position of the early church.

Liturgical Exegesis

Alastair has an interesting post up about the idea of Double Resurrection and Double Justification taught by James Jordan. If I had nothing but time this would be the sort of stuff I would like respond to at great length. However, I do have a job, so I will just respond to one paragraph that stuck out.

Most contemporary Christians would believe that such a passage is far too obscure to play any role in our doctrine of justification and that Paul’s theology never could have been informed by such a thing. This is the natural response for Protestants, who have very little time for liturgy. The assumption is that the ‘Bible’ is the only place where God’s revelation of saving truths is to be found. There are a number of problems with this notion. Chief among them is the fact that what we call the ‘Bible’ is a relatively recent creation. The people of God of previous ages encountered the Scriptures in the form of liturgical performance not as we do, by reading words off the pages of our mass-produced, privately-owned Bibles. It should not surprise us that, approaching the Scriptures as they do, most modern Christians make little sense out of it.

Alastair is advocating here the fact that the Scriptures should primarily (or at least equally) be revealed in the liturgy of the church rather than a book in the hand. The context is about why an ‘obscure’ passage (his words not mine) like Numbers 19 might actually be essential in understanding justification. His argument is that through the liturgy such passages would have received the proper emphasis and that through the liturgy it would be lived out in the life of the believer. Alastair explains further in another post.

If the Bible was given to be encountered primarily as a printed or written text the Church is not that necessary. However, I believe that the Bible was given to be ‘performed’ (much as the Shakespearian play). The chief ‘performance’ of the Bible is that which occurs in the Church’s liturgy. It is read aloud in the lectionary. It is prayed, sung, meditated upon, memorized and recited. Its story is retold in various forms. It is our conversation partner and our guide.

While, I certainly agree that we should read the Bible, pray the words of Scripture, and sing psalms during worship that misses the point. Was the Bible primarily written to be encountered and performed? Is a Sunday liturgy to be the main way that people get the Word of God? Does having a Bible in every believer’s home that they read daily make the Church unnecessary as Alastair claims? I do not believe so, but first let us see the other implications of this idea as put forth by Alastair himself.

The Bible that most modern Christians think in terms of is an object; what we encounter in the liturgy is nothing less than the personal Word of God, Jesus Christ Himself.

This is not only a denial of the power of the Spirit in reading the word of God (at least a significant downplaying of it), but it sets the stage for a sacerdotalism where the Church is necessary to dispense the benefits of Christ. There can be no way to encounter Christ with out the minister/priest. There can be no way to receive forgiveness without the church service and perhaps specific points in the service. Without ‘inhabiting’ or becoming part of the liturgy then we are separated from Christ. This paves the way for the necessity of the words of absolution from the minister, and the sacraments and other elements of the worship service. Salvation occurs weekly as we live out the story again and again in the worship service. Subtly here the definition or purpose of worship has changed from glory we give to God to salvation we receive from God.

Secondly and just as important is this point:

It seems to me that the displacing of typological and liturgical ways of reading Scripture and the rise of pure grammatical historical exegesis owes much (for numerous reasons) to the invention of the printing press. . . Liturgy provides us with a hermeneutical context for reading the Word of God.

The liturgy is not just something we do as a we to encounter and participate in Jesus Christ, but it is a way to read the Bible. This debate over John 6 is a good example of a practical debate about the subject. It is not as important as what Jesus meant when he spoke of eating his flesh, but it is more important of how the readers of John’s gospel would have read that phrase with regard to their worship service. It also is the point of the original post by Alastair. For Alastair, we do not get our understanding of justification primarily by reading the Scripture and trying understand what it says. Instead we should get our understanding from the Liturgical Word and it supposed forerunner in Israel. This is what he means by using the liturgy as a hermeneutical tool. This point is nothing more than a complete reversal of the Reformational Sola Scritptura. How do we interpret Scripture? Alastair’s answer is through the tradition of liturgical worship. In fact, he is arguing that the liturgy is the way for believers to encounter Scripture. There is nothing wrong with your leather bound Bible per se, but you should read it through what the Church says about it via the liturgy.

I do have a few objections to Alastair’s view. The first is Acts 17:10-13. The Bereans appear to do just the opposite of what Alastair advocates. They go to the service, listen attentively and then read the service through the light of the Scripture, not the Scripture through the light of the liturgy/service. And the Spirit calls them ‘more noble’ for doing so. II Timothy 2:15 seems to counter his understanding as well. ‘Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.’ This sound much more like the grammatical parsing and rational thinking through the Word that Alastair seems to eschew rather than the ‘inhabiting’ the word through the liturgy advocated in the posts.

A second point is with the historical understanding that underlies his position. The Scriptures were originally written down before they were used in the liturgy. They existed as books and epistles long before the existed in a liturgy. While it is true that before the printing press not everyone had a nice bound copy to stick in their pocket and church may have been the way many heard the word, it does not change the fact that they were originally written. Let us not forget that we see the Bible existing as we have it now quite early on. Athanasius in the 4th century gives a list of the books that stand in our bible, meaning that churches and people were collecting the inspired books into one canon by that time. The Muratorian Fragment suggests is was by the 2nd century and the collection of Marcion suggest even in the 1st century people were gathering it all into one book rather than keeping it only in the liturgy. They are not originally a play as his Shakespeare analogy would suggest, but rather they are originally a novel turned into a play, and when it was turned into a play is up for some debate. We have far earlier evidence of men using the Scriptures as we would use a modern English bible than we have of early liturgies. In fact, the Roman liturgy seems to be no earlier than 451, which is different than the Liturgy of St. James and the Eastern liturgies (5th Century), and they differ still from the Gallican liturgy (494), which is different than the Alexandrian liturgy (late 4th century), and still it differs quite radically from the heretical liturgies (5th Century) of Nestorius. In fact, we have several confessions of faith that pre-date these liturgies.

The high liturgical service of the Middle Ages was not necessarily the worship service of the early church.
In fact this a great example of the problem of using liturgy to encounter the Word and as our hermeneutical guide. The idea that the Lord’s Supper was anything more than a symbolic spiritual representation was rejected by the church at least through 9th century. Yet, it changed and the bread became the body and John 6 was used a proof text. Christians before the 10th century would have understood John 6 in a completely different way than those after. This makes the ever changing liturgy a very shaky guide to finding truth in the Scripture. Instead of the liturgy being a way to find typological meaning it seems to be a way for meaning to be created and/or lost. For the record the grammatical historical method of exegesis existed at least since Theodoret (5th century).

It should also be remembered that letting the Church interpret Scripture did not lead to a greater understanding of the Word, it led to no one understanding the word. There was mass ignorance of what the Bible actually taught until the printing press. This is one of the points of the Reformation, everyone should be a Berean.

Wolfgang Capito

If your first reaction the title of this post is Wolf-ga-wha-Capit-a-who?!? You either have a small vocabulary or you need some caffeine. On the other hand if you are thinking, ‘Who is Wolfgang Capito?’ then you are not alone. Wolfgang Capito is one of those forgotten reformers that no one ever studies because all Reformation history classes are only about Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Zwingli if you are lucky. Capito was a Hebrew scholar who aided the reformation at Basel, but primarily he worked along side Martin Bucer in Strasbourg. I have not finished it yet, but The Correspondence of Wolfgang Capito is a fantastic book. This is a newly published work, and it is the first of 3 volumes. These are his early letters up until the time he goes to Strasbourg.

The book does have its problems. It often just summarizes the longer letters, and invariably those are the ones from Erastmus or to Martin Luther, and it gets a little frustrating to not have the actual text. But, there are a lot of full text letters in this book. In fact, there is enough in this book to get a nice picture of what motivates Wolfgang Capito. The picture that emerges is one of a man dedicated to education. He was a tremendous Hebrew scholar, but a renowned scholar in all three major academic languages. He read the classics and promoted the early church fathers. It is clear from the letters that Capito begins as a humanist and grows into a reformer. He does his work from the inside of the church, at first. He evangelizes a few men by counseling them to read the church fathers and avoid the Scholatics and Aristotle. His distaste for them is evident on almost every page. He publishes a Hebrew grammar, something even Erastmus thought was a waste of time, and translates many early church father’s from Greek into a readable form for the common man. In one letter of candor he tells his reader that he agrees with the Lutherans, but hides his agreement with them (thought never denying it), so that he might be placed in influential positions. This goal he achieves. It was his belief that it would be better to diplomatically and through education reform the church. Capito even encouraged Luther to be more diplomatic and careful in his speech, but to no avail. In fact, Luther ends up exposing Capito as a supporter ruining his chance at influencing the powerful nobles of Switzerland and Germany. But, Capito also believed in the power of the gospel. During his time at Basel he, like Zwingli, had left the lectionary and started to preach straight through the book of Matthew. According to the letters, this was done to the great profit of all.

This book is an insightful look into the life of a reformer who we have forgotten today, but according to some of the letters, was during his own day considered on the same level as Erastmus, Luther, and Zwingli. I hope this project hurries the publication of the second and third volume. I look forward to them greatly.

Charlemagne and Reforming the Clergy

Protestants by definition must be protesting something. Religiously we speak of Protestants protesting against the church or something within the church. Thus, Protestants usually are protesting against the clergy and something wrong or deficient in them. A reform of the clergy is a Protestant act. Charlemagne did great things to reform the clergy. He required and promoted a stricter morality and a greater education. Such acts are part of Protestantism. In his efforts is the idea that the clergy of the church are uneducated and loose morally. Thus, his work is a protest on the state of the clergy. It is a sign of the felt desire and need to reform the church to a higher standard than that of the pope or popes. His work in this area was an uphill battle, but he accomplished so much that many historians admit that there was a mini-renaissance sometimes called the Carolingian Renaissance. One must also conclude that the Dark Ages are officially over when Charlemagne is in power.

Charlemagne made sure he was surrounded with the greatest scholars on the planet. He went out and gathered men of renown. Because of the sorry state of the church most of the scholars he gathered to his royal academy were not Frankish, but foreigners. He gathered Italian Lombards like Peter of Pisa, the grammarian, Paul the Deacon, the historian, and Paulinus, the poet. Other prominent men like Theodulf and Agobard were foreigners as well. Yet, the most famous was Alcuin. Alcuin was from York, England, and he was a master of education. He wrote works of logic, grammar, rhetoric, and orthography. He kept pupils and ran schools. Alcuin was given five abbeys to run as reward for his excellent work and so he could make the monasteries improve education for the kingdom. This is true for many of those who surrounded Charlemange. Theodulf was made bishop of Orleans, and Paulinus of Aquileia as well as Agobard, who became bishop of Lyons. These men all took their great learning to their bishoprics. Charlemagne gathered them so he would be surrounded by great intellects, but also let them go because the church needed them more than he did.
More proof about his views can be found in his letters to the bishops in his domain. He called on them to have a good command of the languages in which Scripture is written to avoid gross errors, and he quoted Matthew 12:37, “For by they words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned”, as backing for this command. In 789, the orders went out for the priests to observe the canons of the church and the bishops were personally responsible for the intellectual training and schools should be run in every dioceses. Priests were required to teach all boys Latin and elementary education. Bishops were required to run schools and another school was run out of the Imperial palace. Books were regularly published by Alcuin and others explaining the liturgy step by step. The liturgy was standardized, mainly by Alcuin, and then put in place throughout the land. Book production was increased all across the land. Not only copies of the Bible, but ancient church fathers and even new books written by the educated were in circulation at that time. There is no doubt that one of the highest priorities of the church during the time of Charlemagne was education.

The moral standards of the priests also had to be raised. Boniface described the situation in France in 742, one year after Charlemagne’s father took the throne.

They have no archbishops. Most of the episcopal sees are occupied by avaricious laymen or adulterous, licentious and worldly clerics. Bishops make no claim not to be fornicators and adulterers, and they drink, neglect their duties, and spend their time hunting.

Boniface listed more problem including the bishops had not met in council together for at least 80 years. Charlemagne completed the reform of the morality of the church. Within a few years of his taking the throne, every metropolitan had an archbishop and every see had a proper bishop. The sinners were forced out or forced to do penance. The bishops were required to meet annually to discuss matters of both political and ecclesiastical significance. In addition at least 18 major Synods were called in 46 years of Charlemagne’s reign. The pope held only three in the same time frame, and one of those was called by Charlemagne to have a trial for the pope. He held inquests into the morality of the clergy in 802 and 811 to purge out those who had become to ‘worldly’ from office.

These facts tell us a great deal about the church under Charlemagne, and they also tell us a great deal about the church in general. Charlemagne’s desire to raise the morality and education of the clergy can only be seen as a protest against the standard level of both morality and education allowed by the church.

Expository Preaching under attack

Just in case one did not think that an altar based liturgy and a pulpit based one do not conflict with each other, witness the recent attack on expository preaching. It begins at Reformed Catholicism where Kevin Johnson extols ‘kergymatic preaching’ which he defines as follows:

[kergymatic preaching] brings the acts of God to fore in the proclamation of God’s Word so that both in word and in deed (communion, the Lord’s Supper, weekly if possible), the covenant community is brought ever more forward into a unity with God through Christ and by His Spirit.

He makes clear it is not:

"micro-exegetical" line by line word by word expository preaching through books in order. That should have passed with the Puritans.

This shot at the line by line preaching straight through a book done by the Reformers was then heralded by The Boar’s Head Tavern, and the Restless Reformer, who rightly calls it ‘Christian Storytelling’. The Restless Reformer goes on to connect this problem to Systematic Theology, noting that Christology is usually the third course or topic in Systematics. Nielson’s Nook makes the jump from the original attack on expository preaching to the Lord’s Supper seemingly linking believing propositions from sermons to a misuse of the sacraments. What is clear is his desire to have a more liturgical way of propounding the gospel, which for him seems to include weekly communion and less expository preaching.

Which brings us full circle to the original post by Kevin Johnson. Notice the comments. Comment #2 by Mike Spreng states the following after relating a story about Roman Catholic sermons:

I think good preaching certainly can and should be done with the help of the scriptures, but yes, wrangling with the text and expecting the people to take out there notebooks does not seem to emphasize the centrality of the ceremony and even the gospel itself. That is better done in an academic context

.

Kevin responds in comment #3:

I have found nine times out of ten when I’ve been at a Roman Mass that the preaching was actually very much gospel-oriented and in line with what I’ve written above. The fact that the Western liturgical tradition in large part sees the sermon as part of the liturgy rather than the climax helps this aspect of it, imho

This shocking bit of information cannot be passed over. The preaching of the Romanist church was ‘gospel-oriented’? The church that denies one is saved by faith alone and requires work and sacraments to achieve salvation had a ‘gospel-oriented’ sermon? Has this attack on exegetical preaching changed the definition of gospel or at least the message of the gospel?

I believe it has, and I believe it does. I want to be clear there are those that should be legitimately criticized for preaching badly and some who may even leave Christ out of the sermon. However, this is a failure of the preacher not the method. These gentlemen are advocating a return to pre-reformational ways of preaching and pre-reformational messages that those ways are meant to communicate. They are extolling the centrality of the service, the centrality of the ritual, the Supper and the altar. This is exactly why the Reformers changed the service from an altar based one to a pulpit based service. The words of Christ are life (John 6:68). We should cling to them line by line. We should usually go straight through books so we can see the ‘story’ develop before us. So we can see his truth, and receive the gospel of eternal life. Kergymatic preaching that elevates the story above the words, and is designed only to make the focal point the altar and not the words, is not emphasizing Christ, it de-emphasizes him. It de-emphasizes his gospel words and returns us to the yoke of works as the Roman system openly admits.

Exegetical preaching should always present the call to Christ. But is does this through line by line exposition of his words. The preacher must be aware of applying it to the lives the believers and showing them Christ in every story, in every message. These posts come dangerously close to advocating a giving of the gospel without the words of the gospel. ‘Christian Storytelling’ is nice, but it is not preaching. Preaching is an explaining of the Scripture, which cannot be done by simply finding its ‘kergyma’. Jesus fulfilled every ‘jot and tittle’ of the Scripture, not just the main points or central thrust (kergyma) of it. We must not return to the methods of an age that denied the gospel and replaced it with sacerdotal system unless we desire to return to that same gospel denying sacerdotal system.

Charlemagne and the Pope

The first question that must be asked to see if Charlemagne’s church was a Protestant one, is did the church submit to the Pope, or did they reject his authority? This is one that can be seen better in acts than words. Most everyone mouthed the words that the Pope was the supreme head of the church and sat in St. Peter’s chair. However, did they follow that up with action, or were those words mere flattery?

First, the Seventh Ecumenical Council or Council of Nicaea II serves as an appropriate illustration. Nicaea was attended by Papal legates, and approved by Charlemagne’s close friend, Pope Adrian. This council allowed the use of images and accounted for them to be venerated, but not worshiped. The church of Charlemagne, by this I mean France and parts of Spain and Germany, rejected this Pope approved General Synod of the church. They rejected veneration of the images, denied they served any useful purpose at all, and repudiated the authority of the council. These things were published under the title, Libiri Carolini. Pope Adrian pleaded with Charlemagne, but at the Council of Frankfurt (794), Nicaea was denounced. At least 300 bishops from France, England, Spain, Italy, and Germany signed on to the rejection of the Council of Nicaea II, which had already received papal approval. This was not just the influence of Charlemagne. The church continued this position under Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne, by denouncing the use of images at the Council of Paris in 825. The Council of Paris also openly rebuked the pope for supporting such a council. Hardly the actions of a church submitting to papal authority.

Second, the Filoque controversy shows the rejection of papal authority. The Filoque controversy is about adding the phrase “and the Son” to the Nicene Creed. Thus, the revised version reads that that Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This was in use by the 6th century in Spain, but it was Charlemagne’s church that made it official. Alcuin, Theodulf, and Paulinus, the greatest scholars of the Carolingian church, and later Ratramnus of Corbie all argued heavily for the inclusion of the phrase ‘and the Son’. They viewed it essential to understand the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Again, Pope Adrian pleaded against such an idea, and later Pope Leo would not accept it either, although he treaded much lighter. In 809, at the Council of Aix-la-Chappelle the phrase was included in the Nicene Creed officially, and always used that way in the areas controlled by Charlemagne. Since even the Pope now recognizes that phrase, we can see which side gave in.

Third, an incident involving Pope Leo III is also telling for it shows how the church under Charlemagne viewed the Pope. Leo had been accussed of some sins, including adultery if I remember correctly, and the people of Rome were in an uproar. Arno, archbishop of Salzburg, led a delegation of two archbishops and five bishops to investigate the charges. This act in and of itself is unheard of. Archbishops and bishops were investigating the Head of the Church. The Pope sitting under judgment of fellow bishops runs counter to everything claimed by the Pope. Yet, Arno not only led this delegation, they found Leo guilty. They would not reinstall Leo as the bishop of Rome. Charlemagne did reinstall Leo for political reasons, but the very idea that the church under the dominion of Charlemagne would try the pope and find him guilty is astounding and says quite a lot about the view of the papacy held by the bishops of the Carolingian Kingdom.

Fourth, the constant use of Councils and Synods. I have already mentioned at least three. Charlemagne required yearly synods of his church. They bishops met together and discussed affairs of the church and kingdom. This practice is not in keeping with the Roman practice. It speaks volumes about where the church turned for judicial and theological matters. It was to itself and not toward Rome.

Fifth, the views of individuals should also say large amounts. In addition to the men mentioned above such as Arno of Salzburg, we can add the thoughts of many others. People like Theodulf who thought the Pope was not over Charlemagne and at least rejected the idea that the pope had temporal authority at all. Haymo Bishop of Halberstadt rejected the idea of the Pope as a universal bishop and the idea that Peter founded the seat in Rome! However, Claudius bishop of Turin speaks the loudest. This man was given his bishopric by Louis the Pious and was never removed from his seat. He states concerning Matthew 16,

‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church: and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ under pretence of which words the stupid and ignorant common people, destitute of all spiritual knowledge, betake themselves to Rome in hope of acquiring eternal life. . . . Know thou that he only is apostolic who is the keeper and guardian of the apostle’s doctrine, and not he who boasts himself to be seated in the chair of the apostle.(J.A. Wylie, History of Protestantism, Vol. 1. pg.22)

Hardly the word of a man upholding the authority of the Pope. Hopefully this brief look at the history of the Carolingian church will show that the Pope held no real power in the church, and was regularly disobeyed in matters of doctrine and faith. I believe this requires one to view the Carolingian church as a church ‘protesting’ the authority of the bishop of Rome, and finding its own way without him.

Baseball thoughts

Now that the baseball season is over, I can make a few comments that need to be made.

First, let us get the formal stuff out of the way first, The Pittsburgh Pirates will win it all next year, or at least win their division. A good year for developing young talent. If we had hired Jim Leyland rather than Jim Tracy, we would have won it all this year. We have some good young pitching prospects, and our young hitting finally came through. Freddie Sanchez won the NL Batting Title, Jason Bay was an All Star and Ronnie Paulino hit .300 as our catcher. Add in the last season acquisition of Xavier Nady, and a few minor league prospects, and the rookie closer getting even better next year, and you have a real winner on your hands.

Second, what the Minnesota Twins did this year was absolutely amazing. They had never had even a share of first place all year until there was only three games left in the season and took sole possession on the very last day. Both records. Living in South Dakota I got to watch a lot of Twins baseball, and they are a great team. Even losing two of their three best pitchers, they still pulled of the amazing. 12 games out of first place in June, but they still won the division. Unbelievable. And if they can keep Lirano (an injured pitcher) healthy, there is absolutely no reason that the Twins should not dominate baseball for the next decade. Ron Gardenhire may actually be the best coach in baseball. The Twins comeback should be right up there next to the Miracle Mets of 1969 and the Shot Heard Round the World in 1962. Yet, it will not take its rightful place in baseball lore because of my third point.

Third, the Wild Card has ruined baseball forever. Never have I heard sports reporters try to make a bigger deal about the Wild Card race than they have this year. But this year it again proved to be the biggest mistake ever made. The AL Central Race with the Minnesota Twins is a perfect example. Twins and Tigers tied with 3 games left in the season. The tension should have been so thick you could cut it with a knife, but instead, both teams were already guaranteed playoff spots so they could rest big time players and set their rotations. The Tigers lost three in a row to the Royals, a team the Tigers had only lost once to all year. The Twins dropped two of three to the White Sox at home, and there was talk prior to the series of throwing it on purpose because it would be better to play the Yankees in a five game series rather than a seven game one. The Wild Card ruined a down to the wire division race. It did the same thing in the National League as the NL West came down to the last weekend of the season between the Dodgers and the Padres. However, both teams made the post season. Many pundits lauded the Wild Card race in the National League as it too went down to the wire. However, if you look at it, that race was a race of teams that were barely above .500. The team that stayed above 81-81 was going to win the Wild Card. Was it fair for the Astros or the Phillies who lost out on a Wild Card chase that the the Dodgers, the team that won, got to play more games against the worst division in baseball? Probably not. So, the Wild Card ruined several hot division races and did not even manage to get the fourth best team into the playoffs. I hope baseball drops this stupid idea, but it won’t.

Fourth, steroids ruined everything about baseball for my entire childhood. Jason Grimsely, a ball player who tried to turn states evidence, recently gave out names of players who used performance enhancing drugs. The list includes the trainer of Albert Pujols and Roger Clemens. The face of the steroid free baseball in Pujols and the future Hall of Famer in Clemens are both dirty, and probably tons of others that Grimsely never got to see take drugs. Almost no one from the 80’s to today should make the Hall of Fame. What a disgrace that our National Pastime has come to this. As much as I hate the Wild Card, I hate this even more. I hope Bud Selieg gets fired, but again he won’t. I would bet money as an owner, he knew what was going on. If the writers put anyone from this era into the Hall of Fame, they might as well put Pete Rose in too. If it is wrong to compromise the game by betting on baseball, and it is, then it is wrong to compromise the game by taking illegal drugs.

Charlemange’s Protestant Church

Too often Reformed Theologians neglect the church of the Middle Ages. It is not all bad, and even if it was it would still deserve our attention. There is one period, I particularly enjoy, the time of Charlemagne. Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emperor, crowned on Christmas Day 800 by Pope Leo III. He is an interesting figure over all, but the church under him and his son Louis the Pious is an interesting study. In fact, I believe I will here advance the idea that the church under Charlemagne was indeed a Protestant church rather than a Roman Catholic one.

Let me begin with qualifications. By Protestant church I mean, the church protesting against or refusing to follow the Roman leadership and the Eastern Orthodox leadership. I am not trying to say that Charlemagne or his church was reformed or anything of that nature. I am saying that it did not follow Rome, and was attempting to follow the Bible as its rule, not Rome. The other qualification is that the church under Charlemagne had many failing as well. For example, to a limited extent Charlemagne spread his religion with the sword, the church and the state were too intertwined, and the bishop system stayed in place. Just a few examples. However, in a series of posts to come I would like to show that Charlemagne’s church was a Protestant church in the following ways.

• Rejection of the Pope and Caesaropapism


• Reforming the clergy


• Worship


• Eucharist


• Predestination


• Scripture

McOlbermannism

It is plain for anyone who has ever watched Keith Olbermann that he wants to be Edward R. Murrow, and he thinks he is serving the same purpose as Mr. Murrow. Even as far back as Mr. Olbermann’s ESPN days he was making a distinction between ‘colleagues’ and ‘partners’ just like Mr. Murrow only referred to Fred Friendly as his ‘partner’ and everyone else was his colleague. Mr. Olbermann signs off his shows the same way, “Good Night and Good Luck.” And he has recently started doing editorial comments at the end of the show in an attempt to “throw stones at giants” just like Mr. Murrow.

After watching Mr. Olbermann’s must recent disrespectful rant, I watched the movie Good Night and Good Luck about Mr. Murrow and his war against Senator Joe McCarthy. Never before has anything been more clear. Mr. Olbermann in his desire to become just like Mr. Murrow has become Joe McCarthy. Allow me to illustrate.

• Murrow stayed away from personal attacks and used McCarthy’s own words against him, and Senator McCarthy resorted to name calling and personal attacks never addressing the facts. So too in this latest rant, Mr. Olbermann ignores facts, and only resorts to horrible name calling and twisting of what is really going on. For example Mr. Olbermann confuses Fox News and the Administration, and openly blames the Administration for Chris Wallace asking questions of President Clinton.


• Senator McCarthy is the one who attacks the news media and slanders the media for asking tough questions. Mr. Olbermann, despite often hating the way the Republicans demonize the media, called fellow media person Chris Wallace a "monkey". It should also be noted that an earlier guest on the show vindicated Chris Wallace as did Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough, the two shows that flank Mr. Olbermann's disgrace of a news show.


• McCarthy questioned the patriotism during his time on the committee for UnAmerican activities, and Mr. Olbermann openly called President Bush’s actions not the actions of a "true American".


• Mr. Murrow said, "We should not confuse dissent with disloyalty." Yet, in this piece by Mr. Olbermann, the President’s dissent from Mr. Olbermann’s views is openly called disloyalty, and unamerican.


• McCarthy tried to convict via innuendo and Mr. Olbermann’s piece is nothing but innuendo.

In the end, there are no similarities between Edward Murrow and Keith Olbermann. None. However, there is also one major difference between Senator McCarthy and Keith Olbermann. Senator McCarthy hated communism, viewed it as a threat, and later reports show that McCarthy was right, communists had infiltrated the American government. He was simply a smart man, elected by the people, trying to do his job. Mr. Olbermann on the other hand is hack who is neither smart nor right, he is one of those media men who sputs the party line without real reporting that Edward Murrow hated.

Norman Shepherd vs. Francis Turretin

Rev. Mark Horne has some excellent quotes from Francis Turretin posted on his site. These quotes begin to show Turretin’s position on whether or not the Covenant of Grace is conditional. In short, Rev. Horne concludes that Turretin holds to a qualified conditional Covenant of Grace (CoG). This is correct. Turretin argues that there are no meritorious or impulsive causes. In that sense the CoG is unconditional. He does hold that faith is a condition of the CoG if we understand that it is only an instrumental cause. This is all covered in Vol. 2 Questions 2 and 3 (pgs. 174-189) of Turretin’s Institutes. So far Rev. Horne and I agree both with Turretin and with what Turretin is saying.
Yet, Rev. Horne attempts to dove tail Turretin into Norman Shepherd, and his novel views of justification. He does so by examining Turretin’s view of works. Rev. Horne jumps from talking about conditions on the covenant of grace to the duties of a Christian. You will note in his essay, Rev. Horne jumps to Volume 3 of Turretin’s work. Yet there is no need to this for Turretin discusses whether or not repentance and the other virtues can be considered conditions. Rev. Horne quotes the section for us.

It may be taken either broadly and improperly (for all that man is bound to afford in the covenant of grace) or strictly and properly (for that which has some causality in reference to life and on which not only antecedently, but also causally, eternal life in its own manner depends). If in the latter sense, faith is the sole condition of the covenant because under this condition alone pardon of sins and salvation as well as eternal life are promised (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:9). There is no other which could perform that office because there is no other which is receptive of Christ and capable of applying his righteousness. But in the former, there is nothing to hinder repentance and the obedience of the new life from being called a condition because they are reckoned among the duties of the covenant (Jn. 13:17; 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 8:13) [p. 189; emphasis added].

Turretin’s answer then is no, properly speaking repentance is not a condition. It is a duty, but to call it a condition is to use the word improperly. This means repentance and any works are not even conditions in an instrumental sense like faith. Turretin’s position then is that nothing earns salvation, that there are no meritorious causes in man, but faith is an instrument in apprehending Christ and in an instrumental sense can be called a condition, but works including repentance are not instruments, and can only be called conditions if you use the word condition to mean a duty. There is no causality in repentance and works at all. None, not an iota. Is this how Norman Shepherd uses them?

Let us let Rev. Shepherd speak for himself. His 15th Thesis states:

15. The forgiveness of sin for which repentance is an indispensable necessity is the forgiveness of sin included in justification, and therefore there is no justification without repentance.

Turretin disagrees ranking repentance as not a proper condition of the covenant, and not a part of justification at all. Turretin makes repentance a duty of the covenant, not a condition of justification. There is no instrumental role for repentance in apprehending Christ for Turretin. Shepherd continues in his 18th Thesis:

18. Faith, repentance, and new obedience are not the cause or ground of salvation or justification, bur are as covenantal response to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the way (Acts 24:14; II Peter 2:2, 21) in which the Lord of the Covenant brings his people into the full possession of eternal life.

Turretin has made plain that he does not see faith and repentance as operating in the same manner. Faith is an instrumental cause, and repentance and new obedience are not. Turretin goes to great lengths to explain that in the "first moment of justification there is nothing in him except faith which can please God" (2.3.11 pg.187). And faith plays the role of works in the covenant of nature, which is an instrumental cause (Ibid, paragraph 4). Faith is what unites us to Christ (Ibid., paragraph 5), not repentance nor new obedience. These are not to be placed on the same level as Shepherd appears to do. Next, theses 20-22 are important.

20. The Pauline affirmation in Romans 2:13, "the doers of the Law will be justified," is not to be understood hypothetically in the sense that there are no persons who fall into that class, but in the sense that faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified (Compare Luke 8:21; James 1:22-25).

21. The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Heb. 3:6, 14).

22. The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer's justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46; Heb. 12:14).

Again Shepherd uses ‘necessary’ in a way that makes one think of cause, and it is at least used without necessary qualifications. Again, Turretin would disagree with these points, and he has an answer to theses 20-22. He directly lets us know that justification is not the same as observing the covenant. "There is not the same relation of justification and of the covenant through all things. To the former, faith alone concurs, but to the observance of the latter other virtues also are required besides faith" (2.3.17 pg. 189). Here Turretin tells us justification is about faith alone. The other good works are not related to justification, only covenant keeping which is a separate thing. Shepherd insists on inserting his idea of continuing in a state of justification and forcing ‘new obedience’ into justification by expanding the time frame of justification. Turretin knows nothing of this idea, and in fact separates them. Faith alone is to justification, ‘new obedience’ is the fruit of life or "not that you may live but because you live" (Ibid.). That idea from Turretin knows nothing of ‘necessity’ to ‘continue in a state of justification’ as Shepherd claims. Rather Turretin’s idea is the same as the Heidelberg Catechism that makes new obedience part of living a life of thankfulness because of salvation, not in order to keep salvation. Shepherd and Turretin then completely disagree about the role of ‘new obedience’ and even repentance in salvation.

Shepherd’s view can be seen again in thesis 25:

The Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone does not mean that faith in isolation or abstraction from good works justifies, but that the way of faith (faith working by love), as opposed to the "works of the law" or any other conceivable method or justification, is the only way of justification. (John Calvin, Institutes, III, 11, 20. "Indeed, we confess with Paul that no other faith justifies 'but faith working through love' [Gal. 5:6]. But it does not take its power to justify from that working of love. Indeed, it justifies in no other way but in that it leads us into fellowship with the righteousness of Christ.").

Here Shepherd has moved from speaking of justification by faith to justification by the "way of faith", and that is different than the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone, and it is surely different than the doctrine of Turretin. As quoted earlier, "first moment of justification there is nothing in him except faith which can please God". Reformed justification, according to Turretin and the Calvin quote provided by Shepherd, tells us that faith justifies in isolation from works. It is not the faith working in love that justifies, but faith connecting us to the righteousness of Christ that justifies. That same faith will work in love, but that comes after justification and is in no way a cause of it.

Thus, I must conclude against Rev. Horne. I believe that Francis Turretin does not agree with Rev. Shepherd at all. In fact, they seem to disagree on some very fundamental points.

The Pope - Politician or Preacher

This is a sad story to see. The Pope quoted an old emperor who thought that everything that Mohommed taught that was new, was evil. The Pope did not endorse this idea, but he also did not condemn it. The response from the Arab world was swift. They condemned the Pope for his anti-Islam speech even though these same countries fail to condemn suicide bombings, terrorism, and other atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Oh and do not forget that all of these countries make a sport of condemning Israel.

But what is really sad about this story is not the predictable response from a religion that does indeed teach evil. What is sad is the Pope’s response.

"The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful," Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said in a statement.

What?! Why? Why should the head of the Roman church be sorry he upset Muslims, a religion out to kill him and his church? Perhaps the Pope should be trying to offend some Muslims. The cross of Christ is an offense (Galatians 5:11). One should expect Muslims to be offended when you tell them that Mohommed was a false prophet, and converted people by the sword. But, they need to hear it. They need to be told that God has a Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. They need to be told that war, terrorism, and the sword are not the way to heaven, but only through the blood of Jesus. One cannot expect works to be weighed and have any result other than death, damnation, and hell. This is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Repent of your sin, and believe on Him. The Pope does not say that, nor does he wish to offend any Muslims. Every Roman Catholic around the world should now clearly see that the head of their ‘church’ is a mere politician and not a preacher. He cares more for his seat at the international table than for the seat of St. Peter. He cares more for political correctness than correct theology. He cares more for the good will of Muslim ambassadors than he does for the good of the souls of those trapped in Islam. And that fact makes this a sad story indeed.

Conspiracy against Tucker Carlson

A national tragedy has occurred, Tucker Carlson was eliminated from Dancing with the Stars. He was scored the lowest, and then did not receive enough fan votes to overcome his performance. However, it is clear to me that the show was rigged. Here is the mounting evidence of a conspiracy to kick off Tucker Carlson.

1. The host of Dancing with the Stars read portion of a letter from Rev. Al Sharpton encouraging fans to vote. However, the original letter was Rev. Sharpton encouraging fans to vote for Tucker Carlson.
2. Harry Hamlin had an absolutely awful dance, at least as bad as Tucker, yet Mr. Hamlin received a score 5 points higher, and three teams ahead, of Tucker. Why? Mr. Hamlin’s wife competed last year, and thus, the judges personally knew Mr. Hamlin. Favoritism? I think so.
3. Jerry Springer was also painful to watch dance. Yet, Mr. Springer received higher scores than Tucker. Is there any doubt that the left leaning media swung their power to keep liberal Springer on the show.
4. Tucker was criticized for sitting down at the beginning of his dance. But the judges obviously misunderstood the point of the dance. The dance was a parody of Tucker’s show including him ripping off his bowtie, and getting up from his news chair. The judges obviously do not watch the great news show, Tucker, or they would have understood the dance and given a better score.
5. The women had an easier dance. That seems sexist to me.
6. Tom Delay endorsed Sara Evans, the dancer with the second worst score. Mr. Delay is well known for his corruption and scheming. It is hard to believe he did not interfere in this event.

This is just the beginning of growing evidence that ABC did Tucker Carlson a great wrong. I hope all will write in protest of this horrible injustice. We can only hope that Willie Giest takes up the cause, and maybe, just maybe,Tucker will be placed back on the show.

Open Letter to Keith Olbermann

I did not want to write anything about September 11th because many do it much better than I, and it is often a deeply personal issue. I did not lose anyone (though I know someone who still has her subway pass from a few minutes prior to the event). Yet, I sat at home last night trying to get my newborn to sleep, and I watch the Presdient’s speech, which I thought was less that what I wanted, and then I watch a reply of a reply of Keith Olbermann where he gave a Special Comment on 9/11 five years later. Now I watch Mr. Olbermann from time to time mostly because I keep hoping Dan Patrick will pop up and the two will discuss baseball, so I was familiar with Mr. Olbermann’s angry style. Yet the most disgraceful commentary ever given by a "reporter" was spoken by Mr. Olbermann last night. So I am writing an open letter to Mr. Olbermann.

Dear Mr. Olbermann,

I listened to your Special Comment about 9/11 last night. In this tirade of stupidity, Mr. Olbermann, you actually had a decent point, ‘when will new buildings be started, and shouldn’t it be more important to us.’ Yet, all of the extra accusations and unbelievably disrespectful comments from you made me wish the television would explode, or at least some editor would end your rant. I disagree with going into Iraq, and I disagree with the President’s Nazis comparison, I disagree with a lot of what President Bush is doing, but to call him an "opportunistic", "dilettante" and an "idiot" just seems to cross the line. Mr. Olbermann, you even going so far as to say that going to war in Iraq is an impeachable offense! As if impeachment is a way to solve disagreement on policy. Conveniently, Mr. Olbermann, you have forgotten that the Senate supported the war, not in a close partisan vote as you imply, but by an overwhelming majority that few ever see. Where is your anger for the Senate who waived the Constitutional duty to declare war, and just gave the President unlimited power and then cry about it? Where is your anger for those who just went along with the ride into Iraq and now want to use it for their political gain, and any lives lost because of their political victory are of no importance, especially if they are Iraqi lives?

But wait, Mr. Olbermann, your fraud is not done. Showing us what a great reporter you are, you decided that the Path to 9/11 miniseries shown on ABC was "created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis," who you implied was Karl Rove. Great reporting there thanks for all the proof. It is hard to believe a person sitting at a news desk could have so little conscience for the truth. It is hard to believe that someone who not two minutes earlier had talked of impeachment for a President who did things without proof, could make the same blunder. Of course you do not stop, you go on to misrepresent the miniseries by stating, "the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option." I watched the Path to 9/11, and it made both administrations look weak. Yes, President Clinton looked like he was surrounded by a bunch of dummies, but the first thing the Bush administration does is demote the one man taking Bin Laden seriously and then fire the only FBI agent getting anything done. Hardly a positive spin. Not to mention to pathetic view of Dick Cheney and Mrs. Rice on the actual day of the planes crashing into our buildings on September 11th, that day which you say should never by spun. But of course what were you doing, Mr. Olbermann? Nothing more than spinning that very day in order to score some points with ratings, which are usually not as good as Nick at Night reruns.

Mr. Olbermann, you rant and rave about the President’s lies and half-truths while giving nothing but lies and half-truths yourself. You claim to be a reporter while you spent the entire time making up your own story regardless of the facts. And you pull it all off with a tone and arrogance that few have ever accomplished. Five years ago, Mr. Olbermann, you say you were trying to make sense of it all, well, let me help. You, Mr. Olbermann, are an incompetent who has no right being on TV or pretending to distrubute news. I will be writing to MSNBC and asking them to do the only proper thing, and fire you. Either produce the proof of all your accusations like funding the Disney miniseries, or fire the man who lied to the American public about it. MSNBC has serious journalists like Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews, but you, Mr. Olbermann, are not one of them.

Is the Heidelberg Catechism Lutheran?

There has always been a movement to identify the Heidelberg Catechism with Lutheranism. It dates back as far as John Nevin and Philip Schaff. It served their purposes to try and read Lutheranism into the Catechism of Ursinus and Olevanius because they wanted to Lutheranize (or Romanize) the German Reformed Church. Playing down the Reformed character of the foundational Catechism seemed a good way to accomplish the task. The Confessing Evangelical revives this claim. He states,

Back in my Reformed days, this was my favourite of the Reformed catechisms. It turned out that this was because it is the most Lutheran, not least because it was written for a Lutheran crowd: it was intended to unite Reformed and Lutheran believers in the Palatinate, or at least to express Reformed doctrine in a manner that would be as palatable as possible to Lutherans.

Now, I am not denying that the Heidelberg was written to unite the Lutherans and Reformed in the Palatinate, but it was not written for a Lutheran crowd. It did avoid a few things that may have angered Lutherans, such as a clear teaching about election, but it was written to untie Lutherans with Reformed by making them Reformed. Even the Confessing Evangelical admits this by accident in his next paragraph.

From a Lutheran perspective, a lot of the Catechism's answers are pretty unsatisfactory, especially its explicit rejection of baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence. Instead, it takes a "just as surely as X happens, so does Y" approach:

He also makes the hard to understand claim that the Heidelberg was not pastoral, but didactic. Hardly a document written for a Lutheran crowd since it explicitly rejects the main contention of sacraments between the two parties. This difference is explained a bit further by the Confessing Evangelical in his next post. Note the sacraments do something different in the two catechisms, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both very different. Hard to imagine that one is based upon the other, as the original claim contends. The Confessing Evangelical even tries to state that the Heidelberg was based on Lutheran documents. He tries to show how Question and Answer number 1 are based on Luther’s exposition of the Second Article of the Smaller Catechism, even claiming it is “clearly” based. Yet, the four areas of comfort spelled out in Q and A #1 from Christ and in fact the entire idea of comfort and joy being the unifying principle of the catechism probably came from John A’Lasco and his series of catechisms. The catechisms of A’Lasco, Leo Juda, Calvin, and the Strassbourgh Refomers (Capito and Bucer) are the four main sources. James I Good has an excellent book on the sources of the Heidelberg Catechism called, The Heidelberg Catechism in its Newest Light. Some of it is out of date now, such as I believe Olevianus’s contribution is better understood, but it is still very good. It is in the RCUS James I Good collection available at www.rcus.org.

Now this post has led some to comment about the Heidelberg Catechism being ‘weak’ on the sacraments. However, I think it ought to be viewed as separate from the Lutheran view and sources, and thus, it should simply be viewed as different. For while I disagree with the Confessing Evangelical’s idea that Lutheranism stands as a source for the Heidelberg, he is at least honest enough to see that the Heidelberg does not allow a Lutheran view of the sacraments, not at all. Something to rememeber as the Federal Vision discussion proceeds.

Predictions for the Elections

I watch some of MSNBC’s 2006 Election coverage today. I watched mainly Tucker and Scarborogh, who both lean Republican/Conservative. Both were surprisingly down on Republican chances to hold the House and even thinking they could lose the Senate. I have to admit I am completely flabbergasted at those predictions. So I have decided to play beat the pundits.

I will go ahead and predict that the Republicans will hold onto control of both the House and the Senate. I do think they will lose seats in both, but they will not lose control of either. It seemed to me that all the experts were quoting silly poll numbers such as the always popular “Is the country on the right track?” Those numbers can be dismissed without much thought because there are many conservatives such as myself who would say ‘no’, but that does not translate to a Democrat victory or vote for that matter. Why the people on these shows insist on using nation wide polls to determine trends is beyond me. Take a look at Election Projection. This site has the Republicans hanging onto slim leads in both houses. This site does not have the Republicans gaining any seats and does not even look at some House races that are contested Democratic held seats such as South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District. The Rasmussen Report has a slightly rosier picture for the Republicans in the Senate. While they have 50 seats Republican and 45 Democrat and 5 in the Toss up category, it looks good for Republicans winning 3 of the 5 including knocking off Democrat Senator Menendez of New Jersey. This is also not counting the Maryland race since a Democratic candidate has not yet been chosen. That race should prove close. It also seems to count Lieberman as a Democrat, but technically I think he counts as an Independent.

So here is my prediction.
Senate – Republicans 54, Democrats 44, Independents 2 (both voting Democratic most of the time). The Republicans will knock of one Democratic incumbent, while losing Santorum and DeWine. Lieberman will win his race. Missouri and Montana are the key races for Democrats to win, and they must hold New Jersey and Maryland. They will hold one of the two and lose both Missouri and Montana.

House - Republicans –227, Democrats 208. I just cannot see the Democrats picking up enough seats. The Democrats need to sweep through Pennsylvania Districts 06, 07, 08, and they are behind in two of the three and the third is a toss up according to most polls. The Republicans will be out in force in Pennsylvania to try and save Santorum, so those pick-ups will be difficult. Most Democratic take over plans include winning Tom Delay’s old seat, and polls are ineffective where the Republicans are planning a write in. If the Dems lose this race, it is a bad omen for them nationally. I also think the Southern races will tighten leaning toward the Republicans as Nov. 7th approaches. This will negate some possible Democratic gains, and may cost them a few seats they currently hold.

Come back on the 7th of November to see how I did against the Pundits!

Belated St. Bartholomew's Day

I know, I know. I missed St. Bartholomew’s Day. I can only blame it on in-laws visiting. St. Bartholomew’s Day is August 24th, and it is infamous because of the Massacre that occurred in 1572. That is when the Queen Mother ordered her son, King Charles 9th, to slaughter to Protestants, who were in town for a wedding. It began with a failed assassination attempt, but ended with the successful murder of 70,000 French Protestants. 10,000 in Paris alone. 500 of those killed in Paris were noblemen, a rare thing in that day and age. In addition to Admiral Coligny, of whom I have spoken before, many other died. The Marquis of Resnel, Francis Nonpar De Coumont along with one of his sons. The other lived by pretending to be dead. Baron Quellenac was slain and left naked for the ladies of the court to see. Admiral Rochefoucault was killed in his bed despite being a friend since childhood of the king. Teligny, the son-in-law of Admiral Coligny, was murdered as well. The first wave of killers came, but he was so kind to them they could not harm him, and left without doing the job. A second wave came in and cut him down before he could speak.

Yet, it is not the dead, I wish to discuss here today. It is those who got out by renouncing their religion. What do we make of them? Henry of Navarre, better known as King Henry 4th, is remembered for declaring, “Paris is worth a Mass.” But, did you know he first converted to the Roman faith on St. Bartholomew’s Day? He and his fellow noble, Conde, were taken unarmed before the King and King Charles threatened them with “The Mass or death, or the bastile.” They chose the Mass. Both would renounce their recantation. Conde spent the rest of his life fighting the Romanists. Henry of Navarre fought them briefly and then joined them. It should be remembered that he is the one that finally gave them official toleration, but he could have given them so much more. How should we judge these men? Are they cowards? Or did they act to preserve their own life in an honorable way? The Protestants in both of their houses, their chaplains, and their friends, were slain before their eyes. Many were slain in the streets before their eyes. History appears to have judged these men harshly. Yet, Thomas Cramner recanted twice before finally making it to the stake. Many English Protestants attended the Roman church of Queen Mary and readily accepted the Protestant faith back under Elizabeth, and I have seen seminary professors speak well of that group. Many people will argue that Rahab’s lie in Jericho is not sin, and herald her. Then why not these men? So the question I have is, can we accept the sin of Cramner and Rahab and still reject the Henry of Conde and of Navarre? Or must we call Rahab a liar, as well as the recanters of France?

Neo-Con vs. Paleo Con or Why I disagree with President Bush

I have to admit that Donald Rumsfeld got me a little angry when he claimed that those who disagree with his policy are Nazis appeasers. There is an old adage that whoever references the Nazis first in an argument loses the argument. Although technically Senator Durbin referenced them first, so I guess everybody loses. Anyway, what is worse than Rumsfeld’s argument is the fact that people think President Bush is a conservative. He is not by any traditional meaning of the word. He truly is a Neo-con, and I worry that his brand of ‘conservatism’ will be the standard for the Republicans in this next century.

I did some digging about Paleo-con and the neo-cons to see what really happened to the Republican Party. Was the Republican Revolution in ’94 a true conservative revolution or a neo-con revolution? Here is my arm chair politician assessment. We know that Barry Goldwater in ’64 was a Paleo-conservative, but his loss set off a mini-revolution within the Republican Party. Men like Donald Rumsfeld, who is a neo-con and had voted against Goldwater on bills like the Civil Rights Bill and the Voting Rights Act (both of which increase power to the Central Government away from the states), and led a charge to push Gerald Ford up through party leadership. Ford was also closer to neo-con than paleo-con. The Ford Administration had some neo-con influence, but it was doomed to failure from the start because of Nixon. The Reagan Administration was, in my opinion, a battle between paleo and neo conservatives. Perhaps it is one of the reasons most Republicans hail Reagan as a great President. He was aggressive in foreign policy, very hawkish, including backing Contra rebels to create democracies (neo-con), but he never actually invaded any countries and did begin a process of disarmament (paleo). He opposed Centralization in many respects like the Department of Education (paleo); yet, he also had an amnesty program for illegal aliens (neo). Perhaps that is why his Supreme Court nominees were all across the board in political philosophy. George Bush Sr., was obviously a neo-con despite his failing to overthrow Iraq. His ‘New World Order’ harkened back to Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, both of which squarely put Bush Sr., as a neo-con. He also supported centralization going against his own party platform to accept the Department of Education. Thus, the major players in the last portion of the 20th century were Neo-cons.

But what about the Republican Revolution? I do believe that it was a paleo revolution. Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America was very paleo in its wording. They were against nation building in foreign policy, they were for a balanced budget, and they advocated Federalism over centralization of power. Of course not all of the people swept into power in 1994 were paleo-cons. Take Bill Frist for example. He won election that year, and is clearly a neo-con. The problem for the Republican Revolution of 1994 is that it was really never a revolution. The Contract with America passed the Paleo controlled house, but died in the Neo controlled Senate. Men like newly elected Bill Frist, and older leaders like John McCain helped Democrats kill the Contract with America. The Senate today is even more controlled by Neo conservatives than it was in 94. Paleo conservatives like Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmund have gone, and been replaced by Neo conservatives like Lindsey Graham. Neo conservative President George Bush helped Neo conservative Bill Frist oust Paleo conservative Trent Lott as leader of the Republican Senate.

All this is a long lead up to say that President Bush and his Neo con Senate have done a lot of things wrong. The spending is out of control, Campaign Finance, No Child Left Behind, federal funding for existing stem cell lines, amnesty for illegals, and other such nonsense. However the worst mistake is their rhetoric. There is no need to treat paleo-conservatives like Rep. Tom Tancredo like a persona non grata. Nor is it necessary to accuse opponents of the neo-foreign policy of being 'morally confused'. It is possible to be against terrorism and against pre-emptive war in Iraq. It is possible to be against dictators and against the idea that the American military can build new democracies. Not only is it possible, it is possible to be these things and be conservative.

Power on Display

I have never lived so close to an actual natural disaster before. A tornado touched down just outside of Eureka a few days ago. The damage is unreal. It is one thing to see it on TV and another to be near it. Two by fours in trees, barns literally twisted in knots, fields ruined and cows dead. Thankful the Lord spared all the families who lost homes. But, I learned things you do not think about when you just hear a report on TV. I visited the Eureka nursing home the day after, and they talked about having to get all of the residents out of bed and into the hallway. That is no easy task because most of the residents need assistance. I had never stopped to think about how much work it must be to try and keep a place of elderly people safe when you do not have the advance warning one has for a hurricane. If the tornado had hit town directly they would not have been able to get the majority of those people to safety.

In the end, the community is coming together to aid the families who lost homes. Rebuilding is already underway, as is monetary support. We got some much needed rain, but most importantly we got a much needed reminder that "It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not." Lamentations 3:22.

Western Civ and John Robbins

The latest Trinity Review by John Robbins is out. In it Rev. Robbins talks about the collapse of Western Culture. I find it thoroughly unconvincing and full of errors. Now I am not sure I want to argue that Western Culture is not in decline, but his proofs are awful.

The article states that one of the results of the century long collapse of Western Culture is the bloody wars of the 20th Century. He contrasts the two world wars and countless dictators with the 19th Century which he claims, "was one of the most peaceful centuries in recorded history, despite the bloody stupidity of the War of Rebellion". While, I am not disagreeing that the 20th Century was a bloody one, where is he getting the idea that the 19th was peaceful. He admits the Civil War, but let me name a few more that he forgets. The Wars of Napoleon, the Anglo-Boer War, the Tripolitan-America War, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, the Spanish American War, the campaigns against the Indians on the frontier, all the South American countries have wars for independence, and the Crimean War are just a few of the ones he neglects. Hardly a peaceful century. Removing this foundational point to his article makes his claims about capitalism and separating church and state pointless since they too led to violence and blood shed much like the 20th century.

There is one other flaw in this argument that cannot go unnoticed. Robbins is talking about WESTERN culture, yet when he wants to point to the devastation of tyrants in the 20th century he lists Mao Tse-Tun, Pol Pot, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Nikita Khruschev. These men are arguably from countries where Western culture never firmly took hold if it ever existed there. China and Cambodia are not legitimate examples at all. Russia can be debated, but for the most part Western Culture never reached its shores either. This leaves only three examples in his list. Hitler, Mussolini, and Castro. And I think one could argue against Castro too.

I have to say that I can agree that Western Civilization is in a state of collapse because the foundation of that culture, Christianity, is being removed for one reason or another. However, I do not think John Robbins has done his historical homework to prove it in this article. Other arguments should be made because the existence of wars and dictators is no real proof at all.

Random Thoughts

I have been busy enjoying God's newest blessing. Yes, this little one is mine. Child and mother are healthy.

Bret Ceren is a friend of mine who was one of many that made my old job almost enjoyable. Despite being a self-professed metrosexual, he has a good mind and is putting his insight to work in a new blog. I will be adding this to my blog roll soon.

I thought about using this space to comment on President Carter, but why bother after James Solis does it so well.

Occasional Observance of the Supper

I do believe the Bible teaches an occasional observance of the Lord’s Supper. I do not believe the frequency is ever specified, and thus, it should probably be left up to the local church as to how often the Supper should be administered. For the sake of disclosure, my particular church follows the Zwinglian model of when to take the Supper, which means on Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and once in the fall. We usually have the fall Supper near Thanksgiving.

First, much like baptism is the NT version of circumcision, so to is the Lord’s Supper the NT version of Passover. It was instituted at Passover, they point to the same truth, and both proclaim the Lord’s death. Passover, you will recall, was only administered once a year. Passover was not devalued, it was not ignored, it was not taking that sign for granted. To argue a necessary weekly administration makes one wonder about any continuation or connection with Passover. Without a clear biblical command to partake weekly, dismissing the occasional nature of Passover is unfounded.

Second, I Corinthians 11:25-26 tells us "as oft as ye drink it" and "as often as ye eat this bread." The word ‘often’ here means ‘as often as’ or ‘whenever’. Thus, ‘whenever you take the Supper, do it in remembrance of me.’ This is odd phraseology if they are supposed to be taking the Supper every week. Yet, ‘as often as’ or ‘whenever’ fits nicely with an occasional model of partaking the Supper. It gives great leeway to the local congregations. Whenever they decide to administer the Supper, they are to do it in remembrance of Christ. This allows local churches to avoid profaning the Supper by either a to frequent or too infrequent administration of the Eucharist.

Third, no clear command for any sort of time frame is given. As mentioned earlier, it is not necessary to believe that ‘breaking of bread’ in Acts 2:42 means the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. In fact, the evidence appears to be just as strongly against that idea. Acts 2:46 and Luke 24:30 both use the same phrase, ‘breaking of bread’ in conjunction with eating meat, which is not a Lord’s Supper activity. The Luke example is in the midst of the regular evening meal. Acts 20:7 is another example where it is not necessary to hold that it is Communion that is being administered. I do freely grant that it might be, but the sentence losses nothing if they are gathering for a fellowship meal. I personally think Acts 20:7 probably is talking about the Lord’s Supper, but again it is not a proof for weekly communion. The addition of the phrase, "in order to break bread" may actually be seen as proof of non-weekly communion. If they always partook of the Supper when they gathered together on the First day then the phrase "in order to break bread" is redundant. However, if they did not then the phrase is showing the specific event that was taking place on that particular Lord’s Day. This would support the idea of a communion season, where it is taken only a few times a year. The main point is this verse does not clearly demonstrate anything that except on this particular Sunday, the church in Troas took the Supper.

Fourth, I do believe that examples exist of meetings where no Supper is recorded. We do not see the Supper on the first Easter, or anywhere between Christ’s resurrection and his ascension even though he 40 days to participate with them in it. John 20 records the first Easter and the Sunday afterward without any mention of the Supper. We do not see it at the ascension, nor at Pentecost. We do not see it in the ministry of Paul at Antioch (Acts 13:14-50), we don’t see it in Ephesus despite the fact Paul resided there for years, we do not see it in Miletus (Acts 20:13). In fact, with the exception of 2:42 and 20:7, both of which are extremely debatable, we do not see the Supper at all in Acts. We see Baptism a lot, but no Eucharist.

Fifth, the sacraments are not regular elements of worship. They are elements of worship, do not mistake me, but they are not the regular elements of worship. Many weekly communion people argue why leave this regular element of worship out on any Sunday. The synagogue worship had reading of the Word, explanation of the Word, prayer, psalms, but it did not always contain circumcision or Passover. If one argues from the sacrifices present in the temple worship, then we have lapsed into a theology of the sacraments, or perhaps worship itself, argumentation that I will deal with later. Even if one assumes a point of discontinuity on this point between the Old and New, there becomes a problem of Baptism. Why is the Supper a regular element of worship, but Baptism an occasional element. After all baptism is seen more in the book of Acts, it is in the Great Commission, and it is a sacrament as well? I think it must be argued then that sacraments in general are not regular elements of worship, but are occasional elements of worship.

In summary, I think the Bible does not give a command as to how often one should partake of the Supper. I do believe that occasional partaking is exegetically supportable mainly through the connection with Passover and Acts 20:7, which tells us that they gathered together "in order to break bread". Yet, in the end the Scripture is full of deafening silence on the matter of ‘when’. Thus, for me, when the Bible is silent we should be as well. It is not right to bind consciences to a prescribed pattern. If a church wanted to celebrate monthly, that is their right, if they wanted quarterly that is their right, if they wanted annually, again, it is their right. I even think weekly is allowable. Each church should be allowed to assess the need of the congregation and decide in that manner. However, I do think weekly communion arguments are designed around a re-definition of worship and the Supper, and that is not allowable. I shall post on that next.

Weekly Communion and John 6

I do think that in the discussion of weekly communion, one often sees John 6 pop up. It is the main text to prove transubstantiation, but we will not be dealing with that as no Presbyterian/Reformed exegesis would include such an error. Still many will point to John 6 as showing a need for weekly communion claiming John 6 discusses the Eucharist. I do not believe this chapter in John is speaking of the Lord’s Supper at all, but rather is teaching us about Christ. In as much as the Lord’s Supper also proclaims Christ the two have overlap, but that does not mean John 6 applies to the Supper.

First, this speech of Jesus is well before the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Many commentators think that this is easily a year prior to the institution of the Supper. Taking the Supper then and imposing it back upon this chapter seems a little like forcing one’s views about the Supper onto a text. Rather we ought to let the text tell us what it is talking about.

Second, this text appears not to be pointing forward to a yet to be instituted Lord’s Supper, but rather backward to Moses and the Manna. This is not a theology of the Supper, but a fulfillment of sign of manna in the wilderness. Jesus says as much in verse 32-35. The true bread from heaven is Jesus. He points back to the manna again in 48-50.

Third, the bread from heaven is figurative. I am not sure any disagree on this point, but what is the figure should be explained. John 6:35 tells us that Jesus is the bread of heaven and those who come will not be hungry and those who believe will not thirst. The next verse condemns the crowd for seeing, but not believing, and then Jesus launches into a discussion about being drawn and believing. Thus, the figure appears to be about believing on Jesus, not about any sort of partaking of bread in the Lord’s Supper. See also verse 47. These verses cannot be ignored as we discuss eating and drinking his flesh in verses 51 and following.

Fourth, after Jesus says to eat his flesh and drink his blood, he says those that do eat his flesh "shall live forever"(v.58). This should bring our minds back to verse 47 where Jesus says "whoever believes has eternal life." It is reasonable to assume then that the figure of eating his flesh that produces ‘living forever’ is the same as the believing that produces ‘eternal life.’ After all this is in the same discourse. Notice also the similarities in verse 44 and 54. Both those who believe and those who eat the flesh and drink the blood are ‘raised up on the last day.’

Fifth, thinking that Jesus was speaking about the act of eating was the mistake of the crowd. Verse 52 shows us the crowd wonders how they can eat the flesh and blood of Jesus. And Jesus seems to rebuke them for thinking that way. When they continue to murmur in verse 61 Jesus openly rebukes them. Yet, what is there mistake if Jesus is really speaking about eating the bread and wine of the Supper? They are simply wondering how they can eat the flesh and drink the blood, which is a very legitimate question if Jesus has not yet said, ‘This is my body’ and ‘this is my blood.’ How could they have known he meant the sacrament that has not yet been instituted. Jesus seems to think they should have gotten the message and thinking it was eating anything was a mistake. In fact, verse 63 Jesus says, "The words I speak unto you, they are spirit, they are life." Jesus seems to equate his message about being the true bread to his words, and believing his words. Indeed as he states in the same verse, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." When the crowd leaves it is because they do not believe (64).

Sixth, the disciples who stay understand the meaning of the teaching. They explain it for us in Peter’s answer in verses 68-69. "Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Peter and the other faithful know that Jesus has been speaking about believing and trusting his word. Peter’s answer corresponds nicely to the discourse as well. Peter believes in Jesus as Christ commands in verse 35 and the crowd fails to do in verse 36. Peter confesses the ‘eternal life’ that Jesus spoke about in verses 40, 47, 53, 57, and 58 is found in believing the words of Jesus. Which by the way is also what Jesus says directly in verse 63. Peter also confesses Jesus to be the Son of the Living God which fits nicely with verses 36-40, and being the bread "from heaven" (32-33) that gave the crowd trouble in verse 42.

Thus, I hold that John 6 is not about the Lord’s Supper, but is about believing on Jesus and his words in general. We should not take the sections that speak of Christ’s flesh and blood to be references to the yet to be established Supper because Christ in the discourse applies them to belief in Him and His words. They are used figuratively here for belief in Jesus, not for bread and wine.

Today some argue that we should read Scripture through the lens of the Liturgy, and thus read this passage as one pertaining to the Lord’s Supper. They use this as proof the grammatical-historical method is not the main way to read the Scripture. This is a disturbing development in the push for weekly communion, and hopefully is not a method used by all of its advocates.

Weekly communion advocates want to point to John 6 and say we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood in the Supper so that he dwells in me and I in him. They argue then that not partaking weekly under values this chapter and this teaching of Christ. Yet, if this chapter is talking about believing in Jesus and believing his words, then it has no force at all for a weekly communion argument.

Weekly Communion in History

Before I get into exegesis about weekly communion, which could be a multiple post endeavor, let me briefly talk of the history of the Lord’s Supper. D.G. Hart and John Meuther had written a piece about the conflict inherent within the Directory of Worship for the OPC. Is the Supper an ‘occasional element’ or is it to be ‘frequent’? He then goes into a nice history of Calvin’s desire for weekly communion, and claims the OPC has become practical Zwinglians by only taking a quarterly communion. There is no denying that Calvin desired weekly communion, but that hardly means we should all follow the example. In fact, it could be argued that Hart and Meuther neglect the submission of Calvin to a quarterly partaking of communion, which was in accord with the Zwingli/Bullinger practice. The article seems to imply that quarterly partaking of communion necessitates a Zwinglian view of the Supper, but if that is so, then Calvin himself held a Zwinglian view since he partook quarterly. The article does admit that Knox, who did study with Calvin, and the Scottish church practiced monthly communion. So too did the early American Puritans.

Thus, in actuality, the Reformed tradition is one of non-weekly communion. The desire of Calvin and even Bucer for weekly communion should not overshadow the actual facts of practice. Their churches did not have weekly communion. The vast majority of Reformed and Presbyterian history then is one of quarterly or monthly communion with a small dose of yearly communion from the Scottish revival tradition.

Even if one wants to line up desire and thought rather than practice the overwhelming number still favor a non-weekly approach. For weekly you have John Calvin, Martin Bucer, and perhaps other Strassborg men like Wolfgang Capito and Matthew Zell. Against it you have Ulrich Zwingli, Henrich Bullinger, Zacharias Ursinus, John Knox, John Cotton, Cotton Matther (in fact all Mathers), William Ames, Herman Witsius, and probably Peter Vermigli, and John Oecolampadus. If one wants to speak of a Reformed tradition, one must accept that the tradition favors non-weekly communion.

Admittedly tradition is not our rule of faith (remember exegesis is coming later), and there is a tradition that exists prior to the Reformation. Looking prior to the Reformation is really a hodgepodge of practices. Some early works favor weekly communion such as the Didache and the Constitutions of the Apostles. Justin Martyr as well seems to record a weekly communion. However, some evidence exists of daily partaking of the Lord’s Supper especially with Cyprian in Afirca. We do see liturgies with weekly communion forms as time progresses past the persecutions, but we also see by the 4th and 5th centuries people watching the liturgy and communion, but not partaking. We see daily Masses(the Lord’s Supper) as common by the time of Charlemagne, and we see non-weekly communion practiced in Middle Ages as well. There is evidence of pre-Reformation non-weekly communion. Some Synods held that people should communion at least every third Sunday. And prior to the Reformation it went to only on High Feasts days, which is what Calvin is reacting against. Thus, prior to the Reformation the tradition can be used by almost anyone to support their position.

With this historical backdrop, we can now proceed on to the exegesis.

Centrality of the Cross by Andrew Sandlin

Andrew Sandlin has a nice post about the centrality of the cross. Earlier I had listed Rev. Sandlin as a part of the Federal Vision, on which he challenged me. This most recent post extolling the centrality of the cross over the centrality of the incarnation distances Rev. Sandlin from the Federal Vision. Rev. Sandlin still holds to Theological Development as well as Shepherds’ view of justification, but he has taken it a long a different path than Federal Vision men.