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.

Plea for Weekly Communion Examined

A new website, the Reformed Liturgical Institute gives a link to a paper encouraging weekly communion. It deserves a response.

Rev. Daniel Hyde is the author and his plea is divided into exegetical, theological, historical, and practical reasons for going to Weekly Communion. I shall deal with the first two in this post.

His exegetical reasons revolve almost exclusively around Acts 2:42. "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, an in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Rev. Hyde argues that this shows the early church gathered to do these four things during their worship. But is Acts 2:42 talking about worship? Is breaking of the bread the Lord’s Supper? Luke 24:35 uses the same phrase, "breaking of bread" to describe Jesus in the home of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Jesus was known to them during the breaking of bread. This is how the disciples related it to Peter and the others. Luke 24:30 specifically tells us that Jesus sat "at meat" with them then broke bread and revealed himself. The addition of the phrase "at meat" makes it fairly plain Luke is talking about a regular meal, not worship and not the Lord’s Supper. Another problem for making the phrase breaking bread to be a synonym for the Lord’s Supper is just four verse later in Acts. Although Rev. Hyde mentions Acts 2:46 where "breaking bread" is done ‘daily’, his paper still argues for weekly rather than daily communion. Why the difference? It is not explained. He also does not deal with the implications of partaking the Supper in one another’s home without elder supervision, which is how every church practices it today. Acts 2:46 also includes the idea of "eat their meat with gladness", which indicates regular meals rather than the Lord’s Supper. Why then is one verse speaking of worship and the other speaking of just eating at another’s house?

Rev. Hyde does move along to deal quickly with I Corinthians 11, but does not specifically single out verse 20 where we see the actual phrase the "Lord’s Supper". The act is named specifically, which leads one to wonder why the euphemism of "breaking bread" if the proper title is used as proven by I Corinthians. Why would Luke, a companion of Paul, use a euphemism when Paul never uses the euphemism, instead calls it by name?

His theological reasons also leave much to be desired. He does give quite a few theological reasons, and I shall deal with them in the order he provides.
First, the sacraments are the gifts of God for the people of God. And as His gifts to us we need to take advantage of them as much as possible as we live in "this present evil age"
This is a stretch at best. I agree the Supper is a gift, but does that mean we must use them as much as possible? Was not Passover a gift to the Israelites, but they did not celebrate it weekly. The Day of Atonement came but once a year as well, yet it was gift. Baptism too is a gift, but it is to be administered only once in your entire life. If the Supper is a gift to be used as often as possible, then why not partake daily? Why limit it to weekly? Daily makes a consistent fit with Acts 2:46. He has not supported the idea that a gift must be used often or weekly to be used rightly. In fact, there is ample biblical evidence that sometimes overuse is a bad thing. Take the Bronze Serpent of Moses. It was a gift to be used when bitten by a snake, yet it was overused, and its meaning lost. It had to be smashed because what was given as a gift had become perverted. A lesson not dealt with by Rev. Hyde.
Second, they are an accommodation from our Father to us. This is the meaning of "mindful." As David says in Psalm 103, "For He knows our frame, He remembers that we are dust." This is true, but not an argument for weekly communion. The same is true for his third and fourth points.

He then goes into a discussion of the application of the blessing, and he makes the following dangerous statement. We are not Pietists nor are we Zwinglians, we are Reformed. Therefore the Lord’s Supper is not a matter of my working, my receiving, my believing, my preparing, my coming, but of God’s action, His work in us through these means. Notice what Rev. Hyde has said, the blessing of God comes through the means of the Supper even if you do not believe. If this is true what blessings do those unbelievers receive when they partake of the Supper, and what is Paul talking about in I Corinithians 11:29 when he warns of unworthy eating receiving, not a blessing, but damnation? These questions Rev. Hyde ignores.

Rev. Hyde then makes another astounding statement. He claims the Supper is the "clearest way the promises of God are given to us." Wait, are the sacraments more clear than preaching? Rev. Hyde thinks so. The preaching of the Word is not the clearest manifestation of the Gospel, then. Note that well. Instead, it is the administration of the sacraments through the hands of ministers that most clearly gives us the Gospel. For his support he cites no Scripture, but only a quote from Calvin and one from Beza where they speak of the Word not appealing to our senses while the sacraments do. No one denies the Supper appeals to different senses than the preached word, but does that make it more clear because it is more physical? That is not what we see Paul saying in II Timothy 4. Instead Paul commands preaching of the Word. In Romans 10:14 says ‘how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?’ Paul is not talking about the Supper, he is talking about preaching. Jesus does not even mention the Lord Supper in the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19). If the Supper is the clearest way to present the promises of God, why is it left out? Why do we believe that the Supper should never be separated from the Word if we think the Supper so clear by itself? Would not the Supper then become the high point of worship, and not the preached word, if the Supper is indeed the clearest explanation of the gospel? Yes, yes it does, and Rev. Hyde agrees. For his last point is the point so often made by James Jordan that the Supper is a covenant renewal ceremony. Jordan and Hyde, on account of his echoing Jordan, believe that true worship and covenant renewal has not taken place without partaking of the Supper. Thus we see the weekly communion tied into the redefinition of worship so that it is God renewing his covenant with us, and one must have the sacrificial meal in order to seal it. Rev. Hyde does not explain why God must renew his covenant of grace with us, or what happens to those who do not take the Supper weekly since God has left the covenant unrenewed for them. Yet, these questions shed light on a few of the problems of this redefinition of worship as a covenant renewal. Why does the covenant of grace need to be renewed? Why renew it weekly? What is the new character of the Supper since it is now essential to remaining in the covenant, or at least essential to God renewing his covenant with you? This questions are important questions because one gets the sense that weekly communion redefines many other doctrines, at least weekly communion as argued for by Rev. Hyde.

Anti-war debates

I have just been driving in my car and listening to Rush Limbaugh. The last several times I have listened to Mr. Limbaugh, he has been complaining that the country is not unified about the war in Iraq. A few days ago it was lauding the fact that 9 out of 10 Israelis support the action against Hezbollah/Lebanon. Today he was criticizing William Buckley, who criticized the Iraq war and President Bush. Of course Mr. Limbaugh also blasted Democrats for their anti-war views.
I have to say all of this whining about unity has always bothered me. There is a saying that politics ends at the country’s edge or at the oceans. That is nice and idealistic, but very, very untrue. War is really just politics, and is at least often motivated by political ideology, and thus separating it from political differences is impossible. In fact, with the sole exception of WWII, it has never happened in America. The American Revolution had its share of Tories (British sympathizers). The War of 1812 was not supported by any of the New England States, which were actually in the midst of demanding concessions from the government when the war ended. The Mexican American War was wildly unpopular with Whigs, and Northerners because they (probably rightly) suspected the motivation was to expand slavery. The Civil War was unpopular in the North, and there were still plenty of Unionist left in the South, especially the boarder states. They had their own political party in 1860 including men like Sam Houston and John Bell. Don’t forget that Kentucky refused to help either side, showing the unpopularity of the war. The Spanish American War was also opposed by many as a fabrication of American Imperialism. World War I was also not very popular. In fact, President Woodrow Wilson was re-elected as an anti-war candidate. His campaign slogan was “He kept us out of war.” Korea was not a wildly accepted conflict/war either, and Vietnam needs no discussion. Desert Storm did not last long enough for anyone to really oppose it. Only WWII had bi-partisan support from every section of the country. In fact, only one person voted against declaring war on Japan. It happened to be the first female elected to Congress, Jeannette Rankin. She hid in the coat room after her vote, and she had also voted against WWI.
So with this long history of opposing wars, why do men like Rush Limbaugh get so worked up when Democrats come out with an anti-war platform? America has only one experienced such support for a war, and we are still here and still fine. In fact, such opposition to war is healthy in my opinion. The debate needs to happen, which is exactly what the founding fathers thought as well. That is why the power to declare war is placed in the Senate. The only problem with Iraq is that this debate is taking place now, rather than prior to sending troops. It is taking place now because the Senate passes stupid things like ‘the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution’ and whatever the name for the resolution this time. The Senate has grown cowardly in their duties. The job of the Senate is to debate war, prior to its occurance. The President and the Senate let us down by by-passing it this time. I think we would all be in a better place if we would stop wishing for unity, and started airing our differences in the prescribed manner. Differences are not meant to be ignored, they are meant to be debated. That is the beauty of our American system.

Rev. Meyers and Development

Jeffrey Meyers has a post about Sola Scriptura in which he has hit the nail on the head, at least concerning the main point of contention, in my point of view. I believe the central tenant of any of these controversies, whether it is New Perspectives on Paul, Padeocommunion, or the Federal Vision, is Theological Development. Rev. Meyers states,

the reason so much of this is resonating with people is because the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century confessions and catechisms are no longer sufficient guides for the modern church.

Rev. Meyers outright admits that the Reformation Confessions are not good guides for modern believers, that the 21st century Christian is lost without a sufficient guide if he follows the 17th or 16th century creeds. (By "lost," I mean theologically, not eternally.) Let us look at an example of this theological lostness that results from dependence on old, outdated creeds:

The chapter [in the WCF] on the covenant, for example, is filled with problems. So much progress has been made in the last century on the biblical theology of the covenants. There are still things to be learned from the Bible, which necessitates updating and correcting our theological formulations.

Here is the assertion that we cannot miss. The new views on covenant theology are "progress." The reason we should abandon the Reformation creeds is we have progressed beyond them. New insights from new ideas about epistemology or new theories about Judaism or new outlooks on the world from our modern technology have made the old 16th century mindset a problem. The point is clear. John Calvin, Wolfgang Capito, Peter Vermigli, and Ulrich Zwingli did not understand the covenant rightly because they did not know enough. Part of the Bible was closed to them because they had not progressed sufficiently. Or maybe the world had not developed enough, and the Reformers were victims of the times. Either way, Meyers’ point is that the Bible is going to hold new truths for every generation, and usually it will hold new truths that were considered errors in previous generations. This view of history is fundamentally Hegelian and evolutionary: truth develops, progresses, or unfolds as history moves along. In Rev. Meyers’ worldview, we can stand on the shoulders of those who came before, but we can never stand with them.

This, I believe, is the main point of contention. This is why Bishop Wright is so popular, as well as Norman Shepherd and anyone else that comes up with a new view of things. We should be debating whether or not the new views of covenant are a progress/evolution or a devolution. Is it possible that a 1st century Jew could read the gospel of John and discover the same truth that a 21st century Christian could discover, are they differing truths or even tangential truths because the world they lived in was different? Do we believe God’s truth is the same to any and every generation, or do we believe it unfolds a little more for each successive generation?

Fault lines?

Guy Waters has a new book out about the Federal Vision. I have not yet read it because of the wonder of government run postal service. My tax money at work. Anyway, there are quite a few critiques out there to be read. Doug Wilson is blogging his way through the book, and his posts are very well done. Peter Leithart has a discussion about Rev. Waters views his books. Mark Horne also some related thoughts up on his page. It seems Rev. Waters is not friendly to the Federal Vision in his book, and I wonder if there is an avenue for a single pastor to bring other pastors up on charges if they lie in different presbyteries? Being unfamiliar with the ins and outs of PCA polity, I do not know the answer, but if Rev. Waters is charging men in his own denomination of heresy in print, he ought to do it in the church courts as well. Study Committee reports do not count. If there is no way for men in differing presbyteries to bring charges on one another, then there ought to be.

But that is a matter for another day. I want to specifically look at the opening of Joel Garver’s essay on Guy Waters. Rev. Garver writes about the current controversy:

These issues are not in themselves new, involving instead topics of perennial Reformed discussion such as the nature and practice of the Christian sacraments, the relationship between biblical and systematic theologies, the precise contours of a scripturally rooted covenant theology, how best to explain the free offer of the Gospel, how we pastorally apply a Calvinistic understanding of election, how we interconnect various aspects of soteriology, and so on. Any student of the history of reformational dogmatics will quickly recognize these as the dog-eared pages of past conversation and contention.

He then adds a few sentences later:

More often than not, I suspect (and shifting metaphors again), the discussion has had the effect of unearthing and shaking up the tradition’s existing fault lines that had lain dormant in the wake of liberalism’s assault upon orthodoxy, the hegemony of modernity and its assumptions, and the dominance of one particular variety of evangelical piety.

These are fascinating comments that could produce many different threads of discussion. One could argue his point about Reformed theology has long fought the battles he listed. It is a common argument that often involves defining ‘Reformed’. Was Luther ‘Reformed’? Do we consider men like Schaff and Nevin ‘Reformed’? One could also take the tact of arguing that Thomas Boston’s arguments about the Free Offer of the Gospel are not that same as the Federal Vision’s arguments. Or even asking the question of whether or not Biblical Theology pre-dates Vos in the late 19th century? Or one could discuss whether or not his list of discussions are really the heart issue or issues involved in the Federal Vision debate. I seem to remember justification being discussed quite a bit in the books that I have read, yet it fails to make his list. Unless that is what he means to convey when "interconnecting various aspects of soteriology". All worthy discussions.

However, I would like to get feedback on the idea of dormant fault lines running through the tradition, in this case presbyterianism or even the PCA specifically. It was said at the inception of the PCA that it would be a schismatical movement (obviously this was said by someone who did not join the PCA). While it is still a relatively young denomination it has yet to have a major schism. More than can be said for the beginning of the OPC. Is this Federal Vision shake up simply the ending of the honeymoon period of the PCA and the fault lines are showing of an inherently schismatic movement? Or is the ‘Truly Reformed’ camp more correct when they argue that the ‘Joining and Receiving’ of the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod created the fault lines? I suppose in short my question is ‘do you agree with Rev. Garver that the PCA, Presbyterianism, or the Reformed tradition in general has fault lines that run just underneath the surface?’

History Lesson for the Mercersburg Revival

As each denomination works through the Federal Vision issue, I think it useful to step back as see where the RCUS failed to deal with it in its more original form, Mercersburg Theology. I do believe that Federal Vision is really nothing more than a revival of the Mercersburg System, and in that respect the RCUS could have done the world a favor in the mid 19th century. The failure for the ‘Old Reformed’, as the opponents of Mercersburg where then called, was twofold.

First, the top down structure that grew in the RCUS. This really began with the creation of the seminary itself, and the accompanying rule that forbid any other place of education. It gave the seminary great power, and with it all of the seminaries proponents. As Mercersburg Theology grew and spread it seldom actually made its way to disciplinary or judicial action. This is because the machinery of a top down denomination was controlled by the proponents of the Mercersburg Vision. Philip Schaff was only put on trial once for his beliefs, and that time the trial was about to be declared out of order, but Schaff waived his rights in order to have the trail. He was declared not guilty, but more proof was found the next year, and the Philadelphia Classis renewed its charges. This time Schaff did not waive his right to have the Board of Visitors of the Seminary investigate the charges before any trail would take place. And while the Board of Visitors did give him a verbal slap, and made him promise to not teach such doctrines in the Seminary, no judicial action was ever taken. After that the Board of Visitors simply refused to hear any more complaints, and with the Board of Visitors rejecting complaints, no trial could take place. Within a few years large scale debates about Liturgy would take place that had John Nevin in print rejecting the theology behind a pulpit based liturgy, and no charges were filled. Why? Because the denomination was controlled the Mercersburg men. They did not have to have a majority to run the denomination, they only had to have control of the machinery, which they did. The Presidents were always Mercersburg men, the Board of Visitors was always Mercersburg Men, the mission boards, you name it, they controlled it. A lesson well worth remembering. In a top heavy denomination, like the PCA for example, it only takes a few key positions to be held, and it no longer matters who has the majority of churches, members, delegates. It is always unimportant.

Second, the Old Reformed types often quit rather than fight, especially in the early stages. For example, in 1822, only two years after the vote for a seminary had been answered in the affirmative, a group of ministers broke off to form the Free German Synod. These ministers may have been able to turn the tide, or at least significantly change the impact of the seminary that would eventually produce the Mercersburg Theology. By the time this group rejoined the RCUS, it was far too late. The early antagonists of the Nevin and Schaff also deserted when they appeared to be stopped. Joseph Berg, the one who brought Philip Schaff up on charges, ended up leaving to join the Dutch Reformed Church. In 1853, just as the Liturgy wars were heating up, the North Carolina Classis withdrew from Synod specifically because of the “heresies of Mercersburg”. Losing an entire Classis of ‘Old Reformed’ men hindered the ‘Old Reformed’ cause in the fight that ensued. The Civil War took away more Southerners, who generally opposed the Mercersburg movement.

In the end, the Mercersburg Theology won the day. They controlled the key positions in a top heavy denomination, such as the seminary, the President, and other various posts like missions, and publications. They also succeeded in discouraging political and theological battles, which eased their path to victory. These are lessons that every denomination should remember, not just as it examines the Federal Vision, but as it examines any controversial issue it faces.

America and the World Cup

There is always a lot of hope after the World Cup that Soccer will catch on in America, and it never does. It will not this time either in case you are wondering. The highest rating of the World Cup was about the same as Friday Night Smackdown of the World Wrestling Entertainment. Hardly an encouraging note, but it was up from four years ago. There are always lots of theories why the world’s most popular game is a big dud in America. Rush Limbaugh thinks it is a political plot by the Left to make us more like the rest of the world. Possibly the motive of some, but hardly the real reason soccer is as popular as paint drying in America. Not that many Americans care about politics (see our voter turn out) and even less think about politics why they watch their sports. The real reasons are simply, and I can boil it down to two.

Reason 1: Scoring is non-existent. The reason that scoring is non-existent is because no one wants to score. The goals are huge, yet many games end zero to zero or one to one, as did the World Cup Final. Just watch a shoot out, and you can see that a goalie has no chance to stop a shot. None. He completely guesses every time, and half the time when he guesses right, he still cannot stop it. Why do they not score like that during the game. Lack of trying is the only reason I can come up with. They too often go backward on the ‘pitch’ or field in order to try and go forward, but the minute they go forward they turn it over. After the turnover the other team almost immediately starts going backward just so the defense can set up and take the ball back. It seems obvious that they do not have a real plan about how to get the ball on goal. Most goals seem accidental, and I really believe that most teams play for the penalty kick shoot out. Americans have a real trouble accepting this sort of game. See Hockey as another example.

Reason 2: The players are wimps and bad actors. Every time someone gets tripped or bumps another player going for the ball, they fall over and fling themselves about as if they were having some sort of spasm. A player that gets kicked in his shin guard will fall to the ground with a yell and hold his shin as if his foot was amputated before anesthesia was administered. It is a common site to see a player hauled off the field on a stretcher and then return the next time the ball goes out of bounds. It is so ingrained in the sport that the announcers do not even pretend that the player on the stretcher with the medical staff is hurt. Supposedly a player taking a dive or wasting time gets a yellow card, but I saw several players roll on the ground without being hit at all, and get free kicks for it rather than a yellow card. Even the Italian who took the controversial head butt flopped around as if he had been hit by a Mack Truck. Americans hate a games based on being a wimp. We cannot stand it when players flop in the NBA, and we really cannot stand seeing it happen every two minutes in a soccer game. I do not believe it a coincidence that the two teams that flop the least (the USA and England) did not win, and are the two countries most willing to stand up in the face of adversity in the real world. Thus, I also believe it strangely fitting that the two counties most known for falling over and wailing at the first sign of trouble in the real world, France and Italy, are the two countries that made the World Cup final.

Americans love soccer as a child’s sport. It is nice for children because they can run around and expend a lot of energy. But, as they grow into manhood, it is appropriate for them to choose a manly sport. Sadly for the rest of the world, this leaves soccer out of the equation.

General Assembly Roundup

The General Assemblies of the PCA and the OPC recently met, and I would like to make a few comments. However, my information is second hand, so feel free to correct me if anything is off.

First, I want to congratulate Rev. Dr. Dominic Aquila for his election as the Moderator of the PCA General Assembly. Dr. Aquila is the President of New Geneva Theological Seminary, from which I graduated, and he is deserving of the post. The JollyBlogger says that there was not as much "heat" in the discussions this year at the Assembly, and I have little doubt that Dr. Aqulia as the moderator had a great deal to with the civility of the discussions.

Second, I think the PCA made a mistake by creating a study committee on the Federal Vision, New Perspectives on Paul, and Norman Shepherd’s views, commonly called Shepherdism. The vote to create a study committee overturned the majority opinion of the Bills and Overtures committee. One reason I believe this is wrong is the same reason I objected to the Mississippi Valley Report a few years ago: the scope is too broad. As a result, the report will either take years to complete or be too shallow. The RCUS handled it well, in my obviously biased opinion, by breaking each group into its own study committee. The majority opinion of the PCA Overtures Committee, which was overturned by the General Assembly, stated that the creation of a study committee would interfere with ongoing Standing Judicial Committee (SJC) cases. This is clearly a most important point. To what extent are the rulings of study committees binding? If the committee were to find that the Federal Vision is heresy, no Federal Visionists would be automatically removed from office; charges would still have to be brought before the SJC. Would the SJC even be bound to deliver a verdict that conforms to the Study Committee? If it were to take several years for the committee to report back, what happens to the trials pending? When I read Acts 15, I see the church coming together in a court to decide things, not creating non-binding study committees. Not to mention the nightmare of deciding who serves on the committee. Do you appoint a Federal Vision proponent to serve on the committee? If so, then how many? If not, then how do you answer the cries of foul that will most certainly appear? I would bet this committee comes back with a minority report, and then what happens? Study committees work well for deciding the biblical approach to denominational pension plans or for determining the biblical position concerning women in the military. However, the investigation of possible heresy charges is absolutely not the business of a study committee. This is why we have church courts. This debate will end up in the church courts anyway, so why bother with the committee? This is why I favor judicial process instead of study committees. It should be noted that I am in a minority on the web. JollyBlogger favors the study committee approach, and so does Rev. Polski. Rev. Polski has a great post on the PCA GA that reports how the Assembly decided to allow a minister to teach his exception to the Westminster Confession to his congregation without notifying his congregation that his teaching is out of accord with the WCF. This makes one wonder what the point of declaring an exception to the WCF is in the first place, but then I do come from a strict subscription church.

Third, I am also disappointed with the report brought back by the OPC study committee on the Federal Vision, even though it entails a negative assessment. This report itself has other detractors, and will merit an upcoming post. For now I want to note that the report was not adopted, instead it was commended to the churches for study. Now what exactly that means is up for discussion, and therein lies my problem with it. The Assembly, by neither recommending it nor voting it down, failed to clearly approve or disapprove of it. So, then, what is the will of the Assembly on this matter? I believe "straddling the fence" is the best phraseology. A similar discussion is taking place in conservative PCUSA churches over the new names for the Trinity report. The PCUSA decided neither to approve nor to adopt, but rather to commend for study, the idea that the Trinity could now properly be called, "fountain, well-spring, and river" or other manmade non-masculine names, and even a few feminine ones like "Mother, child, life-giving womb." It is the perfect way to satisfy both sides: by not taking one at all.

All in all, this General Assembly season has to be regarded as a giant victory for the Federal Vision movement (yes, I believe there is a movement, but if you would rather call it an impetus, that is fine). The RCUS failed to do anything by recommitting their report for another year, the PCA failed to allow the judicial process to take its course, the OPC failed to adopt its report critical of the Federal Vision, and the Christian Reformed Church passed paedocommunion.

General Assembly Round-Up

The General Assemblies of the PCA and the OPC recently met, and I would like to make a few comments. However, my information is second hand, so feel free to correct me if anything is off.

First, I want to congratulate Rev. Dr. Dominic Aquila for his election as the Moderator of the PCA General Assembly. Dr. Aquila is the President of New Geneva Theological Seminary, from which I graduated, and he is deserving of the post. The JollyBlogger says that there was not as much "heat" in the discussions this year at the Assembly, and I have little doubt that Dr. Aqulia as the moderator had a great deal to with the civility of the discussions.

Second, I think the PCA made a mistake by creating a study committee on the Federal Vision, New Perspectives on Paul, and Norman Shepherd’s views, commonly called Shepherdism. The vote to create a study committee overturned the majority opinion of the Bills and Overtures committee. One reason I believe this is wrong is the same reason I objected to the Mississippi Valley Report a few years ago: the scope is too broad. As a result, the report will either take years to complete or be too shallow. The RCUS handled it well, in my obviously biased opinion, by breaking each group into its own study committee. The majority opinion of the PCA Overtures Committee, which was overturned by the General Assembly, stated that the creation of a study committee would interfere with ongoing Standing Judicial Committee (SJC) cases. This is clearly a most important point. To what extent are the rulings of study committees binding? If the committee were to find that the Federal Vision is heresy, no Federal Visionists would be automatically removed from office; charges would still have to be brought before the SJC. Would the SJC even be bound to deliver a verdict that conforms to the Study Committee? If it were to take several years for the committee to report back, what happens to the trials pending? When I read Acts 15, I see the church coming together in a court to decide things, not creating non-binding study committees. Not to mention the nightmare of deciding who serves on the committee. Do you appoint a Federal Vision proponent to serve on the committee? If so, then how many? If not, then how do you answer the cries of foul that will most certainly appear? I would bet this committee comes back with a minority report, and then what happens? Study committees work well for deciding the biblical approach to denominational pension plans or for determining the biblical position concerning women in the military. However, the investigation of possible heresy charges is absolutely not the business of a study committee. This is why we have church courts. This debate will end up in the church courts anyway, so why bother with the committee? This is why I favor judicial process instead of study committees. It should be noted that I am in a minority on the web. JollyBlogger favors the study committee approach, and so does Rev. Polski. Rev. Polski has a great post on the PCA GA that reports how the Assembly decided to allow a minister to teach his exception to the Westminster Confession to his congregation without notifying his congregation that his teaching is out of accord with the WCF. This makes one wonder what the point of declaring an exception to the WCF is in the first place, but then I do come from a strict subscription church.

Third, I am also disappointed with the report brought back by the OPC study committee on the Federal Vision, even though it entails a negative assessment. This report itself has other detractors, and will merit an upcoming post. For now I want to note that the report was not adopted, instead it was commended to the churches for study. Now what exactly that means is up for discussion, and therein lies my problem with it. The Assembly, by neither recommending it nor voting it down, failed to clearly approve or disapprove of it. So, then, what is the will of the Assembly on this matter? I believe “straddling the fence” is the best phraseology. A similar discussion is taking place in conservative PCUSA churches over the new names for the Trinity report. The PCUSA decided neither to approve nor to adopt, but rather to commend for study, the idea that the Trinity could now properly be called, "fountain, well-spring, and river" or other manmade non-masculine names, and even a few feminine ones like "Mother, child, and life-giving womb." It is the perfect way to satisfy both sides: by not taking one at all.

All in all, this General Assembly season has to be regarded as a giant victory for the Federal Vision movement (yes, I believe there is a movement, but if you would rather call it an impetus, that is fine). The RCUS failed to do anything by recommitting their report for another year, the PCA failed to allow the judicial process to take its course, the OPC failed to adopt its report critical of the Federal Vision, and the Christian Reformed Church passed paedocommunion.

The Old Ball Game

In addition to my other distractions and hobbies, I enjoy baseball. There is nothing like baseball, it is a one of a kind sport that is uniquely American. In fact, I believe the two are so interlinked that stages in American history parallel stages in baseball history. For example, the Roaring Twenties correspond with the ‘Live Ball Era’ or ‘Babe Ruth Era’ in baseball. Baseball went from a hard-nosed game to a rollicking good time, just as the rest of America. But, that is for another discussion.

I just finished a great baseball book, The Old Ball Game by Frank Deford. This book is really a dual biography of John McGraw and Christy Mathewson. In fact the sub-title is: How John McGraw, Christy Mathewson, and the New York Giants Created Modern Baseball. If you do not know who John McGraw and Christy Mathewson are first, Shame on You! Second, Christy Mathewson is arguably the greatest pitcher ever. He is one of the first class of Hall-of-Fame inductees along with Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, and Honus Wagner. Not even the all time leader in wins, Cy Young, made the Hall-of-Fame on the first ballot. John McGraw is arguably the greatest manager of all time, and he made the Hall-of-Fame on the second ballot. He was also a great player in his own right before the major leagues were really set in stone back in the 1890s.

The book is a good read with lots of good stories and quotes. It is an easy read that can be done quickly. Deford gets you not only a good look a baseball life, but gets you involved with the two men he highlights throughout his books. This book is a great look into the personal life of two different men. Mathewson is described as a ‘muscular Christian’. He was a rare honest man in a time when most baseball players were ruffians. McGraw for example was a great ruffian. Deford actually contrasts the old time ‘muscular Christian’ of Christy Mathewson with the modern ‘born again’ Christians, and comes down on the side of Mathewson. Aside from that theological point, it is a good baseball book. You can also learn disturbing facts about history of which I was unaware. For example, the United States used chemical weapons on its own soldiers during WWI. Mathewson and Ty Cobb were officers in a Chemical Weapon unit and their job was to train men how to get their gas masks on. The US government trained men by releasing the ‘real McCoy’ gas on their own troops. Officers had to put their masks on last. Of course one time young troops panicked and Cobb and Mathewson got a real deep lung full of poison gas. Cobb had a cough for a month, returned to baseball the next year and hit .385. Mathewson never shook his cough, had damaged lungs, caught tuberculosis, and never had a chance.

My one criticism of this book is that it never really answers the sub-titles claim. How did McGraw and Mathewson create modern baseball? Was it because Mathewson was the game’s first larger then life star? Was it because McGraw and Mathewson built baseball in nations largest city, New York? Was it because during their time frame the game became a national pastime? These are possible answers, but noting is put forward as the answer. In fact, neither Mathewson nor McGraw really appear modern after reading the book. Mathewson was not a strike out pitcher, and his best pitch was the ‘fadeaway’ which was a ball that broke the opposite direction than the normal ‘curveball’. No one in modern baseball throw that pitch. No one can. McGraw was always a successful manager, but he was one that was quite resistant to change. After the first unofficial World Series was started by the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1903, McGraw refused to participate in 1904. The American League and the National League signed papers to make the World Series official and mandatory in 1905, but McGraw’s team showed up to play with World Champions already stitched into their jerseys. McGraw also hated the changes that came with Babe Ruth, and spent the rest of his life extolling the virtues of people before Ruth as better hitters and better ballplayers. This leaves the question in a desperate need of an answer. How did McGraw and Mathewson create modern baseball? I personally suspect they did not, and maybe publishers who had never read the book made up the sub-title. In the end, despite the unanswered questions, the book is a good read.

To Be the Man

I am going to make a confession, one that will probably bring me great embarrassment, but one that I have to make anyway. I am a wrestling fan. Yes, I have fond memories of watching the NWA (National Wrestling Alliance) with the Four Horsemen and the Nature Boy Ric Flair. I watched the greatest matches ever between Ricky the Dragon Steamboat and the Nature Boy Ric Flair. I watched in college as the Monday Night Wars made wrestling history. I still watch today from time to time, but sadly most wrestling shows have degenerated into quick five-minute matches sandwiched in-between blatant pornography. When I do watch, I watch the non-Vince McMahann owned TNA, which does not have the blatant pornography, and still has the old NWA belt. I miss the old NWA that focused so much on wrestling and crowd entertainment through actual wrestling matches.

I confess all of this to simply tell those other closet old-school wrestling fans out there that To Be the Man the autobiography of the Nature Boy Ric Flair is a good book to read. It is a fabulous glimpse into wrestling business and how it changed and evolved with the advent of cable, pay-per-view, and eventually the international domination of Vince and the WWE. For those of you up on wrestling biographies, To Be the Man does not quite have the same literary flow and quality of Mick Foley’s autobiography, Have a Nice Day, but it is a better book for a look into the wrestling industry. Mick Foley has great stories about crazy and bizarre matches because that is what he did. He was a hardcore legend, or as Ric Flair tells us, a “glorified stuntman”. Flair was a legend in his own time, and thus has a great look into the business of wrestling. Flair also has a lot more honest thoughts about other wrestlers spanning a great time frame since Ric is still wrestling at 55 years old. Mick Foley has more personal stories and life outside of wrestling, but one of Ric’s points is that for years he did not have a life outside of wrestling. He literally wrestled seven days a week, including every holiday, and twice on Saturday and twice on Sunday. The only days off Ric Flair took were days when he was on a plane traveling to wrestle in Japan. I suppose a life like that does not leave a lot of stories from home.

The other interesting thing about Ric Flair’s book is the honest look at life of people who are entertainers for a living. Ric Flair freely admit he tried steroids a couple of times. He drank like a fish, something he regrets, but he still drinks some. He shows you all of his friends who loved to party with the Nature Boy who were into cocaine and other recreational drugs. He talks of the deaths of several of his wrestling buddies, the suicide of several others, and the crazy cover-ups pulled by many in the business. That is not something that you see a lot of in Mick Foley’s book. Ric refuses to blame wrestling as a sport, but the individuals themselves for the large amount of drug use. However, I do think it interesting that people who work in cubicles all day do not have stories about all night crack binges, but those in the entertainment industry have plenty of such stories. You could probably count the number of CEOs who have died in their prime from too much parting with illegal drugs on one hand, but I can think of ten wrestlers without blinking, not to mention the numerous movie stars like Chris Farley who have passed away because of drugs. Not to mention the ones who check into Betty Ford on a regular basis. Baseball players too are becoming notorious for abusing drugs, and football stars are not far behind. It is hard not to say some kind of difference exists between the real world and the entertainment world with regards to drugs, drinking, and work.

To be the man you have to beat the man, and the man was always Ric Flair. So if you want to know more about The Man, you have to read the book by the The Man. Wooooooo!

On the Road again

A Pastor's work is never done . . . well at least not this week.

I am off to Great Falls, MT with a fellow minister to investigate it as a possible place for an RCUS church plant. If you live in Great Falls and are interested drop a response, and we will get back to you. For that matter, if you live in North or South Dakota and want an RCUS church in your city, let me know.

I will write when I get back.

The Christian Reformed Church allows infants to the table

The Christian Reformed Church is approving infant communion, or all baptized-member-communion. One wonders if this a sign of things to come for Presbyterian denominations. The PCA and the OPC are both meeting in their respective General Assemblies this week. Each will be dealing with overtures about the Federal Vision, which does not necessarily include infant communion, but I believe it to be a step in that direction. We shall see how it all plays out.

Is Peter the Rock???

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

In preparing a sermon on Matthew 16, I have become somewhat disheartened. It must have become fashionable at some time for Protestants to believe Peter himself is the rock upon which the church is built (though many try to qualify with Peter AND the other apostles). William Hendrickson takes this view as does the Reformation Study Bible in its notes on verse 18. Edmund Clowney, former President of Westminster Theological Seminary, in his book The Church, also holds to Peter as the rock. All three sadly fail to deal with historic Protestant exegesis of this passage, instead they simply dismiss it by saying that if Rome had not abused the passage in the first place, no one would question the Peter-is-the-rock interpretation. Allow me to remind everyone of the actual history of the Protestant exegesis, so the folly of such a dismissal will be apparent.

Those who hold the Rock is Christ (just for the record I hold to this position):
Not only do Reformers such as Turretin (3.18.Q17.164-5) and Bullinger (iv.81) hold that Jesus is the rock, but so do many church fathers. Augustine, one of the four doctors of the early church, held that Christ was the rock, as did Hilary of Pointers - both men predating any abuse by Rome. Jerome, another of the four doctors, also taught that the rock was Christ.

Those who hold the rock is the confession or faith:
Here we can see John Calvin make his stand, and he is not alone. Chrysostom of Constantinople in the early 5th century makes this claim. This was not against papal abuse, which was just beginning, but simply a commentary on the verse. Theophylact also holds that the rock is the confession and faith of Peter. Claudius Archbishop of Turin (early 9th century) wrote commentaries on the books of the Bible at the behest of the Holy Roman Emperor, Louis the Pious, and on Matthew 16:18 clearly shows he believes the rock is the “apostle’s doctrine” (J.A. Wylie, History of Protestantism, vol. 1 pg. 22).

Those who reject Peter as the rock, but whose alternative unclear:
Athanasius of mid-4th century fame falls here. He never seems to support the idea of Peter as the rock, but does use the verse in a discourse about Christ seeming to refer to Jesus as God as the rock upon which the church is built (NPNF, vol. 4. Pg. 447) in his discourse against the Arians. Yet, again he does not apply the phrase to Peter, but rather says nothing will prevail against Faith after quoting verse 16 and 17 in a fragment from letter 29 (NPNF, vol. 4 pg. 551). Cyprian, too, denies Peter is the rock, seeming instead to apply the rock to all bishops everywhere, which has been interpreted by some to show a belief that the faith of Peter is what stands as the rock. However, he also seems to be the first to apply Peter as the rock in other places.

In fact, according to Launoi, only 17 of the Fathers of the church (leaders before the 12th century) can be found to express the opinion that Peter is ‘the rock’, and no less than 40 deny Peter as the rock (ANF vol. 5 pg. 561). With all of this evidence easily at hand, it seems odd that the authors of the study notes in the Reformation Study Bible would be so dismissive of any other interpretation. It also seems odd that so many people would think the not-Peter-rock interpretations arose only after the text was stolen by papists. This is untrue because we know that men like Augustine and Jerome were teaching such interpretations prior to its usurpation and perversion by roman bishops. Perhaps in a future post, I will be able to discuss this issue further. For now it is simply enough to show my displeasure at the growing trend.

Reading Reviews

It has been a while since I have given a book review, so let me give a quick update on what I have been reading.

I just finished reading The House by Robert Remini. A very informative book on the history of the House of Representatives. Want to know about the most powerful Speakers of the House, how the Republicans won back control, or how the Senate gained the ability to produce revenue bills? It is all in the book. Very readable, very interesting.

Peter Leithart’s book, A House for My Name was also interesting. It is an overview of the OT and how that impacts our understanding of the NT. He had some good insights, but I think he often makes too big a deal about certain things. For example, he lays a great deal of weight on Cain going east of Eden (Gen. 4:16). Traveling east becomes a symbol for going away from God, and traveling west becomes a symbol for returning to God. Thus, he points out all of the significant westward motion, such as crossing the Jordan. But, he fails to deal with Israel’s first attempt to go into the Promise Land, which was entering in the south and going north. How does that affect his theory? I believe he overplays the Exodus motif as well even making the Philistines taking of the arc and Exodus for the arc of the covenant. It makes me wonder about some exegetical principles where we may disagree, but the book still contains some helpful insights.

Yes Green Baggins is at it again. He may be gone this week and next to General Assembly, but he left a nugget of wisdom about the Westminster and the Covenant of Works at the Westminster Brass.

I also read Einhard’s biography of Charlemagne. A good quick read. Probably played up with faults played down, but a good read nonetheless.

I am currently reading Ben Franklin's autobiography, which my wife found in the "free" box at a garage sale, and the History of the Eastern Synod of the RCUS.

Free Prayers . . . Are they unacceptable?

Alastair has yet another thought provoking post. This time he tackles the subject of liturgy, mainly the subject of form versus free prayers. Alastair says,

The ‘heroic pose’ that Keillor speaks of is one in which the speaker presents God with his own words, deeming his own vocabulary to be sufficient. The reasoning behind such an approach is that the most authentic way of being is that of spontaneity as opposed to imitation. Prayers of spontaneity, no matter how rhetorically brilliant they are, will always fall short of truly public speech. True public speech is shared language, where the words are not the speaker’s own. Spontaneous speech always falls short, drawing attention to the speaker, who often has a desire for people’s praise.

While I can agree with Alastair that we should pray the promises of God back to him, I cannot agree that free prayers, prayers of spontaneity, in the worship fall short and only serve to draw attention to the speaker. True public speech is one where the language is shared, but does that necessitate that the words are not the speaker’s own? I do not believe this necessarily follows. Can a speaker not be the representative of people? Can a speaker’s own words not be concurred or agreed with by the people, or must they all share a book of prayer and the man must read a book of prayer to be truly public speech. Let us take this example out of the context of worship for a moment. President Reagan famously called for Ghorbachov to “tear this wall down” at the base of the Berlin Wall. Now Reagan was the representative of America, and his words spoke for me, and for thousands of others. The words were Reagan’s own, but they were still public speech because his words represented the will of America. He spoke for us. Why cannot a minister speak for his people in a similar way? I believe he can and does.

Alastair’s next point states,

In handing ourselves over to a language that has been handed over to us in tradition we confess that we do not have the words that are sufficient to approach God. Our verbal works are sinful and poor, so they are not the sacrifice of praise our tongues present to God. The words that we bring are words that have been given to us, words that are not our own. The shared language of liturgy is thus a natural extension of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Our own words are not good enough to approach God. I do admit that no one, no not one, is worthy enough to approach God on his own. Yet, the blood of Christ makes us able to approach the Lord in worship even with our own words. If man’s words are not worthy of approaching God, then they are never good enough to approach God. Man is then only allowed to approach God with the words of Scripture. Man made prayers that have been handed down to us through tradition are not made worthy by the passing of time. If they were not worthy when written, then they are not worthy today. Just because they are not my personal words does not make someone else’s personal words worthy. Alastair does grant later that hymns are sometimes acceptable, but if man’s words are not good enough then why are they good enough in song. The argument Alastair uses for form prayers is the argument often used by exclusive psalmody. A difference is also drawn between private prayers and public ones, but why a man’s words are not worthy in public, but in private found acceptable is not explained.

The other argument brought forth against free prayers is one of self-promotion. While I can see that this may indeed from time to time be a problem it is arguing that the personal faults of some destroy the worthiness of the entire system. Some people may try to show off in their prayers, but that does not mean that everyone shows off in prayer. Some may indeed draw attention to themselves during prayers, but others may not. The few certainly does not out weigh the many. One could just as easily argue that form prayers are bad because people mindless read, and do not understand what they are praying. Reading is not the same as praying; therefore, those who simply read, do not pray at all. Such an attack is probably true for some people. They may indeed not bother to pay attention. But does that necessarily mean the whole idea of a form prayer is corrupt? No, I do not think so. Each way has its own temptations, and it is good to be aware of them, but no way is temptation free.

My real point of contention with high liturgy is found in one of Alastair’s concluding points. One of the things that the Church could really benefit from today is a downplaying of preaching within the context of the liturgy and a denial of the primacy of the preacher. I believe in a liturgy, but one that is a pulpit based liturgy of which I believe free prayers are acceptable. Traditionally the high liturgy is an altar/table based liturgy that stress other elements than the word and the word preached. I am not against form prayers, in fact, we pray the Lord’s Prayer every week and we have responsive readings every week, but I do not think that one can be biblically against a representative free prayer either, which we also have every week.