N.T. Wright on Person and Nature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jena 6 displays racism

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

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

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

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

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

Wright, Chalcedon, and Nestorius

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6th Anniversary of September 11th

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

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

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

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

Defeating Xerxes or Enabling Stalin?

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Solution to Faith and Politics

The intersection of faith and politics is something that is always discussed, and every four years can become something of a hot topic. Barak Obama has made some very interesting comments regarding his views of faith and politics. They are thoughtful, not normal democratic rhetoric, and deserve some interaction. Now in my comments I will ignore his small discussion of his own conversion that mentions nothing of Jesus Christ, sin, and salvation. The avoidance of the words sin and salvation are interesting, but not really the point of this discussion. Instead, I will focus on his discussion of the role of faith and political decision making.

Obama tries to find a balance for Christian morality in "our modern, pluralistic democracy." Further, he tries to find a place for it in the Democratic Party. Obama makes a few admissions that I find startling from any politician and amazing to be coming from a Democrat at all. First and foremost he states,

I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

To that I give a hearty Amen! The government cannot fix the problem of sin. One could argue whether or not the party of expanding the powers of the federal government (think federally funded Midnight Basketball) truly follows this belief, but specific social policies are not addressed in this speech. More important is his second startling admission.

So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

It is good to hear a politician admit the plain truth about laws. They are a codification of morality. Obama admits that, and good for him. He also goes on to advocate allowing Christian to use their religious values in their public life referencing Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and William Jennings Bryan and others. This is a step in the right direction. It is nice to see someone admit clear historical facts and carry them over to today’s conflict between religion and politics. Obama thinks he has solved this conflict with a new solution.

But, Obama’s solution is what gets him into trouble. He maintains that the religious must recognize the new truths of the ‘modern pluralistic democracy.’

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This is nothing more than fancy mumbo-jumbo that conflicts with his earlier admission that laws are codified morality. It also will not work in the real world. What universal do people of opposite faiths share? What fellowship does Christ have with Belial? The Temple of God with the Temple of Baal? Or Light with Darkness? Let us just look at a few examples to see exactly how Senator Obama’s solution is a false one.

Homosexual marriage might be an example. What universal can those of different faiths agree upon? Will evolutionists agree with Christians on the principle that they do not produce offspring, and thus should not be allowed to marry? Or will they decide marriage itself is an institution that can evolve? Obama says Christians simply cannot point to their faith and say ‘God created marriage, it is what he says it is.’ Right now all marriage laws are codified Christian morality, but according to Obama that cannot be one of our arguing points. Now we have to find a universal that all agree with. What of the Muslims? They may want the marriage laws changed because it allows only one man to marry one woman. Mormons may also follow the Muslim suit because they wish their standards codified. What common ground is there?

More to the point is abortion. Christians believe life begins at conception, but now have to find an universal principle accessible to all people. Evolutionists often believe infanticide is acceptable because it increases survival possibilities for others. See Peter Singer if you don’t believe me. They would especially want to have abortions in the case of the mentally retarded or physically handicapped because they pollute the gene pool. Muslims do not even think murder is wrong if the person dying is an infidel, so what is the big deal about abortion. In other words there is no common ground here either.

Let us see how this revolutionary principle Obama puts forward plays out in his own thinking. The following is taken from an interview about his position on infanticide because of a bill he opposed while in the Illinois Senate. This quote is explaning the existing Illinois law with regards to children born after a failed abortion.

Obama: On the state level that says if there is a fetus that is determined viable and there has to be a second doctor who assists in determining that that fetus is viable- they are required by current Illinois Law to provide that fetus with assistance to make sure that they can live outside the womb. The law already exists. That’s not what Senator O’Malley’s law was about. What Senator O’Malley’s law was about was identifying all fetuses as human beings as a way of going after the right of women to choose to have an abortion pre- viability and that’s the reason that I, like a number of other senators, including Republican senators, voted either present or against it.

Note here what Senator Obama has done. He has found his universal principle to which all can agree. What is it? It is apparently refusing to recognize a baby as a human being or even a baby, but rather simply calling it a fetus. Notice that the fetus is not internal to a mother in her womb, but rather this is an already born baby that was supposed to have died in the womb, but for some reason did not. Senator Obama refuses to recognize that the child born is anything other than a fetus, and it is not even worth saving unless a second doctor comes along and pronounces it a child. So, in finding a universal point that people of all faiths and non-faiths can agree upon, he comes up supporting calling born children fetuses until multiple doctors decree otherwise. I am not sure about anyone else’s experience in giving birth, but I have not seen multiple doctors for any of my three kids, and I bet multiple doctors never work in abortion clinics. Thus, this law is a way to ensure botched abortions still end in death. Yet, Obama finds it the best way to go about things, and poor Senator O’Malley is the transgressor for trying to get personhood given to all children. When is a fetus a person in Obama’s mind?

If you are like me you are probably thinking that Mr. Obama’s Christian informed position sounds an awful lot like abortion on demand because babies are not people. You are probably also asking yourself exactly what did the evolutionists like Peter Singer give up to compromise with the people faith who oppose evolution in Obama’s position? It sounds an awful lot like translating the Christian faith into universal principles that all can access is just a new way to say the same old thing. ‘Leave your faith at the door when it comes to making laws.’

Obama understands laws are codified morality, he just refuses to codified a Christian morality instead choosing for the lowest common denominator morality. Obama has identified the problem by seeing this is a culture war about whose morality will govern the land, he just comes to the wrong solution. Obama’s solution is nothing less than a complete surrender. He sounds a lot like he is taking a new approach to religion and politics, but in reality he just found a new way to couch the old message of keeping the Christian faith out of politics.

St. Bartholomew's Day Massacare - Peter Ramus

August 24th is St. Bartholomew’s Day, or at least it was in 1572. That was when the great massacre occurred in France where the Reformed were killed by the thousands to please the Romish church. Every August 24th I remember the sacrifice of the Reformed in France, and I like to remember them by telling one of their stories.

Peter Ramus is a forgotten man in today’s world. However, he was a reformer from France who lived and died for the Reformation. His main work was philosophical. Peter Ramus wanted to bring the Reformation to bear on Philosophy itself, particularly the reliance on Aristotle that Ramus thought caused many of the Romish errors. In fact, Ramus was so brazen about attacking the one St. Thomas Aquinas referred to simply as The Philosopher, that his doctoral thesis was "All Aristotle says is false." He became a teacher so popular that the government took action against him forbidding him to teach philosophy. So, Ramus taught Math instead, and still remained a popular teacher. Ramus became a Protestant after the Colloquy at Poissy. By 1562 assassins tried to murder him often enough that he had to flee from Paris. He would return but had to flee again in 1568. He traveled to all of the major Protestant cites, Zurich, Basel, Strasburg, and finally Heidelberg. Despite the fact Ramus was Reformed he was not always welcomed because many of the Reformers still held to Aristotelianism. Men such as Theodore Beza and Zacharias Ursinus opposed his philosophical approach and derogatorily referred to him as the ‘French Plato.’ However, some Reformers like Casper Olevianus agreed with him and welcomed him. This conflict within the Reformed camp always kept him from staying and teaching at any of the great universities of the time. In the end, Ursinus went back to Paris via Geneva.

Ramus had a successful teaching position at the Royal College in France, but his stay would not last long. August 24th, 1572 the followers of Rome and the Guises came to find him and silence him once and for all. They did not reach him until the 27th because Ramus had official protection papers from the King of France himself. Thugs broke into his office and began to take the valuables before they killed him. Ramus prayed allowed in his last moments, “O my God, against thee and thee only have I sinned and done this evil in Thy sight. Thy judgments are justice and truth. Have mercy on me and pardon these wretched men, O God, for they know not what they do.” He was then shot in the head, and his lifeless body stabbed and dragged around the fifth floor of the building.

Ramus never completed his reform of philosophy. He stood more against Aristotle than for anything. Ramus realized that the Christian faith must dominate every aspect of our lives and that includes the philosophical pursuits. His oratory was so great that he doubtless converted many not only to his cause, but the cause of Christ. This is evident from the large number of his students who broke with the church of Rome. Ramus is forgotten now because the views of Aristotle still dominate the philosophical landscape even in the Christian church; thus, Ramus is still an enemy. But regardless of one’s position on Aristotle we ought to be able to rejoice together in the love and devotion that Peter Ramus showed to the Lord of lords. His death stands as one of the most significant in the mighty massacre during that dark time in France in 1572. Let us follow his example at least in as far as we reform our lives to the Word of God, and stay faithful even if the end is bitter.

There has been a lot of back and forth between the Federal Vision men and those who are against the Federal Vision. The pro-FV side has often claimed they were never understood by the anti-FV men, and they have often claimed to have been wronged by all of the committees that put out reports and condemn the FV. They especially like to tout the idea that they were never contacted personally. In that respect, Jim Jordan’s rant on Douglas Wilson’s blog is nothing new. I have not read the article to which Dr. Jordan is primarily responding, but I do want to address his snarky comments about not being contacted personally. Here is how he puts it.

The worst aspect of this whole debacle is the fact that neither the OPC committee, nor the PCA committee, nor the MARS faculty ever made any contact with the "FV" people they criticize. Had they made even one phone call, they could have found out that we don't believe most of what they accuse us of believing. I find this behavior appalling.

I have three responses to this. First, Study Committees are designed to respond to what has been written, not what people may currently believer or the nuances of some particular writer’s phraseology. This is because the committee reports are meant to be used by the member churches to protect the people in the pew. That is why almost every report is usually followed by a recommendation that this report by covered in each church, or something to that effect. If a person writes in a book, “Baptism saves,” or “Baptism is not a picture of salvation, it is salvation”, but what they mean is “baptism, the rite of water, saves only in the sense that it connects us to the local church, which is the body of Christ, but does not decretally save one forever and ever, but rather it merely puts us in the right place to practice, live out, or experience salvation.” The author of said comment may be upset when a report comes out that attacks the first two comments, but does not mention the third. They may even say, ‘If they had just called me on the phone . . .” But the point is that the people in the pew are not going to call the author on the phone either and they need to know what is wrong with the first two statements (not that I am approving of the third comment), which is all they are going to ever see. I would have thought such things were obvious to all.

Second, the church has never held such an odd position as that people must be called prior to publication. Anything in the public domain is fair game. Did Irenaeus speak to the author of the Gospel of Judas, which he does attack and refute, to make sure he was reading the Gospel correctly? Was it wrong for him to write a book called Against Heresies if he did not contact each and every individual he would quote from? Augustine condemned the works of Pelagius without ever having met him after reading his Commentary on St. Paul. Was this wrong? Should have Augustine allowed the Pelagian error to circulate while he tried to reason face to face before writing his letters? Can the same not be said of Jerome, who also attacked Pelagianism? What about all those men who sat in judgment of Pelagius at the Council of Ephesus? Were they all wrong? This history of the church would look very different if no one ever spoke against a heresy without first checking with the author to make sure everything was in place. We have many heresies or view points today that bear the names of men who probably disagreed with those positions. I, as well as others, agree that the Memorialistic view of the sacraments commonly called Zwinglianism does not reflect the view of Zwingli himself. I, along with others, think that Nestorius did not agree with the heresy known as Nestorianism (Nestorius proclaimed the Tome of Leo the truth of the gospel). Does that mean Nestorianism is not a heresy? No, it is a heresy, and it rightly goes under his name. A heresy spread and formed with writings that bore his name, and they had to be refuted immediately. Thankfully they were. I seriously doubt that Dr. Jordan wants to decry all of these events in Christian history as wrong because they did not speak with the author first, rather they simply interacted with the written word.

Third, Dr. Jordan himself does not practice this policy, and thus his moaning and whining is nothing more than selfish, pompous, bombast. See the following quote from his letter:

And it's no surprise that the heirs of Kohlbruegge in the RCUS also dislike Norman Shepherd and the FV -- after all, if you are suspicious of the whole Reformed doctrine of sanctification, you are not going to welcome people who say that faithful Christians are obedient Christians.

Now it is true that the RCUS was once dominated by Kohlbregge and his teachings. God used the teaching of Kohlbregge, mainly his high regard for the word of God, to preserve the church from liberalism and joining the church that eventually became the United Church of Christ. However, the modern day RCUS is far from the "heirs of Kohlbregge" nor are they "suspicious of the whole Reformed doctrine of sanctification". In fact, I will just point to the action of Synod of the RCUS a mere two years ago. A man wishing to publish works against the FV movement asked the RCUS for permission to publish some of Kohlbregge’s works. Kohlbregge being so far on the side of justification by faith alone without works that he diminishes sanctification, and that was seen by the person asking permission to be a good antidote to the FV teaching. The RCUS turned down this application because we do not approve of the Kohlbregge doctrine. Refuting one error with another is not an option, so we voted it down. Perhaps, if Dr. Jordan had just contacted any minister in the RCUS, he would know we are not Kohlbreggian any longer. Perhaps if Dr. Jordan would have followed his own advice he would not print this attack on the RCUS on a blog and in a Christian magazine. Perhaps, if he would have simply read our Synod abstract, he would know. If only he would have picked up the history of the RCUS in the You Shall be My People, he would understand the RCUS and the role and place of Kohlbregge. Alas, Dr. Jordan is full of venom and advice to his opponents, advice that he himself never intended to follow. That behavior is what I find appalling.

China's Long War against Christianity

I have long thought China is still the biggest threat in the world. I do not mean to down play Islamic-Terrorism, but in the end, the Islamic states are all backward and the rank and file armies would rather not fight. I worry that the world has forgotten that Communism is just as godless and just as dangerous as Islamic-Terrorism. China’s expulsion of Christian missionaries has gone mostly under the radar.

What worries me more is that this is pattern of behavior with China that goes back centuries. This pattern is not just to close its doors to missionaries, but to wipe Christians out through vicious persecutions. The article mentions the 1954 expulsion and resulting persecution by Communist China, but this goes back further than even the adoption of godless Communism. One can go all the way back to 635 and a monk named A-lo-Pen who carried Christianity (admittedly it was a perverted Nestorianism) to China and even won approval to do so by the Emperor, T’ai Tsung. Bishops were established and monasteries were founded. Then, at an unknown time all the Christians including the foreign born Christians were wiped out. The monks who visited in the 900’s found no traces of Christianity left anywhere. Of course these monks probably did mission work, but all traces of whatever they accomplished vanished under the Ming (beginning in 14th century). In 1807 Protestant missionaries are in Canton, and it is again a starting from scratch because of the extermination of all things Christian that has taken place. The Boxer Rebellion (1900) leads to the death of 189 missionaries. Then we can get to the massive persecutions that led to the arrest of Watchman Nee and local Chinese Christian leaders under the Communists in the 1950’s. Of these we have documented cases of torture and death for being a Christian.

These are simply the persecutions that I know about, and can be documented. Many traditions have Thomas of the Twelve disciples spreading the gospel in China, which would mean that any converts Thomas made were wiped out prior to A-lo-Pen in 635. China’s history is a bloody one that entails a great deal of Christian persecution. We should not forget to uphold the growing movement of Christianity in China as the signs begin to indicate another round of Christian extermination from godless China.

Harry Potter Series Review

I just finished Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, which means I have now read every Harry Potter book. Thus, it is time for me to share my thoughts upon the subject. And if you do not want the content of book 7 or any of the books revealed to you, this is your only warning to read no further.

First, let me just gloat. I correctly predicted the ending of the book. Snape dies a hero, check. Voldermort killed by Harry, check. Neville plays a big role in final book, check. Obi Wan Kenobi like appearance by Dumbledore, check. Harry will not die, check. For those desperately trying to make the series more Christian and claming that Harry did die and come back from the dead here is a quote from Dumbledore on the question of whether or not Harry is dead: "That is the question, isn’t it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not"(707). He latter also says, "Of course this is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" (723). Face facts, I predicted this book correctly.

I believe that I am somewhere in the middle of the road with regards to Harry Potter, by J.K. Rowling. Many hold that Harry Potter is evil because it makes witchcraft seem fun or good, and still others believe that Harry Potter is actually trying to teach kids to be witches and or Satanists. I think that opinion is wrong. Harry Potter is a fantasy book for kids. Magic has long been a way to gain kids attention and appeal to their imagination. Tolkien and Lewis both do the same thing, and if one is to reject Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Narnia should also be rejected. However, the main reason that opinion is wrong is because the witchcraft of Harry Potter is fake. Any kid will figure this out the minute he picks up a stick and tries to get it to unlock doors or cast spells. A twig is a twig in the real world. The witchcraft the bible warns us about is not flying on brooms and trying to cast spells because that is fake. The witchcraft the bible warns us about is trying to communicate with demons and having a familiar spirit. That stuff is no where to be found in Harry Potter. On the other hand, some think that Harry Potter is full of Christian images. Others want to argue that the books have always meant to follow a Christian path. I think these are also wrong. Despite two Bible verses being quoted in book 7, I see no reason to think that Rowling was trying to teach a gospel message. Like most books Christian truths can be found within. Rowling does teach us that evil must be opposed and doing nothing in the face of evil is wrong. She does make a great deal about self-sacrifice, and has a theme about free-will, choice, and belief that make it more than just a meaningless Tom Clancey novel. But I do not think the Potter series is explicitly (there is no reference to God at all), nor implicitly Christian.

Stylistic: J.R. Rowling is a good author. She does a good job of getting you interested and has a good sense of pacing. For a book that is almost 700 pages long she knows that the pace cannot always be frantic. However, for a child, this book would have tedious parts as background information is revealed. Harry Potter: the Deathly Hallows has a nice style when considered by itself, but as a concluding book to a long series, it falls short. It would have been better if the idea of the three Deathly Hallows or Hallowed Objects made by Death would have been introduced in one of the prior six books. At least introduce the fairy tale or the symbol of the Hallows or something. That way less time would have to be spent explaining. Plus, by introducing this new idea of a Supreme Wand, a Resurrection Stone, and a Supreme Invisible Cloak it makes it seem as if Mrs. Rowling had no idea how the series was going to end when she began it. This book also suffers from not having any school time. In my opinion this was a large part of what attracted kids to the books. Here was a school that was cool, and the kids did school things that could easily be related and understood. None of that exists in this last book.

I do think Rowling leaves several things dangling and unfinished. For example, she introduced the idea of freedom for house elves, who were slaves, as far back as book two. She returns to that in book seven. Yet, all we see is that Ron has changed his mind. In the epilogue of what happens when they are all grown up, we see no reference to the elves or their plight. The same is said for the goblin and wizard relationship, which is brought out in book seven. They are exposed and then dropped. Did this epic battle between good and evil expose faults in the society in which the wizards live? Yes, it did. Did this epic battle cause the society to change for the better? The reader has no idea. The conclusion also leaves us to wonder at exactly what does Harry Potter do now that he is all grown up? Did he ever go back and finish school? Just a sampling of the many questions that are just left hanging.

Logical: I believe the concluding book only emphasizes the consistency problems Rowlilng has in her make-believe world, again pointing to the idea that she did not have an end in mind when she began writing. There are many minor details that make the overly sensitive such as myself prickle. However, I will concentrate on a few. First is about an idea running through the entire series. According to the books, the sacrifice of Lilly Potter (Harry’s mother) protected Harry because of her love. Thus, when Voldermort tried to kill Harry, the curse backfired. Yet, James Potter (Harry’s father) did the same thing for Lilly. Yet, she died. Lots of people died protecting others throughout this series. Rowling ends the book with the idea that Harry had been willing to die to protect all of his friends who were fighting for him. Supposedly that weakened the spells Voldermort cast during this final battle, but it did not stop them. However, the book makes clear all of those people were fighting to protect Harry while he finished up his mission. Why did their deaths not work? Was it because a true sacrifice had to not be fighting death, but accepting it? I can see that explanation in the book, but that does not answer the problem of James Potter, who died without a wand in hand.
Second, and more troubling for the resolution of this book is the Deathly Hallows themselves. According to their origin the wand was "a wand more powerful than any in existence: a wand that must always win duels" (pg. 407). We find out that the "possessor of the wand must capture it from its previous owner, if he is to be truly master of it" (412). This often meant murder or theft. Yet we learn that Dumbledore possessed the wand after winning a duel against its previous owner. This brings up the obvious question of how did Dumbledore beat an unbeatable wand in a duel? No answer is given. We know from the end of book 6 that Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore, but did not take his wand. Snape then kills Dumbledore. According to the book this means Malfoy is the rightful owner and new master of the wand, which is buried with Dumbledore. How Malfoy is the master without being the possessor is not explained. Then during the course of the book Harry Potter defeats Malfoy, who is not using the Hallowed Wand, and somehow that makes Potter the master of the wand. How the wand knew that fact or how that fits in with being a possessor of the wand is unclear. The Hallowed Wand is then used by Voldermort, but it kills him because it will not kill its master, Mr. Potter. Just in case that was too clear, Rowling muddies the water more when Potter reburies the wand with Dumbledore and claims that if dies a natural death, the wand will lose all of its power. How that fact fits with the previously mentioned fact of Malfoy losing his mastership of the wand without ever possessing it is also unclear. According to the Malfoy scenario, anyone who ever disarms Harry in the future should be the new master of the wand.
The wand is not the only Hallow with problems. The third Hallow of the Hallowed Cloak is also inconsistent with the rest of the series. You may have already guessed that Harry’s cloak given to him in book one turns out to be the Hallowed Cloak. Supposedly the Cloak "renders the wearer completely invisible, and endure eternally, giving constant and impenetrable concealment, no matter what spells are cast against it" (411). Yet, in this very book Harry has to Confound to magic detectors because supposedly they would have seen the cloak. I seem also to remember that Harry Potter the Goblet of Fire, the magic of Mad Eye Moody sees through the cloak to Potter stuck in a hole in the stairs. I think the Marauder’s Map of Hogworts also shows Harry while he is under the cloak. So much for impenetrable concealment.

Theological: I do think there are some good theological themes in the Potter series. There is a theme about will and freedom that I would need to ponder on a bit longer with the other books in front of me. There is an excellent theme about pride. Whether it shows up in silly spats between teenagers or in the fact that Voldermort almost always loses because he fails to examine things he thinks are beneath him such as sacrificial love, children’s fairytales about the Deathly Hallows, or the power of elves being different than wizards, it is always consistent: Pride leads to a fall unless one changes. This is clearly her best theme and it is woven into the stories well. It would be interesting to see how many people in the books die while laughing and bragging. Sirius Black does in an earlier book. Bellatrix dies the same way in this one. The idea that evil most be fought is also apparent in this series and all are laudable themes. There is another theme about faith and belief, but I would have to examine it closer to see exactly what it is saying.

That said, I think there are several very bad themes in these books. Contempt for authority is one. Harry Potter is a snot nosed brat to his Aunt and Uncle who took him in when he was orphaned. They are bad to him, but the Bible does not allow for children to be so disrespectful of those placed in authority over you. Fifth commandment violations abound. Compound the poor treatment of his guardians with his blatant disregard for rules at Hogworts, for which he is often rewarded. Not to mention the disrespect for the authority of the state, the Ministry of Magic, and there is a slight note of kids know best that runs throughout the novels. Not exactly a good theological theme, but clearly part of its appeal to children.
A more disturbing theological problem is the idea that evil is fought with evil. Now I believe this is purely slopping thinking on Rowlings’ part, but it is something that comes across. Rowling introduced the idea of three unforgivable and forbidden curses in the fourth book. One curse puts another under your control. A second tortures another with extreme pain. A third outright kills your opponent. These are Dark Magic, and not to be done. Voldermort and his minions use these spells. However, when Sirius Black dies we see Harry Potter try them in book four. He is told by an enemy that you have to really mean it for the spell to work right. This seems to be Rowling’s answer for why Harry is not arrest for using the Dark spell. Yet, in book 7 we see all the good guys using the Dark Arts and the Forbidden Spells. Harry uses the spell that puts people under your control multiple times. Leaders of the good guys admonish him to kill his opponents rather than disarm them. He also uses the torture curse several time and even remarks that "I see what Bellatrix meant you need to really meant it" (593). Clearly now no defense is possible for Harry the user of the evil Dark Arts. No attempt to explain this or even frown upon such things is made in any of the books. This raises a series theological problem: what is evil for J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter. Why is he fighting evil with evil? This idea alone sabotages any idea that the Potter series is in some way Christian.

All in all the Potter books are okay, but not great. They are not for younger kids in my opinion because of the massive amount of death, the lack of clarity about evil and how it is fought, the authority problem, and the later books will simply not hold their imagination. In the end, this series is Star Wars set on a magical earth rather than far, far, away, and it is not done as well. I do open up the floor now for discussion.

Reformed Rhetoric or Reformed Basics?

Tim Enloe at Reformed Catholicism has some concerns about the rhetoric of Reformed people and churches concerning Roman Catholics and Roman Catholic theology. When shifted, the gist of his complaint is that Reformed people do not take the time to understand the nuances of Romanism and that Reformed people cling to that desperate illusion of ‘Bible-onlyism’. Without shifting the post is a rant that shows Mr. Enloe has no real understanding of what the Reformation actually says. Maybe there is someone out there somewhere who fits his straw man, but I doubt it. It also shows that Mr. Enloe holds the fundamental tenants of Protesantism in contempt.

Here is a good sample of exactly what I mean:

here’s a particular one that bugs me of late. Reformed people very easily go off on diatribes against Rome’s "false Gospel," claiming that it "cannot save." Usually this is accompanied by horrific slurs of “Rome’s teaching” which are based on hopelessly inadequate categories of analysis derived from an utterly silly "Bible Onlyism" that blinds people to the complicated interfaces of history, culture, language differences, and philosophy with theology.

Hopefully we can all agree with Paul that false gospels do not save and that another gospel is really no gospel at all. I think Mr. Enloe would agree with that. It seems to me that Mr. Enloe is saying Rome is not teaching a false gospel and that such things are a slur against Rome. Why is it that most Protestants think that Rome teaches a false gospel? According to the post because we believe the Bible alone as the rule of faith, and do not hold to quadrilateral of Scripture-Tradition-Experience-Reason. This is the real objection of Mr. Enloe.

Take a look at some of the questions Mr. Enloe sets forth to remove us poor Protestants from our ‘sophomoric’ addiction to the Bible and rejection of tradition.

More importantly, what does it mean to say that “Rome’s Gospel doesn’t save”? For militant Bible-Onliers, where exactly in the Bible does it say that believing in the doctrines of the Reformation is "how" you get saved? If this is true, why didn’t the Apostles preach sola fide in the book of Acts?

What Reformed person on the planet thinks that believing the doctrines of the Reformation is "how" you get saved? In fact it is just the opposite. Rome thinks you must submit to the Pope (ie. believe what he believes) and be a member of the Roman Church to get saved, while the Reformed think we are saved by Jesus Christ alone through faith alone by grace alone. The whole debate about whether or not Rome’s gospel saves is because Rome and Geneva disagree on "how" one is saved. The instrument of the salvation is not belief in the doctrines of the Reformation, but rather faith is the sole instrument of salvation and in that point is where the debate lies. Mr. Enloe knows this as his assertion about Acts shows, but he puts it in the very inflammatory manner because it makes his case sound better.

As for Acts sola fide is preached by the apostles. Acts 2:38 has Peter telling the crowd "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." There is no notion of works plus faith here just turning from one’s sins to Jesus Christ. Note Philip’s requirement for the Ethiopian to be baptized in 8:37, "If you believe with all your heart [that Jesus Christ is the Son of God] you may." Faith is all that is required by Philip, who may not be an apostle, but is in the book of Acts. Notice how the preaching of Saul soon to be Paul is characterized in Acts 9:20, "Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God." Acts 15 has the Apostles and elders specifically reject the idea of law keeping as a necessary part of salvation. Peter calls it a yoke that ‘neither our fathers nor we are able to bear’ (v.10). Then of course we have the famous answer of Paul to the Philippian Jailor saying "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household" (16:31). I could go on.

One other question posed by Mr. Enloe deserves a bit of attention.

What does it mean to say that the Gospel was “recovered” at the time of “the” Reformation? If the Gospel is what saves, and if it was “lost” for so long, how was anyone between whatever point the loss occurred and the point of the recovery saved? Is Christianity thus like Mormonism, conceiving that True Faith was destroyed for hundreds and hundreds of years and then, poof!, shazam!, and abracadbra!, just recovered out of the blue at the point of our own little group’s founding?

Here I must give Mr. Enloe some credit. First, for using the word ‘shazam’ in a sentence. It has always been one of my favorite words. Second, because here he has a decent point. Some people do think that the gospel was completely lost, and those people are wrong. However, I think a better historical question for Mr. Enloe is does not the success of the Reformation show that the gospel never really disappeared? It is only recovered in the sense of something being taught from the top. The popes had lost the gospel, but it had never fully disappeared from the world. Take for example the Waldenses who cease to exist as a separate entity because their teachings were the same as the teaching of the Reformation because they both taught the Bible. Similar success was found among the many followers of Wycliffe. The history of the Medieval Church is a history of how the gospel survived and thrived especially in Southern France, Switzerland, and northern Italy, which all became hot beds of the Reformation. While Mr. Enloe is right to characterize some Protestants as dismissing almost all of history because they think anything pre-Reformation is wrong, that is not the case for most Protestants. History is on the side of the Reformation, and her doctrines.

All in all for a for a post about the poor state of Reformed Rhetoric, this post is laughable. It makes every error it charges to the Reformed. Mr. Enloe’s hostility will not abate because he does not truly want a change in Reformed Rhetoric, he wants the Reformed to abandon Sola Scriptura. Mr. Enloe’s problem is not with our speech, but with our theology. Hopefully next time he will just admit it and gets straight to the heart of the matter.

756*

It finally happened. Barry Bonds has passed Hammering Hank Aaron for first on the all time homerun list. It was a sight that should have made any baseball fan sick. Barry stopped the game and thanked everyone he could except his personal trainer who sits in jail because he refuses to tell the court exactly how much drugs Barry pumped into his system. And Barry forgot to thank Balco and their director, who also sits in jail, for his artificially inflated arms. Barry may have been a border line Hall of Famer prior to steroids, but now there should be no way he gets in. He broke the law, and cheated the game.

I hope the voters do the right thing and keep Barry out of Cooperstown. I also hope that Bud Selieg wakes up and deals with the problems before him. However, if there is one thing I know. Commissioner Bud will make the wrong choice, do something stupid, and try to sell baseball down the river for a quick buck.

Another look at Charlemagne

I just finished Charlemagne by Derek Wilson. It was interesting to compare this book to the previous Charlemagne: Father of a Continent biography. Wilson’s book was not even close to as scholarly as the other. He did not go into as much detail about the Carolingian Renaissance, which was a clear drawback to the book. He did not have as many stories are takes on Charlemagne telling me it was not as well researched. Wilson did make some improvements on the other biography. Wilson’s biography is written in a popular style that anyone could read, as opposed to a stilted, translated, prose. Wilson takes the biography along a chronological path rather than each chapter exploring every aspect of a different subject. That may also appeal to some. Wilson does one other thing that is enlightening. Wilson adds an entire third section of the book that deals only with the Charlemagne myth. He traces the use of Charlemagne from his death to the modern day. I found this last section fascinating. Charlemagne was almost immediately turned into an icon. Poems, biographies, and plays appear almost immediately. Both Germans and French pointed to Charlemagne the Great as a rallying point. German leaders as late as the 13th century were claiming Charlemagne talked to them in visions along with Frederick Barbarosa and Otto I. French kings did the same. Louis 14th claimed King Charles as his own. Napoleon patterned himself after the First Holy Roman Emperor. In fact, Napoleon crowned himself emperor to correct the one mistake of Charlemagne, and did not undertake that endeavor until after a pilgrimage to Aachen, Charlemagne’s capital. After Napoleon failed to live up to Charlemagne as was defeated the legend of first great French man almost died. He was too intertwined with Napoleon, and thus he was avoided. Adolf Hitler would resurrect Charlemagne by passing laws against Charlemagne. Hitler forbid anyone to use the name of Charlemagne because he was the ‘butcher of the Saxons.’ The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and Charlemagne was again a hero. He is now occasionally invoked by the promoters of the EU because Charlemange referred to his territory as Europe. He united the different regions and country and made the firs European Union, which the many now try to duplicate.

In the end, I liked the book, but probably only because I love the subject. Wilson did not do justice to the great accomplishments of Charlemagne. He also clearly did not understand the Christian religion nor how it motivated Charlemagne. He does admit occasionally that an action fit nicely with his piety, but then proceeds to tell us how it was all about politics. So, I disagreed a lot with the characterization of Charlemagne as a political machine. Several things in his life militate against such an understanding. He turned down numerous things that were politically better such as the marriage of one of his daughters to the future Byzantine Emperor. Wilson also makes Charlemagne too much of a loyalist to the pope. True, Charlemagne did many things to help the pope out, but he also actively opposed the pope on several issues such as the 7th Ecumenical council that dealt with worshipping images and by inserting "and the Son" into the Nicene Creed. No small matters. A decent book, but I bet there are better biographies out there. I intend to find them.

All I heard was Blah, Blah, Blah

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

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

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

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

I told you so

I will be at Heidelberg Youth Camp all week, so don’t expect any posts or responses.

But before I go I wanted to post a little something for those of you, especially my brother, who never believed me when I told them the NBA was rigged. I always said it was not the players who rigged games, but rather the referees. I always said you could tell within five minutes of an NBA game who was going to win based on the referee’s calls. For all of you doubters I told you so.

Do we have a High Point?

Far be it from me to disagree with the JollyBlogger or Bryan Chapell, who is the one quoted, but I have not published anything theological in a while, and so I am going to disagree.

The JollyBlogger reports that Bryan Chapell had a sermon at GA about the PCA at 35 years. Chapell claims the PCA is faithful to the Scriptures, believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, has haggled for 35 years about what means to be faithful to the Westminster Standards, and now should focus on being mission-minded. While I think that the PCA’s position paper on Creation reflects badly on the PCA’s view of inerrancy, I will let that point pass without further discussion. What I really want to discuss is the quote touted by the JollyBlogger from Rev. Chapell. He said,

The best part of that sermon for me was when he said something to the effect of "the high point of the church cannot have been 500 years ago."

My first response, and should be everyone’s response, is ‘Why not?’ Admittedly without context it is hard to deal with this quote, but one is starting to see it more and more. It is usually a plea to move past the Reformation tradition no matter how it is hidden or dressed up. If someone is going to make a statement that something cannot be true, then it needs to be well defended.

First, is Rev. Chapell talking about the high point of theology? If so then why can 500 years ago not be the high point? Why cannot approximately 2000 years ago not be the high point? What even makes us think that there are high point and low point in the history of theology? What about our theology today should be different than the theology of the apostles, the Westminster Divines, the Old Side Presbyterians? What exactly should be changed to make us move ‘higher’ in Rev. Chapell’s mind? If Rev. Chapell meant this to be about theology then he has fallen into the trap of the Schaff/Hegelian model of theology. I reject the idea that theology grows and becomes more known and more complex over time like a Math book does as one goes from addition and subtraction to Calculus (Doug Wilson’s favorite example). It is certainly not a statement that should just be thrown out without defense, nor should it be accepted without discussion. Is not the faith once given the saints, and we charged with holding fast to it. Where exactly do we get the idea that as history progress and changes, so too must our theology?

Second, if he is talking about moving past the Reformation as far as planting churches and spreading the influence of the church, then whom on earth disagrees with him? The Reformation is not looked to by people as an example of the greatest degree of influence the church ever had. In fact, the Reformation is probably one of the low points with regards to influence the church had. I have never heard anyone think that the high point of church missions or planting or influence has past or that the time of the Reformation was that high point.

Again, I do not have all of the context, but I bet Rev. Chapell was speaking along the lines of the first point, that somehow the church needs to move beyond the Westminster or stop thinking about past theology, and start thinking about new ways/theology to reach the lost in the modern culture. I really would like someone who was there to explain it to me.

My main point here is this: we need to consciously examine what we think about history itself, whether it has high points and low points, whether or not it is proper to look back or whether or not the lessons of history are useful in the present. These things are under attack, and I fear that we too often want some new innovation to lead our churches simply because we all accept the maxim that new is better. I hope that this is not what Rev. Chapell meant, but it is something that is making its rounds in the church today.

Aaron Burr - Patriot

Aaron Burr is a name that is synonymous with treason, treachery, and greed. A new biography of the man by Nancy Isenberg called Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr changes those perceptions. The book is excellent, and will completely change your opinion on the former Vice President.

One word of caution does need to be spoken. Nancy Isenberg won an award for a previous book entitled, Sex and Citizenship in Antebellum America. One can guess she is a bit of a feminist, and this is probably why she wrote about Burr. Burr himself was apparently a feminist. He educated his daughter as if she were a man, he loved strong intellectual women, and he hobnobbed with European feminists from time to time. Ms. Isenberg never misses an opportunity to toot that horn, but it does not interfere with the parts of the book that answer all the questions surrounding Burr’s life.

The first thing many think of when thinking of Aaron Burr is the duel he had with Alexander Hamilton that killed Hamilton. Burr is usually portrayed as a violent, remorseless killer when these accounts are retold. Hamilton is usually viewed as a heroic figure who detested dueling, but was forced to the field. Some biographers like Broadus Mitchell in his Alexander Hamilton a Concise Biography even try to convince us that Hamilton did not fire his gun. All untrue. Most of it is taken from the work published by Hamilton after his death. He prepared it before the duel in case he died. In it Hamilton decried the practice of dueling, but felt he had no choice. The truth is that Hamilton dueled around eleven times, and his son died in a duel where Hamilton was the second. Hamilton was the offending party in his duel with Burr, but he refused to retract his incendiary remarks. It was the third time Hamilton had attacked Burr, and this time Burr could accept nothing less than an actual apology. Hamilton in reality was a cad who did everything he could to destroy his opponents through mud slinging. Burr fired second in the duel after Hamilton missed above his head.

The next thing most of us think about is the election of 1800 where Burr and Jefferson tied for the office of President. It led to the creation of the 12th Amendment. Most think Burr tried to cut back room deals to supplant Jefferson, and that is why Jefferson refused to have Burr stand for re-election as Vice President. The truth is that Jefferson cut the back room deals. Many letters from Federalists prove that Burr never even came close to stealing the Presidency from Jefferson. James Bayard wrote Hamilton saying, "The means existed of electing Burr, but they required his cooperation". Jefferson rejected Burr as Vice President in 1804 because Burr would have been a threat to James Madison in 1808. Jefferson actually systematically destroyed Burr by strengthening his opponents in New York by giving out patronage to those who opposed Burr, and refusing to clear Burr’s name when slanders came out in the press. Slanders which today are taken for granted as true.

The final thing we all think about with regard to Aaron Burr is his treason trial where he was accused of trying to separate the Western States and the territory of Louisiana. Again, these claims are found only in the newspapers (which were all politically motivated), and not in facts of any kind. The Federalist feared Burr would lead an armed rebellion and the Republicans feared he would win over the West through politics and entice the states to leave in that manner. Burr was quite popular in the West, after all he did kill Hamilton. Burr received aid from Senators Dayton, Adair, Smith, and Brown; bought boats from Andrew Jackson; was defended by Henry Clay; and encouraged to run for Congress by William Henry Harrison. The West truly loved Burr. In reality Burr had no intention of disunion or any action against the United States. Rather he was going to attempt a filibuster against Spanish Mexico if the United States went to war against Mexico, which would have made it a legal enterprise by the law of nations. Tensions were quite high and General Wilkerson, Burr’s co-filibusterer, helped make them higher through his advice to Jefferson and his advice to Spain, Wilkerson was on the Spanish payroll. Burr was actually cleared of any wrong doing several times. Twice in Kentucky Grand Juries were convened against Burr, but both cleared him. The first because no evidence was brought, and the second because the only witness was not credible and the Jury admonished the prosecutor for using the court of politics. He was cleared by a jury in Mississippi after surrendering to them after Jefferson put out a nation wide APB for his arrest on treason. No weapons were found on him or his group. Only supplies needed to start a new city on the large tract of land Burr purchased in Louisiana territory. Burr faced yet another trial in Richmond in front of Chief Justice Marshall, this is the one we all remember. The two chief witnesses against him were both laughable. General Eaton, a filibusterer himself, was considered an outright liar. It was not the first time in his career. He cried after the defense team finished with him. And General Wilkerson himself. Wilkerson turned on Burr when rumors hit to close to home about his Spanish involvement. It was shown that he altered a letter written to him by a friend of Burr. The evidence showed that his claims were exaggerated since no weapons could be found on Burr nor did the army of 10,000 people arrive. The place where the government did find weapons was on an island on the Ohio River, but Burr was never there. Marshall ruled the indictment flawed, the jury cleared Burr of treason.

Burr is maligned by history, but he did leave us a legacy that we ought to remember. Burr was a good politician. It was he who broke the hold of powerful political families in New York. He paved the way for men like Martin Van Buren, who considered himself a Burrite. It was Burr who laid the foundation for Tammany Hall as a political machine, not a corruption machine. It was Burr who helped the next generation of Republicans express their disenchantment with how Jeffersonianism turned out. The men who appreciated Burr like Van Buren, Jackson, and others would lay the foundation for a new party, the Democratic Party. That is what we should think of when we think of Aaron Burr. Hopefully one day the record will be set straight.

Harry Potter Predictions

I cannot resist a good game of ‘predict the future’, so here comes another one. Mind you, my record for sporting events is quite bad; thus, I will join the crowd and make my predictions about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I have read all 6 previous books, but I am not a crazed fan and will not be buying this book when it comes out. I borrowed the previous ones and I will try to do the same with this one at some sane time. So, someone out in the blogosphere may have to tell me if my predictions are right.

First, many Christian fans of the book think that it will have a bit of Christian ending. They posit that Harry will die to protect some character often the unlovable Draco Malfoy, or Potter’s muggle aunt and uncle, but occasionally his friends Ron and Hermonie. This always leads to the defeat of Voldermort, although few postulate how. Perhaps in a similar fashion as the sacrifice of Harry’s parents did for him the first time around. I do not think that this is how it will end. This seems a bit of Christian wishful thinking. I reject this ending despite the symmetry it provides with the beginning of the story.

Second, Rowling has told us that two characters will die in the final book. We can safely assume that one is Voldermort. After all no one is thinking that she is going to end a Children’s Book series with the bad guy winning. That leaves only one other death to pin point. It would not be much of a shocker if a minor character bites the dust, so we can put aside those and focus on the major players.

In the end, I do believe that Rowling is going for some familiar themes of sacrifice in her novels, but I also think there is a thread of redemption. The longest running debate in the books is about Professor Snape. Harry always thought he was a bad person, Dumbledore did not. In the last book, Snape, seemingly answering the question, killed Dombledore. I think then the best guess at the end of the books is that Snape is the second death foretold by Rowling. Snape will die a hero. Snape is going to give his life to protect Harry Potter or be killed when he is destroying a horocrux that keeps Voldermort alive. This will show that people can be redeemed, which I think is what Rowling is attempting to do. Harry will rid the world of Voldermort forever, but he will need the help of his friends to do it. Expect Nevile to play a crucial role in this book as much has been hinted about Nevile, who started off a bumbling fool and will have his own redemption of sorts when he becomes a hero. The Malfoy clan will end up behind bars, and Gandalf will have some sort of Obi-Wan Kenobi moment where he directs the steps of young Potter.

There you have it, my bold predictions for the book. You no longer need to buy it.

John Gerstner, Church History, and Matthew 16

I recently was given some video tapes from the video tape library of a dear departed friend, Rev. Norman Jones. I had a few spare moments and had been intrigued by the John Gerstner Church History series that was made by Ligoner ministries. I only watched one full lecture and parts of two others, and I thought I would make a comment on one or two things that struck me, specifically the third point.

First, I did skip straight to the Middle Ages. I have a peculiar interest in Charlemagne and the church as a whole during the 8th and 9th century. It is very hard to find good material on them. In fact, it is almost impossible to find a church history book that actually covers them at all. John Gerstner mentioned Charlemagne one time in a sentence about the power of the pope to crown emperors. Never mind that this was a highly debatable historical point (there is some evidence to suggest that the pope crowned Charlemagne during a prayer to give the appearance of papal authority). That was the only time Charlemagne or anyone from the 8th century was mentioned. That was it. Gerstner did just what everyone else does and that is skip from the 5th Century to the 13th. That is a large gap. I found it frustrating.

Second, the whole course seemed to be history as an apologetic against the abuses of Rome. There is nothing wrong with using that as a unifying theme, and it did provide for some interesting comments and discussion. Gerstner was excellent at pointing out paradoxes in Roman papal history and thought. He was particularly good at ridiculing the Unam Sanctum, which proclaimed all have to be in submission to the pope to receive salvation. This of course was given by Pope Boniface VIII who was in captivity and complete submission to King Philip the Fair of France. The Unam Sanctum is still the law of the Roman church.

Third, Gerstner made some interesting comments on Matthew 16:18. Of course Rome reads this as Peter being the rock, and upon Peter the church is built. Traditional Protestants read this as the Confession of Faith (as exemplified by Peter) is the rock upon which the church is built. Now there are several alternate readings that I am familiar with. Edmond Clowney read the passage as Peter and ALL the Apostles are the rock upon which the church is built. Augustine (the reading I favor) held that Christ is the rock and he builds the church upon himself. Dr. Gerstner introduced me to a new alternate reading. Gerstner claimed Peter was the rock upon which the church is built, but that did not imply authority rather we are all rocks upon which the church is built. He did make some caveats about it was faithful Peter, not Peter regardless of faithfulness. Still, Gerstner claimed that this passage was virtually the same as I Peter 2:5 where he calls all believers living stones. That Jesus was really only referring to Peter as a stone that builds the church, and that all believers are stones that build the church. Gerstner referenced Matthew 18 (I assume verse 18) and John (no reference was given) to support his view. Gerstner did not explain how ‘building upon the rock’ fits into his view more than to say we are all living stones being built into the church. I wish he would have gone into greater depth of this view, but alas it was a church history tape. If anyone out there knows more about this position, let me know. I am also interested to hear what anyone has to say about this verse in general.

Sabermetrics

I just finished reading Baseball Between the Numbers written by the gang at Baseball Prospectus. This book is looking at baseball through the controversial Sabermetric approach. And while this is a book about numbers and stats, it is still very readable to the average baseball fan. I do think that the editors put the chapters together wrong. They should have started with "What is so Important about Mario Mendoza" first rather than near the back of the book as that is the chapter where they argue why Average based metrics are not good enough.

I have to admit that I am convinced in part of Sabermetrics. They convinced me that ERA is not a good way to measure pitchers and that Batting Average is not reliable way to judge hitters. I can even buy into their Value Based model of evaluating players. I even think the method of finding good players in the minors is something that should be used in the future.

Where they lose me is when they try to make comparisons across Baseball eras. Here we see complete bias, not just numbers. The first chapter (it should have been toward the end) is a chapter attempting to prove by the numbers that Barry Bonds is a much better hitter and power hitter than Barry Bonds. They did show Barry to be better, but not before stating that Babe never faced the best athletes of his era since it was pre-desegregation and knocked off Babe’s numbers for it. They tried to find a fair number to use from how often the swimming record is broken, or some such non-sense. It was ridiculous, and an obvious attempt to bias in favor of Barry Bonds. They did not deal with any of the arguments that show baseball was harder for Babe than it is for Barry (no plush air rides, no cool night games, wool outfits, no knowledge of diet, higher pitcher’s mound, bigger ball parks, spitballs, etc, etc.). The book was actually appallingly pro-Bonds, as a late chapter also decided that statistics could not prove a power surge among elite hitters in baseball, only among the average hitters. That chapter did admit that it could only measure one benefit of steroids instead of all the benefits. It also failed to mention that Barry Bonds was one of those average homerun hitters prior to steroids. The chapter tried to encourage us to enjoy the records of law abiding baseball players being broken by steroid freaks. The book is just plain wrong morally on that point.

In the end, this book is a great read and really a must read for those who love baseball. It deals with all sorts of fun questions like which is better a 4 man or 5 man rotation (they decide 4 man). It talks about whether or not a stolen base is worth while. They do not think so, but I do not think they have measured all of the benefits of a stolen base. I do not think they were able to go far enough back in history to judge the stolen base and sacrifice bunt accurately. The talk economics of baseball as well as they interact with Billy Beane’s philosophy and whether or not Alex Rodreguiz is worth it. They argue against the effects of a catcher and against the big money on pitchers. It is a good book even if you disagree with much of it. This book intrigued me so much that I might put to the test some of the ideas in this book by joining a Fantasy Baseball league next year, and applying what I have read. That seems like a logical testing ground to me. I will let you know how it turns out. Until then, get the book.