Multiple Book Reviews

My wife has brought it to my attention that I have been neglectful of my book reviews. It has been sometime since I did one, so this one will have to encompass many books, and it will sadly not encompass all of the books I meant to review.

Let us just start with history. I just finished two books from the American Presidents Series. The first, John Quincy Adams by Robert Remini was an exceptional book. As with all of Mr. Remini’s work it is educational and easy to read. Despite the fact that Remini is a Jackson, Clay and Webster scholar, his work on Adams is fair and even handed. Unlike some of the other books in this series it is more like a true biography rather than just an examination of the Presidency of John Q. Adams. It is still short to fit the format for the series and would easily mastered by a high school student if one so chose to use it. The book deals with why John Q. Adams did not go into the Federalist Party as well as the Corrupt Bargain and the return to Congress of the former President. While I think that Mr. Remini takes a few unnecessary shots at the strict parenting of both Abagail Adams of John Q, and John Q of his children, all in all the book is very good.

The second book in that series I read was Marting Van Buren by Ted Widmer. This book was a fascinating glimpse into the founder of the two party system. It too follows Van Buren though his whole political career rather than just his Presidency, and it even takes time to examine the causes of things that affected Van Buren such as the sudden rise in the slavery debate during the 1830’s and the Panic of 1837. The style of Mr. Widmer is much more flamboyant than Mr. Remini. He seems to enjoy a good lofty metaphor, fancy introductions, and the odd ball quotes that drive his point home. Oddly enough it means that Davy Crockett gets quite a few quotes in a book about Van Buren. The book does give a good picture of the forgotten 8th President, and includes many trivia facts as well such as the origin of the word OK. OK was the abbreviation used for Old Kinderhook (even President Van Buren used it about himself). It was then equated with ‘oll korrect’, a slang way of saying ‘all right.’ Thus, if one was for President Van Buren he was OK in that he was for Old Kinderhook and all right. That is the origin of the now common word. Something to file away in your memory banks.

I of course read more than just historical biographies. A few books that had been recommended in past issues of World Magazine finally found their way to my bookshelf courtesy of birthday gifts. Why Johnny Cannot Tell Right From Wrong: Moral Illiteracy and The Case for Character Education, by William Kilpatrick, analyzes the ways in which Public Education destroys the moral reasoning of children. The format and name of this book derive from an earlier book explaining Why Johnny Can’t Read. That book explores the affects of removing phonics from school and replacing it with the See and Say Method. This book examines the consequences of removing Character Education and replacing it with Moral Reasoning or Decision Making. The numbers seem to back his analysis up. Suicides have risen 300% among teenagers in the past 30 years, 21% of all public school kids avoid the bathrooms at school (I was one of that group) out of fear. More disturbing is that despite the frequent use of contraceptives 1.1 million teenagers became pregnant in 1991. The number is not declining. Approximately 40% 14 year-old girls will become pregnant by the time they are 19. The number one concern of teachers in America is behavior problems. Back when the schools followed the Character Education method in 1950 the number one concern of teachers was reading. He has some disturbing illustrations, and if you think this is not going on in your school, I suggest you read this book. Still, the author is convinced that Public Schooling is acceptable if we just do it right. That is a conclusion that I am not sure is justified. It is not written from a Christian Worldview so the idea of whether or not Christian values should be inculcated and what happens when the values taught are not the values of the parents do not make the cut in this book. A sad deficiency. Still the book is worth a read, and it contains a list of good books to read to your kids in the back.

The Party of Death by Ramesh Pnnuru of National Review is even more interesting. It is not for the faint of heart. If you are against abortion or euthanasia this book will probably make you sick and then overwhelmingly angry. The tone of the book is just right. It is exposing like a good journalist expose, but not insulting like Ann Coulter. It destroys the arguments of the Party of Death, which is defined not as Democrats but as anyone who supports abortion, and goes into the Stem Cell debate as well. It is a very up to date book that stops just short of the Democratic Mid Term victory. The book is a must read. I do quibble with some of his suggestion for how to proceed in the fight against the Party of Death, but that is a very minor criticism. My main problem with his suggestions is that it is political, and not directed at the masses. A good quote from Martin Van Buren should be inserted here to sum up my feelings about the situation.

Those who have wrought great changes in the world never succeeded by gaining over chiefs; but always by exciting the multitude. The first is the resource of intrigue and produces only secondary results, the second is the resort of genius and transforms the universe.

I also have finished most of Jay Adams’s Shepherding God’s Flock. This book really should have been required reading in a Pastoral Theology Classes at seminary, but it was not. It has great information and is very detailed as Jay Adams is want to do. It contains information on how to do Home Visits and what to look for when candidating at a church. Very useful, very practical. It does contain the theories of Jay Adams as well, but that is not the focus of the book. For example, Jay Adams is convinced that Home Visitation is not the same as Pastoral Visitation and Shepherding. Adams has always been big on the Counseling from the Pulpit, and much of that emphasis can be seen in this book. So, if someone has a problem with some of Adams Pastoral theories, this book will need to be read in that light. I think that it would still be helpful just for all of the wonderful details like where to sit during a visit and not to get caught in new conversations after you are planning on leaving. The advice is often things that new pastors do not think out before being thrown into having to do it. For that reason alone, I found this book helpful.

One final note for those of you who enjoy my baseball thoughts. I have started a new blog Blogging Baseball. Mainly I started it to experiment with Wordpress.

I just received another round of books that will keep me busy for a while. I will try to be more diligent about posting reviews.

Should a General Assembly celebrate the Lord's Supper?

The blogosphere is quite because the PCA is in its General Assembly. Everyone and their grandmother is down there in order to participate in the row over the Federal Vision Study Committee report. I glanced at their docket, and something else caught my eye. They are going to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. It is after the session is declared open and called to order by the moderator. The RCUS does have worship services, but they are not technically part of the Synod. The meetings are not in session as we worship. The Synod in the RCUS does not have the power to offer the sacraments, only the local church. Yet, clearly the PCA General Assembly is offering the sacrament. It cannot be participating in a host church’s Lord’s Supper because it is not in a host church, but rather a convention center. I found it interesting because I wonder what sort of difference this implies in the view of the church?

Forgetting Joseph

"And there arose a new king in Egypt, who did know Joseph." – Exodus 1:8

This verse in Exodus gives the context, but I believe it also introduces a theme that runs throughout the rest of the Bible. That theme is the sin and danger of forgetting history. I do not mean history as facts, but rather history as the meaning of things done in the past. Here in Exodus we see that forgetting the past leads Egypt to persecute the people who saved all of Egypt through seven years of famine, not to mention made them into a wealthy people. The consequences of that forgetfulness is the Red Sea and the death of every first born male.

Yet, the theme does not stop with Egyptians. We see the same theme running in the people of God. The book of Judges has a similar start. "When all that generation [those who lived with Joshua] had been gathered to their fathers, another generation arose after them who did not know the LORD nor the work which He had done for Israel" (Judges 2:10). That starts a cycle that basically repeats itself throughout the rest of Judges. This of course leads to the people of the Lord doing evil in his sight, neglecting true worship and exchanging it for false worship. This theme continues even after the kings of Israel. Josiah finds the book of Deuteronomy that had been lost and forgotten (2 Kings 22). We see in Ezra 10 that the Israelites had forgotten the word of God and taken pagan wives. It is the constant cry of the prophets (see Isaiah 17:10, 51:13, Jer. 2:32, 3:21, etc.). It is found in the Psalms (see 106 for example).

Not only do we see the sin of forgetting the works of God in the past we see God providing ways for us to remember. We see it over and over and over again. God commands Joshua to set up Memorial Stones after crossing the Jordan so that "when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, ‘What are these stone?’ then you shall let your children know" (Joshua 4:21-22). The tribes of Reuben and Gad build an altar because they feared “in time to come your descendants may speak to our descendants” without remembering they are all part of Israel (Joshua 22). The exhortations about throughout Scripture to remember, "Remember your creator in the days of your youth" (Ecc 12:1). One can even look at the sacraments and see that one of the purposes is “to proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” because every generation needs a sign so that they do not forget.

It seems to me then that one of the main jobs of parents is to teach our kids history. Or to put it another way remind them of what God has done in the past, and how God’s work in history affects them now. I think it is easy to see how forgetting the Josephs of the past have put our society in a bad position. We must make sure that our children remember the work of God, or else when they face their own Red Sea they may find themselves among the Egyptians.

FV Controversy and the Role of Sadness

The RCUS recently passed its statement declaring the teaching of the Federal Vision another gospel. The PCA seems to be on deck and the URCNA is the lone hold out as far as I can tell. But statements are not what I want to talk about.

I want to mention an aspect of this debate that seldom comes across on blogs (I am just as guilty as the next blogger). That aspect is the great sadness that we should all have regarding this problem. Whatever the reason for this current debate/crisis, we should be united in complete and total sadness. Some say it stems from Westminster Theological Seminary in the 70s, some think it is a revival of Mercersburg, others think it may stem from the New Perspectives on Paul. Regardless, ministers within reformed churches can no longer agree on what constitutes the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe the FV is another gospel, I voted for the resolution and would do so again. But it was actually a very sad moment. These statements are too often treated as academic exercises. They are not. They serve as pleadings. At least that should be our attitude. "How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings"(Matt. 23:37). Jesus had just pronounced woes upon the Pharisees, but he did it with a heavy heart.

I wish we had a little more of that in this debate. Just take a look the comment sections of these posts and messages! I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything. I know some of the men making comments, and they are good men. One thing leads to another and our sadness for the situation gets buried. It is just not good to let it stay buried for too long.

I believe the FV to be in our churches, a present danger, and that it is another gospel. And that is one of the saddest things I hope I ever say outloud.

Lost in LOST

In case you missed the LOST season finale, do not read any further.

As many of you know, I watch LOST and Heroes because they are the only shows worth watching. The finale of Heroes was good, but not great, but LOST was fantastic. I cannot resist offering my two cents on what will happen and the greatness of the show.

First, Charlie is not dead. Many people have been upset about Charlie not trying to swim out. His death has many people upset. My theory is that Charlie is not dead. Or at least, he will not stay dead. The show seems to have shown us that the island has some special healing powers, which was why the Dharma group went there in the first place. Some seem to benefit from this healing while other do not. Charlie, we have already seen been resurrected once. Do not forget that he was hung by Ethan in the first season. When Jack found Charlie, he was not breathing, and CPR did not bring him back. Jack quits, cries, walks around, and then comes back. Then, and only then, does Charlie start breathing. We all assumed that CPR saved Charlie’s life, but we should know better now.

Second, I think the key to LOST is in the names. The vast majority of the names have significance and are literary allusions. The Philosophers are fairly straight forward. You have John Locke, Desmond David Hume, and Daniel Rousseau as the obvious references. Each represents a the philosophy of the Philosopher as well, at least in some important way. You also had Boone and Shannon Rutherford, a probable reference to Samuel Rutherford. His thought laid the foundation for John Locke’s thought just as Boone Rutherford laid the foundation for John Locke on the island. Other names can be debates such as Jack Shepherd which some say was confirmed to be a reference to Jack Merridew in Lord of the Flies. I personally think the Shepherd part is more important as in the season finale he was compared to Moses, which fits nicely since his nephew is named Aaron. Jack’s father’s name is Christian Shepherd, and despite his funeral the season finale flash-forward made several mentions of Jack’s father as if he were alive. Hugo Reyes may be a reference to Philosopher Hugo Grotius. The Latin word for Grotius is De Groot, which happens to be the name of the founders of the Dharma Initiative. Other names are clear references to Literary characters or authors that are not necessarily philosophical in nature. Sawyer seems a clear reference to Tom Sawyer. Sawyer is of corse a fake name for James Ford, much like Mark Twain is also not the real name of the author of Tom Sawyer. Kate Austen may very well be a references to author Jane Austen. Benjamin Linus, leader of the others reports to the mysterious, Jacob. Can one think of Jacob and Benjamin without coming to a biblical reference? Juliet was an ‘Other’, but now is with the castaways on account of star-crossed love. Do I need to point out that reference? Desmond Hume was shipwrecked on an island for three years and is trying to get back to his love, Penelope. Penelope is also the name of the wife Odysseus in the Odyssey. I am sure there are more that I have missed.

Third, based on the names I think some predictions can be made. I know I have a bad track record on predictions, but I will not stop trying.

• Charlie is alive


• Juliet will die. She dies in the play. She is not with Jack after they got home. Somehow she dies.


• Benjamin is the person in the coffin in the flash-forward. I have several reasons for thinking this is true. It has to be a male. It has to be someone that Jack cares about, but Kate does not. He is in the group that is about to get picked up. Jack seems to agree with Benjamin about the island in the flash-forward.


• Jack’s father, Christian, is alive. Jack makes several references to him in the flash-forward. His name is Christian; thus, ‘life-after death’ may be in view. We have never seen his actual death. The coffin was found on the island, but it was empty.


• Season Four will be about trying to get back to island to finish unraveling the mystery.

With only 48 episodes left, I think LOST will be able to maintain a high quality. As my wife and I discuss and spend the summer in suspense, I may blog more of my thoughts on a show that actually stretches your brain.

The Extent of Voting Pragmatism

After following a long series of links, I got to this article about Rep. Ron Paul as the winner of the Republican debates, and it got me thinking. Why do Republicans continually vote against their beliefs? This is the same as the age-old question of should you vote for a third party candidate or not. It seems clear that this is exactly what the Republicans are doing, voting against the one they believe is the best candidate. The only possible reason is because they think they need to vote for someone who has a chance to win in ‘08.

Look at the facts. First, the Neo-Conservative Outlets are going out of their way to bash Rep. Ron Paul and ignore the candidates that are actually conservative like Rep. Tancredo, Paul, and Hunter. Not only that but the Neo-Conservative News Outlet hid their own poll because it was not to their liking.

Second, MSNBC has Rep. Paul as the winner of the first debate by a landslide. They also have him winning the second debate by a landslide. Just in case you think these results skewed by the viewership of MSNBC, Fox News had Rep. Paul a close second behind only Romney. Rep. Paul was a full 6% ahead of Mayor Giuliani, and 21% ahead of McCain. Independent sources seem to back up this view of Paul being the winner.

Third, Giuliani and McCain are still the leading candidates to win the nomination. Paul trails Giuliani by 23% and McCain by 16%. Thus, the question: why do Republican think Rep. Paul a top tier debater, but have no support for him when it comes to the election? I do not think it is simply because he is that much better on stage. I think it has to be the ‘winning before principle’ idea that cripples third parties every year.

I know a lot of people get excised over third party voting, so let us switch up the scenario for a minute. Say there is a candidate running for office in a liberal section of California. He agrees with Christianity, believes it true, thinks Christian principles would make the world a better place, but knows that if he runs as a Christian then he will lose because his constituents think Christianity a backwater religion. He really wants to defeat the openly Secular Humanist opponent because he fears the agenda of said Secular Humanist, so our candidate runs as a sometimes practicing Jew. That way, he is not laughed out of the voting booth for being a Christian, is able to carry over some of the Christian principles to his office like believing a God exists, and he has a chance to defeat the Humanist agenda. Would we laud this man as doing what he could? Would thank him for not letting the Humanist win even though he is not able to be faithful to his true beliefs? Would anyone think he had done the right thing? I think the answer is obvious.

So why do we do it? The polls show that it is clearly happening. A better question for Christians is, do we confine the ‘winning over principle’ pragmatist-ideology to the voting booth? Or is it possible that this ideology that sacrifices our principles is really pervading our entire lives? I am not accusing loyal Republican voters or Democrat ones of being inconsistent sinner by any means. I have just been struck recently by how deep the roots of Pragmatism run in all of our lives. The attitude of claiming a little extra on our taxes because it is our money anyway. Or the telling of a little white lie because everyone will feel better and it is easier. Or the cutting corners on the project because we can fix it later if someone complains. The list could go on and on and on. Maybe I am way off base here, but it was just a little thinking out loud, which is what a blog is for anyway.

Feast Days not Holy Days

As I said in the first post in this series, the RCUS follows the German Reformed Tradition of celebrating Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost as Feast days. How do I reconcile this with my opposition to the Liturgical Calendar? Since today is Ascension Day, what better time than now for me to tackle this task. I shall try to explain.

First, it should be pointed out that Easter and Pentecost are always Sundays. I am advocating replacing Sunday services. Instead, my church uses those days to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. We do the same with the Sunday before Christmas. This is what was done in Geneva as well, so it is not some sort of new tradition by any means.

Second, I do think churches ought (but by no means do I think they are required) to celebrate such obvious days as Easter and Christmas. If we were honest we would admit that Easter and Christmas are the two days that more people attend church than any other day. There are many who many only go to church on Christmas and Easter. Those people along with the majority of the congregation are expecting sermons revolving around the holiday that the entire culture is celebrating. A giant opportunity will be missed if one decides instead to preach on II Samuel 5:11. Those churches that do not celebrate Christmas or Easter should be consistent and not complain about the selfishness of the holidays or secularization of Christmas or the removal of nativity scenes or the Easter Bunny. If the church refuses to recognize the reason these holidays existed in the first place, then one should not expect the culture to do so either. We must be careful not to lift these days up as better than the rest of the year, but we can still sing Christmas carols or "Up from the Grave He Arose" without doing that. We are clearly not saying this is Easter, Pentecost, or Christmas and the rest of the year are 'Ordinary Days'.

Third, and getting more into theological points now, these days are not kept or celebrated anything like they are in the Liturgical Calendar. There is no sense of Pentitential Purple at all? No fasting, no expiation, no removal of the Bible from the table of the Lord, no services of darkness. All of that is gone and not used. Instead, of Good Friday being somber and dark, it is ‘GOOD’! It is a day of feasting because of the goodness of God towards us. All of these days are kept as celebrations, not of some re-enactment of the sufferings and life of Jesus. Instead of having a season of penitence prior to Easter, we celebrate Easter and Good Friday. Instead of having Advent, a season of penitence, we celebrate Christmas! Not a minor difference.

Fourth, The Continental Reformed Tradition of Five Feast days recovers the days of Pentecost and Ascension Day. There were lots of blogs by Calendar supporters about Lent, but will anyone blog about Ascension Day? I grew up in a Liturgical Calendar church (United Methodist), and we celebrated Lent, we went to church on Ash Wednesday, we had Maundy Thursday, and we never missed Advent. But not once did we ever have an Ascension Day service. Not once. I don’t remember any Pentecost celebrations either, but there could have been. The point is, the Liturgical Calendar and churches put much more emphasis on the penitential parts of the Calendar than it does other days. This is not true with the five feast days.

Fifth, these five days remind us of foundational truths found in the Apostle’s Creed. The Apostle’s Creed speaks of ‘born of the Virgin Mary [Christmas], suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried [Good Friday], he descended into hell, the third day he rose from the dead [Easter], He ascended into heaven to sitteth at the right hand of God the Father [Ascension Day]” And it goes on to speak of the “The Holy Ghost” [Pentecost]. These are fundamental beliefs of the Christian. The Five Feast days just give us days to remember them. Like the memorial stones of the OT, they are their so we do not forget or take for granted.

Again, I do not think it should be required that a Church follow such things, but I do not think it scrapes against Protestant or Reformed Theology to celebrate them with a biblical worship service, and perhaps a meal afterwards for fellowship. I do believe there is a real difference in the theology that underpins these celebrations and the theology of the Liturgical Calendar. So go and have a good Ascension Day. It would be interesting to see how many actually had a service today.

It is that time of year again . . .

It is that time of year again when all the denominations get together for their respective meetings. I leave for Synod next week. This year looks rather tame compared to the last years and I am hopeful it will go smoothly.

However, other denominations do not look as smooth. The PCA has a report coming back about the Federal Vision and Rev. Jeff Meyers has posted 30 Reasons not to adopt the report. I will attempt to summarize his 30 reasons into a few.
1. The PCA is not Strict Subscription – points 1,2,10,11,12, 13, 15, 16, and 17. Meyers has a point here. It does appear to me that this report may have a hard time fitting in with the idea of ‘Good Faith Subscription’, but that is the bed the PCA made for themselves.
2. Disagreement with the conclusions of the report – points 9, 14, 20, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 (possibly 16) – This is a legitimate reason to vote against the report. The question is do people agree with him or not.
3. Sour Grapes and Church Politics – 3,4,5, and 6 – Rev. Meyers thinks a FV proponent should have been on the committee. I agree that it looks like a railroad by not having a FV man on a Study Committee, but this why you vote on things at the GA. If the report is wrong, vote it down. This is not a reason to vote against it, but the reason you have votes in the first place.
4. The Report is unconvincing – points 8, 18, and 19 – A legitimate reason to vote against the report if one agrees with his conclusion about the lack of meat in the report.
5. The Judicial Nature of the Study Committee – points 28 and 29 – A very good point. One I have made before as well. There are procedure and protections that exist (and rightfully so) in a judicial process that do not exist in a study committee. It seems odd to pretend that this is not part of a disciplinary procedure. This is clearly a great reason to vote against the formation of the committee, but is it a reason to vote against it now that it is created? A dilemma for sure.
6. Obviously inappropriate treatment – point 7 – This is sad, and I hope it is an oversight. It is against the Standing Rules in the RCUS not to turn in a Report 4 weeks prior to the Synod. How did this report not get into the Commissioners Handbook? Wow. A stunning development that is just inappropriate all around.
7. Because the conversation is good – point 30 – This is by far the worst of his reasons. It seems obvious that not all agree this conversation is good. The idea that a conversation is not a movement and thus it should allowed to continue is hard to fathom. I poor ending to an otherwise nice contribution to the debate by Rev. Meyers.

If you want a more critical and through treatment Green Baggins is going through them. I think he is up to Point 16. This has helped launch the firestorm that provoked responses from Mark Horne and Uri Brito. Just to name a few. While I am against the FV, I do think they have some legitimate complaints about the way the PCA has handled this situation. On the other hand, Mr. Brito has done his fair share of mistreating in his Senior Paper for Reformed Theological Seminary. Mr. Brito has managed to take the entire FV debate and throw it out the window as Personality Clashes, mainly by those anti-FV men like Green Baggins and John Robbins. The fact that the two sides cannot even agree that real differences exist between them really disappoints me. If you wondered why the RCUS no longer funds or supports RTS, look no further than the paper of Mr. Brito.

All in all, it will be a wild and strange few months. I thank God I am in the RCUS everyday.

More objections to the Liturgical Calendar

I have been discussing my objections to the Liturgical Year or Liturgical Calendar. I thought I would add a few much more general objections before discussing the Continental Reformed practice of Feast Days.

My first objection is that it de-emphasizes part of the year. Roughly half of the year is spent celebrating seasons of the church and the other half is called "ordinary time". Some denominations try to spice that up a little by calling it "kingdomtide", but the effect is the same. Church is just ordinary when it is not Advent or Lent or some other season. The special season have special colors, rituals, and celebrations all their own, and then ordinary time has only Sundays. It is simple human nature to see what the reaction to the non-seasonal aspects of the year will be. It will be looked down upon, or overlooked as people wait on the next season of the year. This is not a healthy view of Church life.

My second objection is that too much time is spent penitentially preparing and not enough time celebrating what we already have. Advent is a time to repent and prepare. Lent is a time to repent and prepare. Lent is 40 days plus Sundays, and Advent is over twenty-eight days counting Sundays. Christmas season is twelve days, and Eastertide is fifty days. However, Eastertide really only has Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost as the celebrations as opposed to Lent which has Holy Week (an event every day), Ash Wednesday, St. Patrick’s Day, and other days that are taken more seriously by Rome than by Protestants like the Annunciation. The focus of the year falls heavily on the penitential time of Lent and Advent. This sort of emphasis fits well with the Roman Catholic dogma, but does it have a place in Protestantism where we do not earn salvation but it is freely given?

A sub-point of my second objection is how this makes us view the Lord’s Day. Is it ever right to have the church covered in Penitential Purple on the day we celebrate the victory of Jesus Christ over the grave and over sin? Even though Lent does not require fasting on Sunday’s because it recognizes the inherent problems with such a position, the church is still focused on the teaching of Lent (penitence) during the Lord’s Day that fall during that time. Advent is the same way. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is to be celebrated every Sunday. I think legitimate concerns can be raised about the Liturgical Calendar and this point of doctrine and practice.

My third objection is the circular nature of the calendar is stale, artificial, and not the cycle God gave us. While I do not go as far as men like Hughes Oliphant Old who linked the Liturgical Calander with nature worship (Penitential mourning at Advent coincides with Winter, joyous celebration occurs with the return of Spring signaled by Easter), I do think the calendar does not follow the clear cycle set forth by God for us. The week is created for us to work six and worship one. This is clear-cut in the Scripture, and I believe undermined by the Calendar as Sundays are lowered beneath special days (maybe not in theory but often in practice). This combined with never ending cycle of preparing-brief celebration-nothing-preparing-brief celebration make me think the criticism of a stale worship falls both ways at least.

A fourth and final objection is the nature of the Post-Pentecost Church. The Liturgical Calendar is focused on reliving the Incarnation, Suffering, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. While no one disagrees those are important points of the Gospel, the question is whether or not we are to relive them as a church over and over again. While Old Testament Israel was set up on a series of feasts and festivals, the New Testament church is never given such commands or examples. Pentecost comes and the Church is now for all nations and is free from those OT festivals because they are fulfilled in Christ. One of the main differences between the Liturgical Calendar and the Non-Calendar position is the idea of a Post-Pentecost church. The Calendar relives the life of Christ every year while the Non-Calendar lives in the Spirit every week. What I mean by that is that church that does not follow the Calendar is free to follow the Spirit’s guidance, to preach on whatever seems important, focus on specific issues, respond to needs, and celebrate the life and death and resurrection from the dead of Christ how it sees fit. I think this is an important difference between the Liturgical Calendar and non-Calendar churches.

Evolutionists at War

Just in case you do not think that Evolutionists are in an all out war to keep their position of power in the scientific community take a look at the well calculated propaganda on Wikipedia. The Evolution page is nice and free from criticism for the most part. It has a few links to its debates with Creationism and other detractors, but no real disagreement on the page. Now take a look at the Intelligent Design Page. Every thing they believe is accompanied by longer refutations. Much of it is also linked to creationism, and shameless attempts to slander Intelligent Design scientists. Notice the page is locked from editing so no one can mess up the masterpiece. If you proceed to their Talk Page you will not only a lively defense being mounted by Evolutionists, but also that the Intelligent Design page has been rated as one of the best in all of Wikipedia. Creation Science does not fare much better.

The Anti-American Media

Ever wonder if the media really hates America? Well, there is a real easy test coming up soon. Just watch your favorite news show and see how much coverage the 400 Anniversary of the first English settlement in America receives. You can start today by seeing how much coverage the Queen of England gets as she commemorates Jamestown on tonight's news.

I am not holding my breath for a very good response from MSNBC.

Holy Week Celebrations

Holy Week is the last part and the culmination of Lent. It should be mentioned that according to the Liturgical Calendar, Easter is the beginning of a distinct section from Lent. Holy Week is a term that in and of itself should give us problems.

Palm Sunday is the beginning of Holy Week. This is where the triumphal entry is re-enacted as the congregation parades in waving palm branches (or a variant depending on the availability of palms). I have often wondered why this is a day the church celebrates in such a fashion. After all, Jesus wept when he saw the Hebrews waving their palms in the air because he knew their praises false and empty. Why would the church want to re-enact such a thing. Let us not forget that the palms are considered sacramentals just like the ashes for Ash Wednesday.

Maundy Thursday is the next big day in the Holy Week celebration. It is the day of the institution of the Last Supper, so the churches gather together and take communion or Mass. Many churches also practice foot washing at this particular service. All of the extra communion bread and wine are kept for the Good Friday service (at least in the Roman church) because no consecration of the bread is allowed on Good Friday. The notable ending to the Maundy Thursday service is usually the stripping of the altar bare. Everything is removed.

Good Friday services and Holy Saturday are usually services devoid of communion. Any communion taken on Good Friday had to be left over from Maundy Thursday, and usually the main event is an unveiling of a crucifix as the only adornment on the walls. All the other things were removed at the conclusion of the Maundy Thursday service. Holy Saturday services usually forbid the taking of communion and all liturgy. They are centered around prayer vigils awaiting the Easter morning. Just for some perspective John Armstrong blogged about Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday this year as a time of worship that involves body and mind.

Again, my opposition to the Holy Week is the underlying purpose of Holy Week and its special celebrations. No, I do not think the purpose of Holy Week is to remember the death of Christ. Don’t we do that more often than once a year? The purpose for Holy Week is to prepare for Easter, but to prepare by re-enacting the end of the life of Christ. In case you disagree notice how Greg Grant feels when a Christ candle is reintroduced during a Tenebrae service. The re-enacting the life of Christ fits with the message of expiation from our sins of Lent. Not only does it fit it teaches it. It is built into the rituals of Holy Week. Read the Duke Divinity school online article. Notice how the Hatians were "bodily participating" in the suffering of Christ, and more importantly:

they knew that it was somehow wrong to listen to words proclaiming the death of Christ while resting comfortably.

Why on earth would it be wrong to listen to death of Christ in physical comfort? The answer is that there is something important about the suffering you inflict upon yourself. Not unlike the monks who flogged themselves for their sin. No liturgy is offered on Holy Saturday because as Father Cusick explains:

No liturgy is celebrated on Holy Saturday, for Christ's Church cannot pray except through the living Christ.

What? We have no living Christ? Does not this take the re-enactment of the last week of Christ’s life to far and miss the glory that we have living on this side of the Resurrection? I think the obvious answer is yes, unless all of this is part of a ritual package that focuses on penance and expiation of one’s sins that somehow needs to relive the sufferings of Christ every year.

The idea of penance, expiation, Lent, and Holy Week are bound together. Protestant churches that practice these things with the same rituals do nothing to free themselves from such teachings. Take a look again at the practices of more Roman Catholic countries at the bottom of the Holy Week page. The self-flagellation and suffering in order to do penance is astounding, and should not be dismissed as besides the point. If one thinks that this is still not part of the make up of Lent itself then a few questions need to be answered? Why does Lent have to involve giving up something hard to give up? Why cannot it not be 40 days of praying more or going to church more, but giving up nothing? Why is it not promising to watch 40 movies with religious themes, or spiritual themes? Why is it not just a prescribed set of Bible readings? Why does the preparation for Easter involve suffering at all? Why is the Good Friday service austere? Should we not celebrate the death of Jesus Christ as a good thing? The same can be said of Holy Saturday. I hope Protestants will think more seriously about taking on these type services. They are becoming more and more common, and I am not sure the church is reflecting enough upon these matters. Even if one disagrees with me surely we can agree that real thought and dialogue needs to take place prior to taking on these practices.

A Quick Note

I have family in so I won’t be getting to posting the examination of Palm Sunday and Holy Week in the next few days. But, I will leave you with hope for the future in the form of the Pittsburgh Pirates, who are now climbing the standings. This is all with one of their best relievers on the Disabled List, their batting champ struggling to find his grove after a spring of injuries, and a slow start from their pitching ace. Notice when you look at the standings that the Pirates have not lost a game to Houston all year (4-0), have a good record against the Cardinals (2-3), and have a .500 record on the road.

Also do not forget that the Denver Nuggets are in the playoffs, but will find a way to blow their early series lead.

Ash Wednesday

Since I have already argued against the practice of Lent in general it is not hard to see why I am against Ash Wednesday in particular. It is a day that means nothing more than the beginning of Lent, which is found no where in Scripture. That alone ought to give us pause, but Ash Wednesday goes deeper, and is more Romanizing than much of the Lenten practices. Not only does this begin the day when the Penitential Fasting (or giving up something) begins, which we have stated is supposed to expiate our sins in the Roman tradition, but also it is a day of receiving ash on one’s head.

This ash is not supposed to be washed off, but rather worn around all day. This is a problem because of Matthew 6-16-18. Here our savior teaches that we should not draw attention to ourselves when we fast, but ashes on the forehead cannot be seen as anything else. It is a sign that one is following the practice of fasting. This violation of Scripture is enough to throw away any idea of Ash Wednesday, but there is more.

The ashes used are known as sacramentals. Basically, it is not a sacrament, but not just a rite either. Sacrament lite is a good way to think of it. Read this discussion of sacramentals.

Besides the efficacy which the sacramentals possess in common with other good works they have a special efficacy of their own. If their whole value proceeded from the opus operantis, all external good works could be called sacramentals. The special virtue recognized by the Church and experienced by Christians in the sacramentals should consist in the official prayers whereby we implore God to pour forth special graces on those who make use of the sacramentals. These prayers move God to give graces which He would not otherwise give, and when not infallibly acceded to it is for reasons known to His Wisdom.

Here we clearly see the idea that sacramentals are good works that merit something from God, a purely Roman idea. But they also go further and derive a special blessing for those participating in a sacramental. What special benefits, you ask. Read more.

One of the most remarkable effects of sacramentals is the virtue to drive away evil spirits whose mysterious and baleful operations affect sometimes the physical activity of man. To combat this occult power the Church has recourse to exorcism and sacramentals. Another effect is the delivery of the soul from sin and the penalties therefor.

The sacramentals can protect us from demons and deliver our souls from the penalty of sin. The ashes in Ash Wednesday are classified as sacramentals and help deliver us from the penalty of sin. It is not possible to remove this underlying theology from the practice of Ash Wednesday, especially if the practice of Ash Wednesday is virtually identical.

To Lent or not to Lent

It cannot be denied that the Liturgical Calendar is making a big comeback in Reformed circles. Talk of Lent and Advent abound on Presbyterian blogs. Sadly, after many centuries, I think that this is one area of the church that still needs to be studied and discussed. In the RCUS, the German Reformed tradition, we keep five feast days, and that is all of the Liturgical Calander we observe. We celebrate Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost. Over the next several blogs, I would like to argue for this mode of Liturgical calander and against other forms.

My friend, James Solis made an excellent observation about Lent and the Regulative Principle when he spoke of ‘not requiring the observance’ rather than ‘forbidding’ it. I echo those sentiments when it comes to individuals. If someone wants to fast or give up something during Lent, the church should not forbid them from doing so. However, I also believe that theology lies at the root of all things. The Theology of Lent needs to be examined before any church enters into it as a church. I would argue that Lent has a Romanizing tendency because of the theology upon which it and its practices are based.

Reformed Catholicism copies an article that contains good information on Lent and its history. I want to echo their and Francis Beckwith’s rejection of argumentation that simply dismisses the Lenten season as pagan in origin. While I do think the claims Lent was celebrated as far back as Irenaeus (d.203) are dubious because they rest on the idea that a two day fast is the same as a 40 day season of Lent, it is apparent the church has celebrated Lent since about 6th century.

So why then do I oppose Lent? Am I opposed to fasting? No, although fasting is not an end in and of itself. Fasting is to be done for a purpose, and always coupled with prayer. I think we can all agree on that. I could disagree that one needs to fast to prepare for Easter, especially for 40 days, but since most people now days just give up one thing for 40 days, I won’t bore you. Am I opposed to ‘Holy Days’? No, as I said the RCUS celebrates five a year. I will deal more with that objection, and why I disagree with it in a future post.

As I said, I am against Lent because it is inherently a Romanizing practice. See how the Romanists define Lent and its purpose.

Lent, then, is a time consecrated in an especial manner to penance; and this penance is mainly practiced by fasting. Fasting is an abstinence, which man voluntarily imposes upon himself as an expiation for sin, and which, during Lent, is practiced in obedience to the general law of the Church.

Expiation is a payment for the penalty of sin. Here we clearly see Lent as a payment for our sins, a payment made voluntarily by ourselves. Reformed believers traditionally say the expiation of our sin occurs when Christ suffers and dies for us, and that we make no expiation because Christ finished it on the cross. The Romanists have always insisted that we participate in our salvation by our work, and Lent is no different. The entire season is about us suffering in order to participate or share in the sufferings of Christ. This is the idea I want to explore more, but for now, I think this post is long enough.

In summary, the theology of Lent is a Roman Catholic, faith plus works, creation. The practice of Lent reinforces and indirectly teaches the Roman doctrine; therefore, I believe it should be avoided by Protestants.

The Visible/Invisible Church Distinction and Dispute

There has been a lot of debate about the Invisible church and the Visible church with regards to the Federal Vision. Doug Wilson has a a post about it, which led to a reaction from Lane, and one probably only has to look a few seconds to find much more.

Personally, I think this debate is a side issue in the Federal Vision controversy, and perhaps even a distraction from real issues. Rev. Wilson’s denial of the Invisible/Visible church distinction is more a result of his more fundamental errors, than an error in and of itself, in my humble opinion. I have my problems on both sides of this debate, and so I thought I might as well toss my two cents into the ring while the going is good.

Rev. Wilson protests loudly that he agrees with the doctrine of the terms Visible and Invisible Church, and that his distinctions have the ‘same substantive meaning’ (which by the way in short is the visible church is the church in history and it is mixed with false professors and hypocrites, and the invisible church is the elect). In my opinion whether he does or does not agree with the substance of the Visible/Invisible distinction is not the point. His preferred distinction of Historical and Eschatological Church is not the same distinction. That is an important fact. One that Wilson readily admits in The Federal Vision.

I want to suggest that the difficulty is not that we have made a distinction, but rather that by misunderstanding our terminology, we have tended to make an ontological distinction instead of an historical distinction (Federal Vision, pg. 266).

I would argue that ontology is exactly what is meant by the distinction, and it is exactly what Wilson jettisons. The Wilsonian Historical/Eschatological distinction is not a distinction of ontology at all, but rather only a distinction of when one is in history. It is all a historical distinction. Again Wilson explains.

The true Church is the Church in history [Historical], gathered throng of all professing households, assembled in covenant around the Word and Christ’s sacraments. At the end of all history [Eschatological], this same Church will be revealed to an astonished universe . . . (Ibid., 269).

Notice his distinction is only a historical one. The Eschatological church is at the point in history when Christ comes again. He explains further.

Those who are in the historical Church should not see that church as defiled because it is earthly, but rather as immature because it is early (Ibid., pg. 268).

Here Wilson shows us that the Historical Church is just early or young. That is the only difference. It is not an ontological difference of being, but a simple difference of time. Do not over look the ‘poisoning of the well’ by trying to make those holding to a Invisible church dualistic or gnostic. It is part of his outlook. Notice what he writes:

Our problem is that we have tended to think in the Platonic categories of the Greeks instead of the historical and eschatological categories of the Jews (Ibid., pg.267).

This sweeping generalization takes for granted that a Platonic outlook is bad. And while no one is arguing for his view of matter, his ontological view of universals existing outside of this world is one the church held and in many places still held. The discussion of whether or not Plato’s metaphysics are biblical or not is not a one sentence endeavor. Of course Wilson offers no defense for his Aristotlean metaphysic which underpins his Historical/Eschatological distinction.

Now let me say a few words about the critics of Wilson in this interaction. I enjoyed Rev. White’s paper very much. It deals with some good exegetical points which should be brought forward more often. But, Rev. White dismisses the philosophical character of this debate with a wave of his hand as well by stating, "The Reformed did not call it a Church of the elect because it was a separate Church up in heaven or some ideal, Platonic form." ‘Platonic’ is a word used to derogatory and it helps dismiss one’s opponent because of all the baggage it brings. Plato was no Christian. However, his metaphysical theory of Realism is not to be thrown away so easily, and I would have liked to see a more consistent interaction with this philosophical idea. Rev. White freely notes that traditionally critics of the Visible/Invisible distinction have viewed it as related to Plato’s philosophy. The nature of the church is being debated but not a word about philosophy is being spoken. I find that a shame, and part of our problem.
Also, too much ink is being spilled defending the idea when the main point is being shoved to a final paragraph, even a final sentence. Lane does finally say, "This is one of the most powerful arguments against the FV. Members of the visible church who are not elect do not enjoy union and communion with God."

That is the main subject of debate. Rev. Wilson would probably love to keep the debate about the Visible/Invisible distinction forever because it is so theoretical. Rev. Wilson thinks all members, even one’s who fall away, have a real union with Christ. This is because he thinks the Church a repository of grace that is dispensed via the Sacraments (see above quote from Wilson). His rejection of the visible/invisible church is simply an outgrowth of his Sacramentalism, which is a subject that touches on justification by faith. Now we are to the subject where ink should be spilled. Note Rev. White’s first application of the visible/invisible church distinction.

From the context of the passages above and others, we can see how this doctrine [Invisible Church]may be used. The first use is that we might avoid presumption. As we can see from the history of Israel and most of the rest of Church history, there is a great tendency of man to rely on participation in a few external rites for his salvation

While Rev. White does not specifically note it, this is the reason Wilson rejects the Visible/Invisible distinction. The debate need go no further than this solitary point. Do the sacraments and rites of the church save us or not? If one comes down on Wilson’s side, then rejection of the distinction at hand is logical, if not, then there is no need to worry because they will accept it. Let us not worry so much about the branches of the Federal Vision, but drive home the ax to its root.

Why D.C. does not deserve a vote

The District of Columbia currently does not have a vote in Congress, and it should stay that way. The Democrats have committed themselves to giving the residents of the Federal City a vote, but the Republicans used an amendment to block it. Make no mistake it will be back to plague America again, and soon.

It should be noted that I have a brother who lives in the District, and as long as he does, he does not deserve a vote in Congress. No one forced him to live there. When I visit him I see nothing but the arrogant license plates that proclaim "Taxation without Representation", as if some how the struggle for D.C. Congressional vote is the same as our nations struggle for liberty. The people of the District conveniently forget that the same Founding Fathers who made that claim against England are the ones who made sure the District would not have a vote.

My reasons for opposing D.C. getting a vote are twofold. First, the Constitution plainly forbids it. Article 1 Section 2 states, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States". Note the word State. The District of Columbia is not a state. It is not governed by a state constitution, there is no governor, no state house of representatives, nothing. But that cannot happen because the land is under federal dominion. Thus, the Constitution prohibits it from having a vote. The House of Representatives is for Representatives of states, not cities much less Federal Districts. Section 8 of the same article gives Congress the power over any district where the capital might be located and the same powers over land purchased from the states for things like Forts, dock-yard, and other "needful buildings". Clearly the Constitution puts Federal land under Congress, not as a part of it. The Federal District is on the level of Forts and dock-yards. The D.C. Voting Rights bill is clearly unconstitutional. This was recognized in 1978 when a Democratic Congress passed an amendment to the Constitution to give D.C. a vote, but it was killed by the states.

Second, the bill is not just a harmless attempt to franchise tax-payers, it is an outright attack on the foundation of the government. The Nation was bold enough to mention the true goal of this bill, eventual statehood or more likely full representation. It is unprecedented to think of people being represented in the House, but not the Senate. The next push would be for D.C. to get the required two Senators. After all, they are already in the House. Let us not forget about the Electoral College. A vote in Congress is not the same as getting a vote for President, and that would soon be pushed for as well. A city would soon be granted the same privileges as the states. In effect, it would destroy the idea of states. Passing this bill would already be saying that ‘states’ as found in the Constitution means nothing (see Article 1 section 2). The system of checks and balances so often talked about is not to be primarily between branches of the Federal Government, but to be between the States and the Federal Government. Republicans and Democrats alike have long been attacking the rights and even idea of states, and this bill is another step in the obliteration of states all together.

Don’t believe me? Think I am paranoid? Perhaps you have forgotten the attempt to end the Electoral College. Candidate for President Hillary Clinton is on record as being against the Electoral College. And it was not just a fad. Maryland’s Democratic Congress just gave its Democratic Governor a bill that abolishes the Electoral College, and he is going to sign it.

This is a war that will not end because the states stand in the way of an expansive and abusive Federal government. Which is after all, the only thing Republicans and Democrats really want.

Baseball 2007

It is time for my 2007 baseball picks. In a few short months you will all be awed by my genius, or I will again look stupid. Here they are:

NL East – New York Mets – this division is weaker than last year, but the Mets are about the same. Even without Pedro, they should have what it takes to win this division.

NL Central – Pittsburgh Pirates – It is a wide open division, but with the Cardinals and Astros losing so much pitching, they will not hold on to their top spots. The team with the best pitching will win and that rules out the Cubs and Reds, leaving the Pirates young staff and improved offense to take the day.

NL West – San Diego Padres – This is another weak division, but no one really looks even competitive. The Padres have Jake Peavy and added Greg Maddox. Their offense should be good enough.

Wild Card – This is a little tougher. I do not think the Dodgers will stay healthy enough to make a run, so I am going to go with the Reds. The Brewers are overrated with an outfield that is untested and quarrelling. The Reds will not see the same sort of good pitching from Bonson Arroyo, but probably can hold off the Brewers and the Cubs, whose defense will do them in.

AL East – New York Yankees – Do not be fooled by pitchers from Japan. They start great, but will slow down by the end of the year. The Red Sox are a shell of their former selves, and the Blue Jays let Ted Lilly go, probably costing themselves the title. All that and Roger Clemens will probably end up in the Bronx.

AL Central – Minnesota Twins – The best division in baseball. The Tigers will put up a fight, but the Twins have great depth on the bench and on the mound. They have expendable left handers to trade in mid-season, and they have the most underrated manager in the big leagues. You will see Matt Garza as a starter. Remember last year they started Lirano in the bullpen as well. It is a formula that always works for the Twins.

AL West – LA Angels – I think the A’s are going to fall short and the pitching of LAA will be good. They have a great bullpen and Vlad Guerreo. With a lot of teams to beat up on, this team will look better than they are.

Wild Card – Detroit Tigers – These young arms may not flop like the White Sox staff did, but they will not be the same as last year. Plus, you can count on Kenny Rogers being much worse. The addition of Sheffield is good, but his defense is still suspect. They should take the Wild Card without much problem over teams like Boston and Oakland.

I will go on to predict the National League champions to be the New York Mets. The American League Champions will be the Minnesota Twins, but I think the Tigers and Twins are headed for a showdown. It may come down to who makes the best mid-season moves. I will take the Minnesota Twins as the World Champs.

Enjoy the greatest weekend in sports!!!

Babe Ruth the Home Run King

I just finished reading a wonderful book about Babe Ruth called The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs. Now I should tell you up-front that I think Ty Cobb is the greatest baseball player that ever lived, and this book did not change my mind, but it is still great. The author assumes power is good, and that is why he cannot factor in the greatness of Ty Cobb; however, he did change my mind on where Babe Ruth ranks on the all time greatest athletes. I think I would actually have to say that I might put Babe tied with Jim Thorpe for #1 after reading this book.

The book begins with a short year by year history of Babe’s great career including wonderful coverage of what was then called ‘Barnstorming.’ Major leaguers did not earn the same sort of money back then, so they often traveled around after the season was over and played exhibition games until Oct. 31st to get more money. Babe did this extensively. The author, Bill Jenkinson, draws your specific attention to the big blasts Babe hit during his career.

Next, Mr. Jenkinson begins his analysis of such wondrous feats of hitting, and compares them to the great sluggers of all time. The results cannot be disputed. Babe Ruth was the best. Just take a look at this fact comparison. Mr. Jenkinson declares that homeruns of 450 feet or further are monumental blasts that only power hitters can reach. 500 feet is the sign of greatness. Steroid inhanced Barry Bonds has hit 36 such drives (none of 500 feet) in his career (all but three in the last 6 years of his career). Mark McGwire hit a nice total of 74 (all during a four year span near the end of his career). Babe Ruth hit 198! 198 that went for homeruns and no less than 80 more that did not count as homeruns because 450 feet did not reach the seats in 8 out of 9 American league ball parks during Ruth’s day. Do not forget that the first four years of Babe’ career, he was a full time pitcher. A pitcher that (if he had enough innings to qualify) has a top ten winning percentage and ERA of all time. He had more wins in his first four years than Greg Maddox, Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, and Roger Clemens. There is little doubt that if Babe had remained a pitcher, he would be in the Hall of Fame with well over 300 wins.

Mr. Jenkinson then dispels all myths that baseball is tougher today than it was during Babe Ruth’s time. I can only cover a few of the examples he gives. He includes that the all day game schedule while wearing wool uniforms, modern medicine, modern hydration, air conditioning, first class travel, hollow bats, lighter bats (Babe Ruth used a 54 oz. Bat), the higher pitching mound, the batter’s eye that is now in every major league ball park (it was non-existent in Babe’s day), watered down pitching, and several others. All favor modern hitters. A few deserve special attention.

It is not uncommon to hear the complain made that Babe Ruth did not play against African American athletes, and thus cannot be measured against modern day talent. This statement is simply untrue for several reasons. One, the addition of black athletes has seen many power statistics go up, but it has not done anything to change ERA stats. For whatever reason, one cannot prove the addition of black athletes has improved pitching. Two, Babe Ruth played against Negro League Ball Clubs a lot. Mr. Jenkinson has documented (verified of course) 55 at bats Babe Ruth had against Negro League clubs. Ruth actually had a higher batting average (.400) with 12 home runs. This is a small sample, but most White papers would not report his games against Black teams, and black papers would usually not report it unless Babe did poorly. He also lets us know about many more tales from Negro League players themselves, but did not include them in the stats because no newspaper verified the account. The Late Buck O’Neill told a story of Ruth hitting a long centerfield homerun off of Satchel Paige in Paige’s prime, but it could not be verified.

A second thing that must be noted is Babe Ruth played in a time when the rules and ballparks were against power hitters. The center field fence in Yankee Stadium was 490 feet away. No one in today’s game has to try and reach bleachers that are that far away. Babe Ruth also spent most of his career trying to hit spitballs, which were legal. He also rarely got a clean, white ball. Today the ball is removed after any contact with dirt. More importantly, homeruns were judged differently near the foul line. Today if the ball crosses the fence in fair territory it is ruled a homerun. In Babe Ruth’s time if the ball crossed the fence in fair territory, but landed in foul territory, it was a foul ball. Ruth lost several homeruns a season that way. Ruth also lost multiple homeruns to the lack of standard rules. In Philadelphia Ruth hit a homerun that bounced off a loud speaker on a pole 400 feet away and 20 feet in the air. The ball bounced off the speaker and returned to field of play. It was not ruled a homerun, but rather only a double. This actually happened twice in one year. Today that would have been ruled a homerun.

This all leads to the conclusion and point of his book. Jenkinson projects totals of homeruns if Ruth played in modern ballparks with modern rules. This is done to put to rest any idea that Barry Bonds is a better hitter than Babe Ruth. The results are quite frightening. The 1927 season where Babe Ruth hit 60 homeruns translates into 91 homeruns today. However more impressively was the 1921 season where Babe hit 59 homeruns. Jenkinson walks us through the process. First, Jenkinson deducts a few homeruns from Ruth’s total because Yankee Stadium’s notoriously short right field porch was actually a few feet shorter in Ruth’s years. So those that landed only a few feet over the fence were removed. Then those that would have crossed the fence in fair territory, but were ruled foul are added in. Actually he adds in less than half to be conservative. That returns the total to 58. Then there are at least 10 confirmed base hits by Ruth that bounced high off the then 12 foot high fence in right field. Jenkinson credits Babe with only 2 to raise the total to 60. Then at least 40 balls were confirmed to have landed between 440 and 475 feet between the right and left center. Because of the size of old stadiums, these were not homeruns, but would have all easily cleared the fences of modern stadiums. This gets the Bambino to an even 100 homeruns. Then four more are added because of the 162 game schedule (as opposed to 154). This ends with a total of 104 homeruns. And this is a very conservative estimate. How many times did a sports writer not bother to record a 415 foot pop out? Those blasts would have left any modern yard, but would have been directly at a Ruth-era center fielder. Ruth does not get credit for any of those. For more convincing proof, go read the book.

So the next time you hear someone talk about what a great power hitter Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire or anyone is, just remember he needs to hit 104 homeruns to catch the Babe.

Andrew Sandlin: Neo Con

Andrew Sandlin has a thought provoking piece written by David Bashen about the Paleo Conservative and Neo Conservative split. Interestingly both men side with the Neo Conservatives over the Paleo Conservatives. Sandlin writes:

In a post-9-11 world, I simply cannot endorse the paleo-con option, as much as I can respect those who hold it. As the threats change, our manner of dealing with must change, too.

And Mr. Bashen argues:

That the GOP has been repugnantly guilty of growing the government is not for dispute, and I am as sickened by “No Child Left Behind” and the Prescription Drug Bill as I have ever been. However, Mr. Novak is clearly linking the two together in a way I find very disturbing (presuming that pro-war Republicans are also pro-big spending Republicans). There is room for intelligent debate on the paleo vs. neocon differences, but one need not be a pro-entitlement, “Teddy Roosevelt” Republican, just because they supported the Iraq war, and just because they take a post-9/11 view of foreign policy.

But actually there is reason to link them. Both the ‘post-9/11 foreign policy’ and increased domestic spending are founded upon the idea that government is the best agency or instrument to accomplish a better world. Big domestic spending is a fundamental point of Neo-Conservatism. Paleo Conservative belief focuses on the individual, but the Neo Conservative view prefers the group to the individual (although it does not go so far as preferring the collective like Communism). George W. Bush himself has declared the role of government when he called for the ‘repsonsibility era’ to replace the ‘era of dependency’. He goes on to say, ‘Government can be a part of helping usher in the responsibility era’(Bush, A Charge to Keep pg. 229. I took it from 8 Ways to Run the Country) This translates into Federal standards of education and the No Child Left Behind Act. It translates into Prescription Drugs on Medicare. It translates in funding Faith Based Programs. It is no longer the ‘maternal welfare state’ but rather a new ‘paternal welfare state’ (according to Irving Kristol) or a ‘welfare society’ (according to Michael Novak) not just a state. Plus the Neo Cons would never dream of limiting government in the ways Paleo Cons desire such as returning to the Gold Standard, balancing the budget, or removing the Department of Education (traditional goals of conservatives). Big government at home always translates to an aggressive big government foreign policy. This is what we see in the Neo-Conservative movement.

Sandlin and Bashen are failing to see the anti-communism, pro-military stance of the Paleo Cons is not the same as the ardent nationalism, pro-war stance of the Neo Cons. Anti-communism, pro military spent large sums of money on defense and always rushed to the aid of an ally in trouble, especially against communism. The ardent nationalism, pro-war group needs not wait for trouble. Pre-emptive wars are the order of the day, and that idea is founded upon a completely different set or presuppositions. Pre-emptive wars are founded upon the idea that Government intervention is good. And if that is true, then it must be true at home as well as abroad.

I am saddened to see that Sandlin and Bashen are neo-conservative converts. Everyone wants to see peace and order in the Middle East. I just disagree that the American government is the best engine to accomplish those goals.

John Tyler Presidential Blunder or Hero?

I have not been keeping up with my book reviews very well. I did finish a nice Presidential biography of John Tyler. John Tyler: The Accidental President by Edward Crapol. Tyler is best known as the first Vice President to take over the Presidency (upon the death of William Henry Harrison), but is also known as ‘America’s Only Traitor President’ because he died serving in the Confederate Congress at Richmond. He was usually referred to as ‘His Accidency’ by the Whigs who hated him because he abandoned the Whig Platform. Thus, the title of the book.

The biography is a very good one, but it only covers his early life and time as President. The book would have been better served to cover his entire political career, especially his time in the Senate. The book would then be able to deal with or resolve some of the internal tensions in the career of President Tyler. Tyler as a Senator waged open war against President Jackson and his extensive use of executive power, but as President he seemed to wage open war on the Congress. Tyler even went so far as to use the ‘executive privilege’ to withhold documents from Congress that we hear so much about today.

Tyler was probably not a unique Southern man, but he is clearly not what I was taught the model Southerner was like. Tyler was an ardent expansionist in his policies, which is inherently nationalistic. It is Tyler who opened the door of trade with the Orient and recognized Hawaii as a republic. He extended the Monroe Doctrine to the Pacific. Tyler took in Texas by a majority vote of both Houses as opposed to the 2/3rds method used for treaty ratification. Hardly the action of a strict constructionist, the position of most Southern men. Tyler was in favor of ending slavery and the slave trade within the District of Columbia, something other Southerners saw as a breach of the Constitution. Tyler thought slavery should be allowed in all the territories (which Southerners did hold), but not for the propagation of slavery rather for its end. He held to the theory that if the Southerners took their slaves to the territories, they would leave the South. Then the territories would outlaw slavery and enter as Free States, and soon the South would have a paucity of slavery and that would allow them to outlaw slavery as well. A theory that I did not realize existed. Tyler also is the only person to vote against the Force Act that allowed Jackson to use force to end the Nullification crisis in South Carolina. The rest of the Southerners just walked out and refused to vote. Tyler also quit the Senate rather than vote to repeal a censure on President. The Virginia State Legislature asked the Virginia Senators to vote to repeal. He did not think he could go against his legislature, but could not in good conscious vote to repeal. So he quit. Tyler also was pro-bank as long as the bank respected the states. He was an interesting man, and sadly this book does not deal with every subject I listed. Instead it focuses on Tyler as the real founder of Manifest Destiny.

I did learn many things I did not know. It was Tyler who single handedly created the way a Vice President ascended to the Presidency. He took the oath, had an inauguration, and re-did the whole works. This was because at that time there was legitimate disagreement about the line of succession. Many thought the Vice President was to serve as President in a ‘place holder’ fashion until another election could be held. Yet, Tyler’s actions created the ‘Tyler precedent’ that was followed by Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, and Johnson (LBJ) as if it were in the Constitution itself. The Tyler precedent was finally put in the Constitution in 25th Amendment. It was also Mrs. Tyler who began the tradition of having the band play ‘Hail to the Chief” for the President.

In the long run, this book is good because President Tyler deserves another look.

Elizabeth Edwards and Stem Cells

I should start off this post by saying that I am sorry that Mrs. Edwards breast cancer is back and has spread. I do pray for her health. However, being sick does not give one permission to be immoral. The media has given her a free ride because of her illness, but I cannot ignore her inciting murder. I do not really have a problem with her decision to campaign (I have a slight problem at the insinuation that those who do stop normal life to fight cancer are doing something wrong), but I do have a problem with her first speech since the announcement.

Mrs. Edwards does use one interesting argument. The "its inevitable, so let us be the first to do it" argument. She basically tells all of us religious nuts who think children are important that we cannot stop embryos from being murdered so why bother stopping federal dollars from doing the killing. After all how would we feel if Communist China beat us in the whole sale slaughter of our own people for scientific advances or worse yet, what if we lose to France? She misses the point that this is not a race to the moon, but rather a matter of murder. Not to mention the fundamental principle that the government should not raise my taxes or take money from me to murder someone else. That idea is despicable.

Mrs. Edwards main argument appears to be that these are not children because they are unwanted. Thus, to her they are "clumps of cells". This is a ridiculous opinion. The very same argument could be made for any unwanted child of any age and every child who is ever abandoned. All human being are "clumps of cells" and if being wanted is the only thing that makes one a person then why not just pick up homeless guys and do experiments on them? No where has Mrs. Edwards even fairly addressed the concern that life begins at conception regardless of what happens after that point. Instead she appeals to pragmatism. Hundreds of babies are going to be throw out, so let us use them to help the rest of society by killing them for science. That is her argument. No trying to defend the defenseless, no appeal to higher moral law, just a plain old self-centered appeal to get what she needs no matter what the cost.

Would Mrs. Edwards be happy if a cure for her cancer were found in the Nazi concentration camps? If Hitler had dissected the Jews instead of putting them in gas chambers and came up with a cure for cancer, would Mrs. Edwards laud him as a hero, ask for government funding, and use the treatments from such butchery? According to her arguments, I think so.

Federal Vision Philosophy

In the last year I have seen several licensure and ordination exams, and the one area where I am always disappointed is philosophy. Philosophy gets a bad rap in most places, but I am convinced that it important, especially for a minister. Don’t get me wrong, I am not the world’s greatest philosopher nor even an average thinker. But, I do believe that knowledge of philosophy (and how it fits with Scripture) aids not only in the engaging culture, but also in the many controversies that consistently arise within the church itself.

Recently I have been thinking about how the Federal Vision controversy and theology could very well be impacted by the fundamental philosophical debate about Universals and Particulars. I am not sure I agree with every thing on this site, but it is a good place to go to get a brush up on the terms as well as some opinions on how the Realism, Moderate Realism, and Nominalism philosophies affect the theories of the Lord’s Supper.

Take for example this statement of Doug Wilson about the Church:

For example, the Protestant terminology can make us think there are really two churches, one invisible in heaven and the other visible here on earth. (Federal Vision, pg. 266)

When you have two churches existing at the same time, with the membership lists not identical, this creates a problem. We know there is only one Church, so which one is the real one? . . . For example, if we are told there are two Peter Smiths, one heavenly and one earthly, we might confused about which one is the real Peter. But confronted with Peter Smith on Monday and again on Tuesday, we do not have any such problem. (Reformed is Not Enough, pg. 70-71)

Rev. Wilson here is saying something about universals and particulars. He is making a highly philosophical statement. In fact he is saying that the ‘universal’ can only be found in the ‘particular’. The two cannot exist at the same time with differences; thus, we must only turn to the one here on earth. He has taken sides in a debate that goes back to Plato vs. Aristotle. And if I am not mistaken in my amateur philosophy, he has taken Aristotle’s side. He has shown himself to be a moderate-realist.

I also think that the Moderate Realist position on the Lord’s Supper is a decent representation of the Federal Vision position. The particular of bread does not become the ‘universal’ of the body of Christ, but it is connected in such a way that the particular (bread) conveys the grace of the universal (body of Christ).

It would be interesting to hear what others think on this. Is there a link between Aristotle’s metaphysics and the Federal Vision theology?

Song in Lord of the Rings

A little while ago I bought and read The Battle for Middle Earth by Fleming Rutledge. The book examines themes as they come up taking you through the story as it unfolds. This makes for an interesting read, and I think this book would be a nice companion that could be used as you read through the LoTR series itself. However, I personally think the LoTR is such a deep series that one book can hardly do it justice. Rutledge focuses in on the theme of divine providence and human responsibility and does it well. But Rutledge misses one of the points that I think is important in the books and absent from the movies (which is why I think the movies are not faithful to the books). Singing.

I believe that singing is the way in which Illvutar (the almighty creator god in the LoTR) breaks into the story and guides his servants. Singing is not just something that is done but plays the role of Scripture because it is the chief means of grace. At the very least singing is sacramental for Tolkien in his series. Just take a look at the characters. The older characters and races that are unaffected by evil are always singing like Treebeard and Tom Bombadil. The Elves are full of song as are the hobbits. The men less so, but the good characters sing, and the orcs never sing. Also the act of singing often brings about a change in attitude or outlook as if grace had been bestowed. Singing was used by Illvutar to create the world in the Simirillion, and is thus to be thought of as connected to the divine. If you still do not think that singing had grace-like effects listen to a few easily over read quotes from the books.

Sam on his first encounter with elves when they were given an elven feast (and hobbits love food):

Sam could never describe in words, nor picture clearly to himself, what he felt or thought that night, though it remained in his memory as one of the chief events of his life. The nearest he ever got was to say: ‘Well, sir, if I could grow apples like that, I would call myself a gardener. But it was the singing that went to my heart, if you know what I mean.’ (Fellowship of the Ring, pg. 92)

The music goes to Sam’s heart, and it is the music, not the food, he remembers of the elves.

Here Pippin talk of the Ents as they marched to Isengard.
There was very much more. A great deal of the song had no words, and was like a music of horns and drums. It was very exciting. But I thought it was only marching music and no more, just a song – until I got there. I know better now. (Two Towers, pg. 186)

Pippin thought the song was just a marching song, but after seeing what the Ents did, he knows better. He no knows that song was not just singing, but something altogether more powerful.

Sam provides one more example as he sits defeated while Frodo is hostage of the Orcs.

At last, weary and feeling finally defeated, he sat on a step below the level of the passage-floor and bowed his head into his hands. It was quiet. The torch, that was already burning low when he arrived, sputtered and went out; and he felt the darkness cover him like a tide. And the softly, to his own surprise, there at the vain end of his long journey and his grief, moved by what thought in his heart he could not tell, Sam began to sing. . . . And then suddenly new strength rose in him, and his voice rang out, while words of his own came unbidden to fit the simple tune. (Return of the King, pg. 194-195)

The song is moved in his heart by something other than himself. The song removes his grief and sorrow. The song stirs him to action as well as gives him strength. Grace through song.

One could recount this all day long. Other lesser examples abound as well such as hearing the song of waterfalls (creation itself), or characters wanting to do the ‘deeds of song’, or even the times when singing was hindered and the people became depressed. In my opinion Tolkien created a world where singing is the primary means of knowing the divine and the primary means of grace. Thus, a movie that omits all songs, omits the very substance of the hope that is within the characters. But, perhaps I am wrong. Go read the books and you tell me.

Blog Update and More Madness

We have been trying to label all the posts and completely take advantage of the blogger upgrades here at the Two-Edged Sword. And by 'we', I mean my wife. She is the computer guru. I basically just answer a question from time to time. But, she is still trying to shake all the bugs out, so please be patient and let us know if you run into any problems.

Speaking of my wife, it is time for our annual competition by filling out our March Madness brackets. So far my wife has beaten me every year excpet one in our seven years of marriage. She never watches a game all year, but spends hours researching after the brackets are announced and usually gets her way. This year she found a site she enjoyed. MSNBC has an interactive bracket that gives stats and opinions on each team when your mouse rolls over them. You click on a team and the computer fills in the bracket for you. Then you get head to head comparisons for every game. It is a nice way to avoid the pencil work and have a nice, neat bracket.

Just for the record, this year I have Wisconsin, Kansas, Georgetown, and Ohio State with Georgetown beating Kansas for the national title.

The Money Behind the Madness

It amazes me every year how awful the Selection Committee for the NCAA Basketball tournament turns out to be. The only thing that bothers me more is the pandering done by ESPN “analysts” like Jay Bilas. ESPN always spends hours arguing the Selection Committee, but never for the right reasons.

Every year the Selection Committee loads the field of 65 teams with teams from the 6 power conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big Twelve, SEC, PAC 10). For example, last year the Big East sent 8 teams. That is half of the teams in the Big East, and the teams made 1/8th of field of 64 (and you really only should count 64). This year the power conferences counted for 34 teams(7 ACC, 4 Big 12, 6 Big East, 6 Big 10, 6 Pac 10, 5 SEC), which comes out to over half of the field no matter how you count them. 25 other conferences fielded a total of 31 teams. Yes, 6 teams made the tournament from non-power conferences without winning their conference. The answer should be obvious to all. The tournament is not about crowning a national champion; it is about money. The big conferences are where the well-known teams are, so they all get in no matter what. They draw more viewers. How else do you explain Texas Tech getting in over Kansas State, who finished higher in the conference and beat Texas Tech in the Conference Tournament, except that Bobby Knight is a house hold name? It is a perversion of justice.

Appalachian State beat Virginia, co-champs of the ACC, Vanderbilt, a tournament team from the SEC, and VCU, champs of their conference, as well as Witchita State for an overall record of 25-7. Don’t forget they lost in the Southern Conference tournament in the semi-finals to the team hosting the tournament, so it should count as a road loss.

Drexel finished their season with a 23-8 record and in the top four of their conference. They beat Syracuse, the Big East favorite of Jay Bilas, and Villanova, a tournament bound team from the Big East, as well as Creighton, a team that made the tournament from their conference. Five of Drexel’s eight losses came against teams headed to the tournament.

Air Force also finished 23-8, and maybe the biggest snub of all. Air Force beat Standford, tournament bound from the Pac 10, Colorado of the Big 12, Texas Tech, a tournament bound Big 12 team, Wake Forest from the ACC, as well as Long Beach St, which is going to the tournament. They also won games against BYU and UNLV, which are both going to the tournament out Air Force’s conference.

Marist won the regular season title of the MAAC. They finished the season with a record of 24-8 with wins over their conferences eventual representative, Niagra, as well as tournament bound Old Dominion, and a victory over Big 10 team Minnesota, at Minnesota. Yet, they were left out of the tournament.

We are supposed to believe that these teams are so bad that they could not pull at 6th place 10-8 record in the PAC 10 (18-12 overall), which got Standford into the tournament. Or an 7th place 8-8 record in the Big 10 (22-11 overall), which got Michigan State into the tournament. Or even a 5th place 9-7 finish in the Big 12 (21-12 overall), which was enough to get Texas Tech into the tournament. Or worse yet an 8th place finish 9-7 in the Big East (22-10 overall), which bought Villanova a place in the Madness. Of course we cannot forget the committee saying that these schools could not break even in the ACC 8-8 for a 6th place finish. That along with a 22-10 record overall got Duke into the tournament.

What is worse is that ESPN and Jay Bilas spent time arguing that 6 at large bids split between 25 conferences is too many. Jay Bilas actually tried to make an argument that Syracuse deserved to be in rather than Xavier. Mr. Bilas examined the stats and revealed that Xavier was 3-2 against teams ranked in the top 50 RPI while Syracuse was 3-7. In Jay Bilas twisted version of reality Syracuse had the same number of wins, and thus should have gotten the bid. So we are to believe that a 30% winning percentage with most of those games played at home is as good as a 60% winning percentage with most of the games on the road. No one in their right mind actually thinks that way. Jay Bilas is out to make sure that no team outside of the 6 power conferences plays in March. In fact, I bet Jay Bilas would be happy if the rest of the conferences just went away.

The solution to this problem is really simple. It just takes a dash of common sense. First, no conference deserves more than four teams. Period. If you are not at or near the top of your conference then you are not an elite team that deserves a shot to play for the national championship. I do not care how good Syracuse is supposed to be when you finish 12th out of 16 in your own league, you do not deserve to make the tournament. This still gives the power conferences 24 teams total. The other 25 leagues will get the remaining 40 bids.

Second, if you must have 65 teams rather than 64 make the play-in game among the power conference teams, not the small conferences. It is always a shame to watch two league champions face off in a play-in game, effectively canceling out one of the automatic bids for the small conferences. Rather make this game a play-in game for the power conferences. For example make Arkansas face off against Illinois. The winner gets an 8 seed, and the loser goes home.

Third, if you must, give the power conferences the high seeds and the small conferences the low seeds. That way the bigger-badder conferences are still rewarded for their ‘tough conference’ and you still have the principle of the best teams meeting late in the tournament.

The benefits of this are enormous and the drawbacks are non-existent. It restores competitive balance throughout college basketball. It makes the regular season more important and conferences tournaments for the big conferences relevant again. Right now a team like UCLA can lose in the first round and still get a number 2 seed. It gives them extra rest before the big tournament, and it might even get their conference another team in the Madness by removing themselves from the tournament.

I hope one day these changes will be made or at least advocated on a supposed Sports News Channel, but don’t hold your breath. There is a better chance of Fox News endorsing Hillary Clinton than ESPN actually using its brain.

Philemon – more than a slave?

It is a strange oddity that the meaning of Philemon is so contested. The main question appears to be, does Paul ask Philemon to liberate his returned-run-away slave, Onesimus. The main answer, historically, seems to have been no Paul does not ask for emancipation. However, I am convinced that he does indeed ask Philemon to release Onesimus, and what is more, I find the evidence fairly overwhelming. I freely admit that I do not own a large quantity of commentaries on Philemon, but John Calvin, Markus Barth, R.L. Dabney, William Henderson, and William Barclay all favor the idea that Philemon is just to forgive Onesimus for running away or give him some kind of cushy-slave job.

Some commentators do appear to favor the idea that Onesiums was to be freed, and slavery as a whole condemned. J.B. Lightfoot seems to hold this view and more recently the always controversial John Robbins. Despite Robbins’s reputation, I believe he is right.

Commentators like Markus Barth get bogged down in minute details, and miss the flow of the argument over all, including the high occurrence of slave related terms.

It seems to me Paul starts out calling Philemon a ‘fellow-laborer’ to bring to mind the idea of a slave immediately. More than that, he applies to both himself, Timothy and Philemon, while in verse two only calling Archippus a ‘fellow-soldier’. Paul goes on to speak of Philemon’s ‘love and faith’, which is an unusual word order placing emphasis on love. It is Philemon’s love toward Jesus and all the saints that is about to be put to the test in how he treats Onesimus, who is a fellow saint. Paul is building up to his point about correct treatment of Onesiums.

In verse 8 Paul says he could command him as an apostle, but would rather appeal to the love toward the saints, and especially toward Jesus, which had just been commended. Of course Paul tops that off with another slave reference. He mentions that he is in bonds for the sake of Jesus and the gospel. He repeats the bonds in verse 10, the first mention of Onesimus. Paul continues to ramp up the argument by saying Onesiums should be received as Paul would be received because Paul would have liked to keep him to minister to him while he is in the bonds of the gospel, another reference to slavery applied to Paul.

Verse 14, the beginning of the height of the argument, Paul explains why he did not command Philemon because this good deed should be done not out of necessity, but voluntarily. Commentators like Barth spend many pages discussing the difference between coercion and free-will decisions, but seem to neglect the fact that this is another slave-reference. Paul does not want Philemon to be coerced like a slave, but make a decision like a free man does. This leads to the famous verse 16 where Paul exhorts Philemon to make Onesimus ‘more than a slave, a brother beloved’. Remember the love of the saints is what Philemon is known for the most. But he is also to make him more than a slave because Onesimus is a beloved brother ‘both in the flesh and in the Lord’. It seems probable to me that ‘the flesh’ here simply means he is a man, a human. Thus, Paul, Philemon, and Onesimus are all brothers because they are all believers in Christ (in the Lord), and because they are all human (in the flesh). Paul is saying Onesimus must be more than a slave because he is a man just like Philemon and Paul.

In the end, I do think Paul is asking for Philemon to release Onesimus from slavery. Too many commentators make a big deal that he never says ‘Emancipate Onesimus’ that they torture the words to make Onesimus being ‘more than a slave’ mean still a slave. I think it is time that we let go of odd bias and see Paul’s argument for what it is, an argument for emancipation.

A few interesting extrabiblical notes, archaeologists have found an inscription on a tomb in Laodicea. The tomb was inscribed by a former slave to the master who freed him. The dead master’s name is Marcus Sestius Philemon. Also we see an Onesimus in the letter of Ignatius to Ephesus. That Onesimus is a man of inexpressable love who is also the bishop of Ephesus. Could that be our Onesimus? It would have made sense that a free Onesimus would have served the church, as he had already served Paul.

A Notice

I am off to The Northern Plains Classis meeting. So, I will not be posting until at least Wednesday. I still have a reply to Xon on to finish writing, so do not lose heart if you are waiting on that reply.

Also before I continue discussing the Federal Vision, I will post some thoughts about Philemon commentaries, which I hope will make Green Baggins respond.

Until I get back, feel free to examine the greatness of the Pittsburgh Penguins, and the bright future for the Pirates. I will probably also have to rant about March Madness, as I have the fever already.