Response to Sandlin's De-Intellectualization Part 3

Part 1
Part 2

Sandlin response part 3

Another important thing to notice in Andrew Sandlin’s article is the latent episcopacy in his thought. Sandlin is in effect arguing for bishops despite the objection to such leaders on the surface. His article starts off commenting on a response to a book written by Carl Trueman. Trueman makes the following criticism of the book Young Restless and Reformed and the movement associated with that title.

First, there is the absence of the church at key points. Now, this criticism needs to be nuanced. All of those mentioned above are churchmen, and none would wish to see their conferences or their personalities becoming in some way substitutes for the institutional church. Yet the danger is always there whereby people become attached to the man rather than to the message or to the church. We are commanded to love the body of Christ; and our leaders are useful only to the extent that they are instrumental to that end.

Sandlin seems to agree with this attack, but feels it does not go far enough. This is when he launches into the his idea about the need for intellectuals and the lack of them in the list of people in this movement. Again note the criticism is that the leaders of this movement may draw a cult of personality rather than draw people into the body of Christ despite the fact that most of the leaders named by Trueman are by his own admission churchmen and pastors.

Sandlin gives a list of people that were leaders of the Reformed ‘Movement’ when he came into it, who were all intellectuals.

Greg Bahnsen, Donald Bloesch, Gordon Clark, John Frame, John Gerstner, J. I. Packer, R. J. Rushdoony, Francis Schaeffer, Cornelius Van Til.

Note these leaders: Bahnsen was ordained, but never a pastor a church as far as I can see. Bloesch taught at a school for his entire career (E&R and UCC if you are interested). Clark was a professor at Wheaton and Butler for most of his career. Frame is a professor for Westminster for most of his career and is currently at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. Gerstner was a professor at Pittsburgh Theological and Knox Theological Seminaries. J. I. Packer is a professor most recently of Regent College in Canada, and never appears to have pastored a church. Francis Schaeffer was a pastor for about 10 years, but is most famous for his work at L’Abri, not his work in a pastorate. Cornelius Van Til was yet another life long professor. He taught at Princeton and Westminster Seminaries. R. J. Rushdoony is an exception as he served as a pastor and a missionary; however, he is again best known for his work as a philosopher and writer.

The point here is this. The very objection made by Trueman and expanded upon by Sandlin can be applied to Sandlin himself. Trueman warns against a cult of personality that will end up with follower of man and not followers of Christ implanted into his church. Trueman makes this critique of men who currently pastor churches like John Piper, Ligon Duncan, and Mark Driscoll. Sandlin feels the critique does not apply to the men of his generation like Bahnsen and Van Til, but why? The reason is because they are the intellectuals, and the current crop of men are not. The critique of having a personality cult does not apply to Van Til, Bahnsen, Clark, and Schaeffer because they taught other people ideas and intellectual innovative ideas (according to Sandlin), and they did not ‘shepherd’ (we have seen what Sandlin thinks of that)

I am not saying that Sandlin is against pastors or against the local church. By no means. But, I am saying that Sandlin clearly believes that the leaders of church as a whole ought to be above that. His argumentation appears that way. Here he is in his own words:

We now have in their [see the above list] stead Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Joshua Harris, Tim Keller, C. J. Mahaney, Albert Mohler, and R. C Sproul — popularizers and pastors and effective leaders, but not intellectuals.

Sandlin then seems to think the church is only "a virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectual force" when it is led by intellectuals who are not pastors. What other way is there to describe this than episcopacy? He may not want the actual church hierarchy to go with it, but effectively he wants a bishopric of the Teacher of the Theology. Only under their guidance and leadership can the church then become effective. Sandlin is actively arguing that the church needs Intellectual Bishops to led the church in a direction that will make it an effective force in the world.

This is neither the time nor the place to argue presbyterian from of church government, but it is the time to point out what Sandlin argues for. He is not really against personality cults. He is just against them if the personalities are pastor popularizers.

Sandlin response part 2

Part 1

The next thing I want to point out about Sandlin’s article, The De-Intellectualization of the Reformed Movement, is the complete and utter lack of respect if not out right contempt for the “pastor”. Sandlin is arguing for more giant intellectuals, and that is okay to want giant intellectuals, public intellectuals, but it is not okay to spurn the pastors of the church in the process. This statement is the first hint that something is amiss.

We were not "shepherded" into the movement; we were tractor-beamed into it by the force of ideas.

I do believe that some people come to the Reformed faith because of the consistency of it logically, or because they see the ‘force of ideas’ that are coming out of it. But does that mean we should mock or put scare quotes around those who were ‘shepherded’ into the Reformed church? Certainly not. Can we not minister to people in different ways? Not everyone is the same. I do not need to prove that the Bible favors shepherding people. That really ought to go without saying.

The critique from Sandlin gets more specific in his last section entitled, ‘The Pastoralization’. That entire section is a derision of pastors. Sandlin means to specifically attack the modern leaders of the Reformed Church who are in his mind Pastors or popularizers, but his attack reveals more than that.

The pastoral concerns — concerns, to be sure, from a Reformed perspective — will predominate. The life of the mind will be pushed to the periphery. Calvinism will be reduced to the institutional church, to the "5 Points," to devotional books, to seventeenth-century reprints. It will become therapeutic recovery for exhausted and jaded Arminians. What it will not be is a virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectual force.

While it is nice he admits pastoral concerns are nice, he separates completely the pastoral concerns from the life of the mind. And this is how I think his attack goes to far. If he thinks that Popularizers are not good for the church as a whole fine. But this attack is not upon popularizing the message. The only fragment of a sentence that can be seen as an attack on popularizing is the ‘5 Points’ comment, which he explained earlier was a term of derision for those that over simplify Calvinism. Devotional material cannot be seen as bad. Should not leaders produce devotional material. Should not pastors be devotional? Is teaching others to be devotional a bad thing? Is it a good thing that Sandlin approves of intellectual leaders who could not write a devotional book if their life depended upon it? I do not think so. I can agree that the church should not be mainly a place of recovery for jaded Arminians, but how can one object to the church being a refuge for such people? I am not sure, but Sandlin appears to object. His comment about the 17th century reprints actual belongs in his earlier paragraph, and his attack on the institutional church is just confusing? Should we be encouraging the non-institutional church? What is it that we do not like about churches? One can only assume it is because they are too ‘pastoral.’

Sandlin then continues his assualt and goes overboard once again.

We should not be surprised that this reduction of Calvinism should occur in a deeply postmodern age — an age that eschews rigorous thinking and sharp distinctions, that delights in "community" and warm emotions, that craves not truth but "relationships." In this way, despite their antipathy to postmodernism, the new non-public intellectual pastoral Calvinists reflect a concession to today’s "postmodern turn."

Now it is true that post-modernism hates truth and prefers relationships. But does that mean that relationships and truth are really against one another? No, of course not. The church can have both, and should have both. Of course intellectual leaders and book writing can only have truth and has nothing to do with relationships or community. However, the bible has different views. We are commanded to come together and worship and not neglect the communion of the saints so that we can provoke one another to good works (Hebrews 10:24-25). It seems the author of Hebrews believes that relationships and community provoke people to good works in their life. Their life in the world. Sandlin of course disagrees:

How can we have a virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectual force when we lack virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectuals

Again Hebrews seems to answer this question at least in part with community and relationships. Sandlin thinks such ‘pastoralization’ a bad idea.

Sandlin's De-Intellectualization: A Response Part I

Andrew Sandlin has written a blog called, The De-Intellectualization of the Reformed Movement. It is a piece that deserves attention and probably will receive several responses from me at least because of the many things within it that deserve full treatment by all men.

I do want to say right off the top that I am not against intellectuals or the church having rigorous thinking. I think Sandlin and I would define intellectual very differently, but I understand and appreciate his point that the church needs serious thinkers to interact with the culture at large.

That being said, I disagree with almost everything else said in the blog/article. Let us start with what everyone is expecting me to say: this is pure blooded theological development. I have long thought Sandlin is the most honest and up-front about his holding to theological development that is similar to Schaff. Sandlin again makes that clear here. He starts it in the very title by making sure he always refers to it as the Reformed Movement rather than Reformed Theology or the Reformed Church or the Reformed Tradition. All of that is pushed aside so that we know to be truly reformed means to be moving into new theological ideas all the time. He praises the idea of theologians doing ‘paradematic science’ which he defines as:

"Paradigmatic science," on the other hand, is a landscape-altering scholarship that rearranges the scholarly data into a new model or way of looking.

What Sandlin advocates is a completely new way of looking at the Bible or at Christ or the world through Christ or something. He leaves it a little unclear, but what he misses is the people who took Christianity and jumbled it up, changed it up, twisted it up, and said "here a new theology." To Sandlin that is the heritage of the Reformation. I could not disagree more. Sandlin goes on to bemoan the fact that

The latter [Van Til, Rushdoony, among others], creative thinkers, were, in one way or another, reshaping the theological landscape. The former [Scott Clark, Lig Duncan among others], plodding thinkers, are today trying to get the landscape back to what it looked like before the creative interlopers came along and messed up the lawn.

Sandlin glorifies the ‘creative thinker’ as if the Bible needs to be viewed creatively. If we need to reshape what the Bible teaches every generation or maybe even more often. When we see this love of theological development in Sandlin, it becomes easy to see how this undergirds the modern movements toward Theonomy and why so many theonomists continued on into the Federal Vision. And one can see why Norman Shepherd is beloved. They crave the new. Anyone who comes along and preaches a new way of doing ‘Christianity’ will be the champion. Those who desire something new will continue to move with any new thing because the newness is itself a good virtue. Not following new things is a sad misplaced staleness which Sandlin insults as plodding thinking. He continues his backhanded assault.

First, the bright younger leaders, lacking the intellectual firepower of their immediate predecessors, retrench in a scholastic orthodoxy, taking refuge in the older confessions, wary of the speculation, innovation and daring that characterized those predecessors and committing themselves to policing the ranks of all heterodoxies — real or imagined.

Listen to the insults and see what he is actually insulting. Yes, he is insulting everyone who is not following some new trend and some people are specifically named. But look at what else he insults. "They take refuge in the older confessions". The confessions themselves are insults. Who would want to cling to such ‘old’ (read ‘outdated’) relics. Only the wimps, the intellectual lightweights. The confessions are not good because they do not speculate, change, and innovate. This is very much like Nevin’s comment that they are a ‘necessary evil’. Once people use creeds to hold on to they have missed the point and become intellectual lightweights.

Where oh where do we see the Bible speak like this? Does the Bible invite us to innovate or does it say that it can be understood now and forever. "And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And the flower falls away, But the word of the Lord endures forever." (I Peter 2:24-25). Does the meaning of the Bible change or does it endure as a timeless truth to be held by all?
I cannot but help but think of Jeremiah 6:16, "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein."

More to come

Sectarianism?

This quote from James Jordan says it all.

“The sectarian compares the weakness of other churches to his own supposed strength, and pronounces them apostate on that basis. The catholic notes the weakness of other churches, and because of that tries to work with them, and prays for them. The sectarian thinks history has ended; the catholic realizes that it has not. (If anything, by the way, ‘postmillennialists’ should be even more flexibly catholic than others, because they believe that history has a long way to go, and that theology and ecclesiology will be developing for centuries to come.)”
- James Jordan, The Sociology of the Church, pg. 59

I took this quote from The Liturgical Institute.

The sentence in the parenthesis is what needs pointing out the most. Theology and ecclesiology will be developing for centuries to come! That is a bold statement. Let me boil it down. It basically means that
1) James Jordan knows that Christ will not return for centuries to come, 2) that everything we know about Christ, the Trinity, salvation, the church, and the Bible are all wrong, 3) we need to be willing to jump on whatever new fad comes along.

Call me sectarian if you like, but that is clearly what he is saying. Some might come along and try to paint theological development as like ‘organic’ growth or ‘aging’ growth. They like to use the comparison of math. They argue as follows: ‘When you are young all you know is 2+2=4. But soon you learn division and then geometry and maybe even a little calculus. That never invalidates 2+2=4, but builds upon it.’ That is a nice try at a defense, but it is wrong. The whole idea of theological development is not based on a math model, but on Hegel’s dialectic model. Where the thesis and the antithesis make a new synthesis. The original thesis and antithesis are now both wrong. They are not built upon, they are left behind. So it is with theological development. The more honest thinkers will admit that (see Philip Schaff), but that is hard to come by today. The other reason the analogy with math breaks down is because of the nature of theology. Justification by Faith Alone is invalidated if add works to it. It is no longer justification by faith alone. One can change the definition of the word ‘faith’ or the word ‘alone’, but it still invalidates the original claim, and it does not build upon it.

I am tired of people telling me that the church is ignorant and needs a few centuries to grow up. The truth is the truth yesterday, today, and forever.

Competing Visions

I was fascinated by the difference between a couple of Conservative visions for America’s future that I came across. The two visions are Grover Norquist’s and Judge Andrew Napolitano’s. Norquist lays out a very positive and hopeful vision of an America who is coming around to the conservative way of thinking in his book Leave Us Aloneand Napolitano spreads doom and gloom in The Constitution in Exile (his other book Constituional Chaos is similar).

There are some differences in approach that might explain the difference in vision for America’s future. Norquist takes a shorter historical glance backward. He mainly talks of how far America has come since FDR and LBJ. Napolitano looks all the way back to the Founding Fathers and shows how the Constitution is now universally ignored. Napolitano does also focus more on the Supreme Court. He spends equal time on all three branches in his book, but Norquist says very little about the Supreme Court in his book. Norquist instead focuses on the elected positions. The liberal nature of the Supreme Court and its left leaning decisions could cause one to have a more negative outlook on the future of the country.

The two books are a fascinating glimpse in the Conservative mindset, and current status. Norquist is focused on the endless possibilities if the Republican Party would just preach the message of the ‘Leave Us Alone Coalition’. He has endless numbers and arguments to back up his assertions that the American publc at large would rather be left alone. He does this for guns, family, taxes, education, religion, and a few other things. Norquist is full invested in the two party system and practicalities of winning elections. For him the Leave Us Alone Coalition is the Republican Party and the Takings Coalition is the Democratic Party. He lays out his blueprint for electoral success, which does call for some changes in how the Republican Party runs things, and makes his arguments in favor of it. Napolitano has some figures and numbers, but is not really interested in winning elections, but seem rather to be raising the alarm bell. Rather than quoting numbers all the time, he cites specific examples, usually of court cases. He gives concrete examples of times the Patriot Act has been used to prosecute child pornography and copy write infringement rather than terrorists. Napolitano is short on help and long on misery. He does provide a short chapter at the end suggesting some changes that might stop the ignoring of the Constitution. Sadly, his suggestions were all amendments to the Constitution to clarify it. Of course if the meaning is ignored now, will clarifying it really solve the problem, or will it just continue to be ignored?

In the end, I believe Napolitano has it right. The Republican Party is worthless as it is currently structured. Norquist is so caught up in the Republican Party that he cannot see what is really going on. He criticizes McCain in the early parts of the book, but the book as a whole ends up clearly calling people to stick with the Republicans, even McCain who signed some pledge about taxes. Despite the evidence to the contrary Norquist blindly trusts that the Republican Party will return to their roots of the ‘Leave us Alone Coalition’. What Norquist fails to see is that the Republican Party’s roots are not in the Leave Us Alone Coalition and never have been. With the possible exception of Reagan, there has not been a Leave Us Alone Republican elected to the White House. The Party itself was founded on violating the Constitution and its meaning. This is where the short sighted view of history comes back to hurt him. While I agree with Norquist that if people vote the way they believe about being left alone it would carry the day, I disagree with him that the Republican Party is the tool to do that anymore. He also does not understand the politics of some states. He boasts in the book that the Republicans could have 60 Senators if solidly ‘red’ states like North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana to name a few vote Republican for senators like they do for President. He misses the point that people in the Dakotas are not fully ‘red’ or ‘Leave us Aloners.’ He misses the point that some states prefer Republican Commander-in-Chiefs, but could care less about Republican Senators. He fails to see trends in places like Minnesota. These places like the odd ball outsiders like Jesse Ventura. Or Wisconsin that has a long history of sending people from one extreme or another to the Senate rather than being consistent on which extreme it is. Wisconsin has liberal Senator Russ Fiengold, one of the most liberal. But it was barely 50 years ago that they sent Joe McCarthy to the Senate several times. He, by the way, dethroned the Progressive Party’s leading family the LaFollete’s from the Senate. These fundamental misunderstandings make me have to side with Napolitano.

Also everyone needs to take a look at Napolitano’s book just to see the astunding lies we are told everyday about our government. The chapters on the Patriot Act alone are worth the book. The brief discussion about Natural Law versus Positive Law is good, and having someone lay side by side the founding vision of this country and the current state of things is a shocking eye opener.

The Republican Party had a clear choice in this election. Continue on the path of liberalism with McCain. Focus on financial stability and spending cuts with Romney or follow the Constitution with Paul. They chose liberalism. The direction of the Party is set in stone.

Pirate Trading Deadline

Well another trading deadline has come and gone and once again the Pirates are a brand new team. I think the Pirates may be a better team in the long run, but this last deal sending Jason Bay to Boston leaves some question in my mind.

The earlier deal that sent Xavier Nady and Desmond Marte to New York for a 19 year old outfielder and three pitchers, one of witch joined the Pirates immediately was a great deal. The Pirates need to get some pitching in their minor league system. This year has shown they have nothing in the upper parts of the farm system. This deal netted them two in the minor league system and one who immediately helped fill in the blanks of an injury plagued starting rotation. Nady was going to leave and Marte would not have been resigned. They would have gotten two draft picks of compensation for Marte, but the Pirates drafting record on pitchers is not so good, and it puts the rebuilding off long term.

This new deal has the potential to be very good. They parted ways with Jason Bay, which was sad. He was signed for another year, so I was kind of hoping to keep him around. But, they got a third baseman in the deal. Jose Bautista, the current 3rd baseman is a joke. He is the giant hole in the Pirate line-up. The Dodgers gave up third baseman Andy LaRoche to Pittsburgh. Andy is the brother of Adam who plays firstbase for the Pirates. Adam is another joke because he does not start hitting at all until the All Star break. He is a big disappointment. Andy has only played a handful of games, but is hitting on .203 with the Dodgers. That is not a good sign. However, he is a highly touted prospect, and men that know more than I do think he will be good. The Dodgers also gave up a starting pitching prospect in Brain Morris. He is being sent to the Pirates Single A team. Another pitcher to add depth to the farm system.

The Red Sox gave up Craig Hansen, a middle reliever, which the Pirates could use, but it is not a desperate need. He is mediocre so far this year, but it should be easier to pitch in the National League. The other player in the deal from Boston is Brandon Moss. He has been on the Red Sox as a back up outfielder and is hitting .299 in limited time. It will be a step down from Jason Bay, and I do not see a long-term future for this guy in Pittsburgh, but it allows McCutchen to stay in Triple A until the roster expands. One could easily see next year’s outfield being McCutchen, McClouth, and Morgan with Pierce playing first base and Adam LaRoche riding the bench. That would be nice. Complete that picture with Neil Walker at third, Freddy Sanchez at second and Jack Wilson at short and Doumit behind the plate and Paulino backing him up and the Pirates have a lot of young talent.

I suppose for the Pirates the main part of this deal is insurance. They added depth to their pitching both starting and relief. They also added Moss and LaRoche who can serve as insurance just in case Morgan never learns to hit consistently and Walker does not pan out at third. The addition of Andy LaRoche at third may delay Walker another year in the minors.

So overall I give the Pirates a B+ on this year of trading. The Nady-Marte trade was perfect. The Pirates lost nothing they were not going to lose anyway and it cleared the way for that Triple A outfield to start making its way to the majors. The depth to the pitching was the most important thing. It also added a long term outfielder who was a few years away, but a big time talent. This Red Sox trade continued adding depth to the pitching, but it also got a few players who appear to be in the same slots as current Pirate prospects. I would rather have seen another pitcher or a first basemen, even a short stop (as I am not sold on Brian Bixler).

To put it a more dramatic way, the Pirate outfield this year had a higher combined batting average and more RBI’s than the starting outfield for the National League in the All Star game. The Triple A outfield for the Pirates was arguably more talented than their major league one. Yes, we dumped two of the starting outfielders, one was going to go anyway. But, we also added two more outfielders. Add to that fact that Chris Duffy is making his way back and now the Pirates still have three outfield spots for 8 outfielders. That alone downgrades this trading year to a B+.

Suffer the Little Children

I am now back from camp, and I am happy to report that the counselors won the annual volleyball game again. I enjoy camp once I am there, but I never look forward to it. Leaving the family is not easy once you pass the age of about 18. Camp is a young person thing, not so much for old guys like me.

Still, I believe church camps are good and do a lot of good in the life of the church. Not only does it bring young people together from many churches creating a network of professing, believing, young people, but also it can serve to guide them and teach them in addition to entertain them. Our Heidelberg Youth Camp is very good at that, especially with the Senior High. Still, I do sometimes wonder if we could do more to engage the Junior High and even Senior High where they are. I always come back from camp learning that we are not doing a good enough job of reaching these kids and enabling them to deal with the trials that they normally face. Is the church speaking about tattoos, cuttings, and the like? Are we speaking to the dangers of on-line relationships, Facebook, and the new media that these kids are consumed by? Are we speaking to escapism of books, the moral assault of TV, and the worldviews of movies?

I come back every year challenged that the church needs to equip parents and get involved with young people on their level so that they can make Christian decisions. When we as a church think and talk about evangelism we need also to think and talk about reaching out to unbelieving children as well as adults. I fear that too often the church desires to raise its own kids in a Christian manner, but never plans to reach out to the lost until they have jobs and are all grown up. This was clearly not the way the early church did it as you read about the church running schools all the time. It was clearly not the way that Jesus did it. Not only do you have the rebuke of the disciples when Jesus utters his famous phrase of let the little children come to me (Matthew 19:13-14), but also you have instances such as Matthew 21:15 where the children are crying out praises to Jesus in the temple. Here it makes the Pharisees angry and they demand he stop them. Children are a battleground and it makes the enemy angry when the little children praise God. I pray that we as a church are able to reach out to the children of unbelievers and reach them with the gospel.

Creation Museum

I was able to attend and go through the Creation Museum in Kentucky near the Ohio border on this vacation. I was both extremely pleased and very disappointed. Let me explain.
I was not expecting the amazing quality of everything done in the Creation Museum. They make wonderful use of multimedia and it really is a museum for the 21st century. They have an expansive location, a planetarium, a movie room, and several nice places to eat. Even walking through the museum you see many flatscreen TVs and then every now and then you get a well done four minute video in a video hall to break up the walking. It is very nice. As far as production quality it is second to none. No one can really complain about the money put into the museum or think that this is some sort of second class rip off of a real museum. I mean in the movie theater the chair’s squirted water at me! Come on, that is high tech at least.
However, I was disappointed in the experience overall. I did not think that the Creation Museum knew the audience it wished to attract. The movie I watched in the movie room (Men in White I believe it was called) was geared toward middle school kids who attend public school. It was primarily meant to help them refute evolution and find meaning in the universe. It was chock full of facts, but since it is a movie it was hardly documented. The evangelistic appeal was minimal, and the science fit into an entertaining film for the age group. Next, I went to the planetarium. Here was a high quality display of astronomy. I learned a lot and it was heavy on the science. In fact, I would go as far to say that this was geared mainly for adults. My kids liked the stars, but the science was way over their heads. It was designed to impress upon you the grandeur of the universe and it does well. Then after lunch, I went through the museum part itself. Now they do not have as many exhibits of actual artifacts as a normal museum because it is new and that is expensive. They have few dinosaur bones and eggs, but most of the museum is multimedia and robotic displays. That is good. However, the “museum” is actually a walk through biblical history and the culture designed to get you to sign a sinner’s prayer card at the end of the tour. It contains a movie that depicts Christ visibly for those of you concerned about the second commandment. A few of the rooms were nice and contained displays about actual ‘creation science’ but most of it is walking through a modern day slum so we can see the result of our sin or walking through a room where robotic Noah talks to his sons who build the ark as robotic sinners mock him. Sure that room has one or two nice things to read about the ark, but really, it is pointless. The design of the actual ‘museum’ is purely an attempt to get you to convert to Christianity.
Thus, the three major parts of the museum do not fit together. The actual museum is so ‘repent and believe’ oriented that the people who are looking for actual science that is found in the planetarium will be disappointed and it is religious enough to guarantee that no public schools will be taking field trips to this museum making the movie room pointless.
It also left out a lot of things that I think it should have focused on. There is a second movie room about Dragons and dragon lore around the world as a proof of dinosaurs alive after the flood. This 10 minute movie deserved more time and a room in the museum proper.
One more good thing to say is that the gift shop is good. It contains not only many books about science from a creationist perspective, but it contains other good books as well. I did see at least a few apologetic books, mostly Josh McDowell kind of stuff, but Greg Bashen’s presuppositional book is in there. They have a lot of stuff by and about Bishop Ussher including a biography that went well beyond his creation work.
All in all, I was disappointed by the museum. I felt it could have set itself up as a real alternative kind of museum, but instead it comes off as a ‘repent and believe’ is the only ‘science’ Christians have. A tad upsetting.

Pirate Update

I am on vacation, so I will just do a quick Pirate update. Let me start by saying that it is time to officially give up on the Pirates post-season chances. Yes, even though they are less than 10 games out of the Wild Card spot, the chance has passed by the Pirates. However, this is a good year for the Pirates over all. One that I think they have taken a step forward and I am excited to see the rest of the season.

First, the Pirates are only six games below .500. That is much better than normal, and the Pirates are coming off a really bad stretch where they had lots of injuries especially to starting pitching. Ian Snell comes back today and Dumatrait came back yesterday. I do believe the Pirates can make .500. That would be a win for the Pirate fans.

Second, the new management looks like it can be trusted. They are doing their best to put a good team on the diamond. They have demoted several high name players to the minors like the starter of the home opener and last year's starting catcher. If they do not produce, they will be sent down. Good message. The big test is the trading deadline. One should expect the Pirates to be sellers again. I fully expect to see John Grabow, a quality left handed reliever to be traded. I also expect the team leader in average and a league leader in RBI's Xavier Nady to be traded. As long as the return is good I am okay with both of those trades. The big question surrounds Jack Wilson. His injury early this year showed how valuable he really is to the Pirates. He needs to stay, but he might be traded. That would be a bad sign without excellent returns. Desmond Marte is another lefty out of the pen that might go, but when he signs with another team in the off season the Pirates will get two first round compensation picks for him, so I doubt he will get traded.

Third, and most important, the Pirates have a good farm system. Their Triple A team has an all star outfield right now. I drove through Indianapolis a few times and got to listen to a few games. Andrew McCutchen is ready for the bigs right now. This is why trading Xavier Nady is okay. McCutchen is the real deal. Although, when Nady gets traded I bet the Pirates will bring up Steven Pearce. Pearce plays right field for the Triple A team, but is a natural first baseman. Bringing him up would allow him to play at both places and let the Pirates sit LaRoche a little more often.

I think the Pirates have a great team that just needs a little more time to gel. Zack Duke and Paul Malhom have held down the pitching this year and that is great news. Dumatrait looks good and Snell will return to form. When that happens, the Pirates will make a run. It looks like it will be next year, but that is close enough to taste right now.

What is the German Reformed Tradition?

I think the German Reformed Tradition is often over looked. This is a fact that few can ignore. When it is remembered, it is almost always remembered incorrectly. People too often associate the German Reformed Tradition with Mercersburg Theology. They do this because people want to define a tradition by the great scholars of the day from that tradition. In America, Mercersburg Seminary was the German Reformed Church’s seminary, and their main scholars put for the Mercersburg Theology. But, that theology was never fully accepted by the German Reformed Church because it was a departure from the German Reformed Tradition. I hope in the some future posts to flesh out what the German Reformed Tradition is and how off Mercersburg was from it, but I will give a brief view of what I believe is the German Reformed Tradition now.

1. Reformed Pietism. Pietism has bad connotations for many, but the German Reformed Tradition is one of Reformed Pietism. It really resisted the Reformed Scholasticism movement of the latter Reformation. Although there is a unique blend of Scholasticism and Pietism in the Heidelberg Catechism. Ursinus was a Scholastic. Olevianus was much more pietistic. Yet, they came together to make the Heidelberg. Note the Heidelberg is written in 1st and 2nd person rather than the usual 3rd person such as the Westminster. The governing principle of the catechism is our comfort in life and death. This is part of the reason that the German Reformed Tradition did not produce grand systematic theologians nor had a seminary of their own until the middle of the 19th century. The church emphasized piety more than scholarship.

2. High Calvinism. The German Reformed Church has always held to a high and strict Calvinism. If one looks at Ursinus’s Major Catechism it does not take long to see the importance placed on election and double predestination. The German delegates at the Synod of Dort were insistent on Limited Atonement. Even the founders of the German Reformed Church in America were very strict. Rev. Boehm rejected the idea of union with the American Presbyterians because they did not specifically hold to the Canons of Dort, and he feared their Calvinism defective. Rev. Schlatter, the architect of the German Reformed Church in America, was well known for his High Calvinism and even later men like Dr. Samuel Hellfinstien, who trained men from the ministry from his house, taught and held to a vigorous High Calvinism.

3. Anti-Revivalism. This was not something that started with Nevin’s critique of the Second Great Awakening. While it is true that during the Second Great Awakening some of their methods had made inroads, it was not all pervasive. Nevin’s book won him a great following because the church as a whole was already not revivalistic. During the First Great Awakening while the other major churches were all suffering splits between pro and anti revival groups, the German Reformed Church lost only one church and one minister. And the church came back. Remember this was also done in the face of Count Zinzendorf who came to America with his Moravian/Revivalistic theology trying to unite all the German Protestant churches. It should also be noted that when the German Reformed Church sought out help from the Presbyterians, they talked to the Old Side/Anti-Revival Synod of Philadelphia.

4. Covenant Theology. This is often over looked when people discuss the Covenant Theologians they go to the Dutch or some other famous seminary professor. But, Olevianus is often considered one of the first Covenant Theologians. Ursinus organized his Major Catechism (before the Heidelberg) around the principle of the covenant. These two men were the fathers of the German Reformed Tradition.

There are other things that can be mentioned as distinctive teachings of German Reformed. It should be noted that the German Reformed did not have the exclusive psalmody history that some of the other branches begin with. It is in Germany that hymnody took hold in the church, and not just with Luther. The Reformed did their share as well.
It should also be noted that the German Reformed Tradition is one of the only ones not to be hampered by Erastianism. At some point the Dutch let the State mingle with the church. The Westminster mingled the church and state. Not so much with the Germans. The Heidelberg Catechism makes it quite clear that the power of the keys rest with the church. It is the church who will do the discipline, not the state. This would have been a clear difference with the Dutch.

I hope to come back to some of this in future posts, but I hope this is a primer for many of you.

Doug Wilson and His General Associations

This is just too much for me to lay off. The RPCNA has just come out with a few short statements rejecting the Federal Vision and the New Perspectives on Paul. Doug Wilson has attacked this statement to no one’s surprise. Now notice his response is an attack on the idea that the RPCNA stated they rejected "the theological views that are generally associated with the movements identified as "the New Perspective(s) on Paul" and the "Federal Vision"." His entire post is rhetorical flourish attacking this one line. Of course he drives it to absurd conclusions, but that is what Rev. Wilson does best: be absurd.

Let us examine exactly why the RPCNA said ‘generally associated’ with the Federal Vision. You may remember those early denunciations of the FV. They did not use ‘generally associated’ and of course the FV proponents jumped all of it. Notice the lines saying the Federal Vision is not a monolithic movement in Joseph Minich’s paper saying that they are not movements but ‘impulses’. That paper is found on the site dedicated to setting the record straight about the Federal Vision. This was of course one of the ways they rejected the attacks on the Federal Vision. Of course if that is not enough proof see Rev. Steve Wilkins’s response to the Mississippi Valley Report. It is his second reason why the report is flawed when it criticizes the Federal Vision. You remember Rev. Wilkins, right? He is the guy who just escaped discipline by fleeing to Doug Wilson’s Confederation. And just in case you did not believe me, we have the joint Federal Vision Statement itself, which I think Doug signed or wrote. It specifically states that the Federal Vision is not a ‘monolithic movement’ and is more accurately called ‘a conversation’, ‘a broad school of thought’, ‘a series of similar questions’ and so on.

So knowing the tendency of Federal Vision advocates to get cranky when lumped together it seems quite reasonable to condemn those ideas generally associated with the FV. If Doug’s complaint is like Mark Horne’s who does not want to condemn innocents by using such a broad brush, they need look no further than the second and third point of their statement. One requires the belief in several things including imputation of active obedience and justification by faith alone, and the other directs people to several other church and seminary papers further defining what they mean in their general denunciation that Doug Wilson finds so broad. Perhaps he should have kept reading.

Let me tell you why this makes me so angry. At best this is Doug Wilson trying to have his cake and eat it too by criticizing either method of attacking the FV. At worst this is Doug being completely disingenuous by taking the opposite side of what he had been doing for so long. However, I could look past both of these things. It was the last lines that made me so upset. After quoting Dr. Scott Clark’s listing of all the denominations that have rejected the FV, he makes this quip.

That's the problem with men like Athanasius. No good at math. Don't know how to count. Can read pretty good though.

Really? So, let me get this analogy straight. Doug Wilson is the persecuted champion of the Trinity. That makes all of those who disagree with him Arians and heretics. Well, at least we can all dispense with the niceties. It is clear that the Federal Vision (and those who associate with it but prefer to call themselves a conversation) is another gospel. They teach another gospel. Finally, Doug is honest, and he rejects the traditional Reformation doctrine of salvation by faith alone as like that of the Arians: heresy.

I hope no one is left who misunderstands exactly where Rev. Wilson stands on the playing field. He is not in the middle, on the side line or in the stands. And he is clearly not on the team of salvation by faith alone.

Baptism and the Covenant

I wanted to blog about this post by Mark Horne over at Biblical Horizons. I know it is a post from long ago, but it was interesting and I thought deserving of a response no matter how late.

The question he is dealing with is whether or not baptism admits one into the covenant or confirms that one is already there. He does some quoting from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and makes his argument that baptism admits one into the covenant. With this I disagree. I shall not deal with Westminster quotes or argumentation because I do not hold to the Westminster and thus shall just let someone else argue about it. However, I should point out that this might be a difference between the Westminster and the Heidelberg Catechism. The HC specifically states about infant baptism, "Yes [infants are to be baptized], for since they, as well as their parents belong to the covenant and people of God," (Q.74). Thus, the reason given for infant baptism by the Heidelberg is that the infants already belong to the covenant of God. It should also be noted that the Heidelberg is explicit that sacraments are for assurance and confirmation not for conveying (see Q.65 and 67). The Westminster is less clear.

Rev. Horne does nice work in examining OT passages regarding the Passover, special feasts and circumcision. He has some ideas about why women were unclean after birth and whether or not that makes babies unclean and why that puts circumcision on the 8th day. I do believe he drifts into some speculation such as making the argument that children in utero were partaking of the Passover. He even goes so far as to make this an argument for paedocommunion. This makes the sacrament more about the act of eating than anything else. I find little support for the idea that babies getting nourishment through an umbilical cord is seen biblically as participating in the feasts of the OT. But I digress. Rev. Horne does deal with many Psalms that indicate a special saving relationship between God and the unborn (8.2; 22.9-10; 71.5-6, 17). He also mentions else where Samson and one could add John the Baptist as well. His answer is that is because the child is "in" the mother or "covered by the mother". He gives his defense from the ceremonial law. It makes for interesting reading.

But, I disagree because of a verse that Rev. Horne did not discuss. Genesis 17:7 speaks of the covenant and who it is with. Note the language. "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Here we see the covenant is with God and Abraham, but also with his seed. At this time of course Abraham has no seed, but the covenant is still with them. They are not yet in their mother so the idea of the mother covering them cannot be used in this example. They are already parties to the covenant. The seed of Abraham are already made parties to the covenant here in Genesis 17. Rev. Horne does deal with Genesis 17:14 where the uncircumcised male child shall be cut off for breaking the covenant. Rev. Horne believes this only applies to the adult, but admits that language like this is used and the line is hazy. However, I think that Genesis 17 fits nicely with the Psalms mentioned above by us both that God is in covenant relationship with them already, prior to baptism.

It should also be noted that both the Belgic and the Heidelberg list as reasons for baptism of infants the fact that the promise of salvation is to them. Of course the Matthew passage of let the little children come to me is listed (19:14). And the Belgic makes reference to Leviticus 12:6-8 where the command is given to sacrifice for a child born either male or female. Females of course did not have circumcision, but they had the promise of redemption as seen in the sacrifice, thus they should be baptized. And the fact that the promise of redemption was for these children, it implies that they are a part of the covenant by birth. Rev. Horne fails to deal with this difficulty as well. If circumcision admitted one into the covenant rather than serving as a sign of it or confirmation of it, were women in the covenant? If so, how did they get in? Their birth alone cannot be the reason or all of the argumentation is undone. It would be helpful for Rev. Horne to address this problem in his argument.

The article is interesting and his admonition to deal with the book of Leviticus and OT typology is well taken. This book cannot be ignored. However, in the end, I find his argument wanting, and I must take the opposite position. I believe, along with the Three Forms of Unity, that baptism does not admit one into the covenant, but rather confirms one as already in it.

Supreme Court Failing on Habeas Corpus

I was extremely disappointed in the court’s ruling the other day about the Writ of Habeas Corpus and the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Not that I disagree with the outcome. I just thought that the reasoning of both the majority and the minority were wrong. I do agree with Justice Scalia that the majority opinion is based on a judicial power grab. That is fairly plain and simple to see. He does a nice job of exposing that in his dissent. What Justice Scalia fails to do is convince me that people can be held forever without charges (his dissent begins on pg. 110).

First, let us just remember that the right of Habeas Corpus, the right not to be held without trial, is a fundamental right. It is not established or given to us by the Constitution, or even by English Common Law, but rather it is ours by Natural Law. This is clearly set forward in the Declaration of Independence. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness given to us by our Creator. He and He alone is the source of these rights. Such truths are self-evident.

Now I have to admit that I was extremely disappointed the four conservative justices voted against this. It is telling in my opinion that the led of the dissent is not a legal argument but circumstances of our danger. The closing line is also not a legal argument but a statement of our danger. It seems to me that this may have been the motivating factor in the decision.

His legal arguments appear to be that the Constitution does not extend to Guantanamo Bay since it is “located within the sovereign territory of Cuba” (pg. 116). However, does this mean the Cubans run the base? No. That is not the case. Being within the territory of Cuba is not the same as being under Cuban authority. If the Cubans were to attack Guantanamo, would we consider it an attack on American soil or an attack on our sovereignty? I think we would, and rightly so in my opinion. Embassies are considered foreign soil. Our American embassies are considered under American authority despite the fact that they are within the sovereign territories of other countries. I see no reason military bases do have the same standard applied to them. So his reasoning there seems lacking.

Scalia goes onto his main point that the writ of Habeas Corpus does not extend to foreigners. The clause in the Constitution that allows Congress to suspend Habeas Corpus during times of “rebellion or invasion” makes it clear that the writ discussed is only that of American citizens. I agree with that. Although it should be noted that neither exists in this case. Scalia points to Prisoners of War and a few cases regarding the lack of Habeas Corpus for those captured during war. Again, I agree with the situation of POW’s. However, this is not what is going on now. Prisoners of War are kept during war until the end of war when they are returned. Yet, Congress has not declared war. We are not at war. If you look at the Presidential symbol the eagle’s head is still pointed toward the olive branches. We are not at war. Yet, Scalia refers to these detainees as enemy combatants. They are prisoners of the War on Terror. This undeclared War on Terror then makes these people enemy combatants. Such logic elludes me. When is the war on Terror over? On page 111 (page 2 of the dissent) Scalia states that “America is at war with Islamists”. Really? All of them? We have not yet fired at shot at Hamas or Hezbollah. Surely they count as radical Islamists. What about Yemen or Saudia Arabia. They have many radicals. Are we at war with them as well? Would we have the right to swoop in and hold the leader of Iran (I am not even going to try and spell his name) for six years or more simply because he is a radical Islamist? I think not. What is more, what about Minneapolis, Minnesota. That city has some radical Islamists, can we take them to Guantanamo and hold them forever? No, I think not. Again we have never declared war on radical Islam.

The point being that the War on Terror or the War on Radical Islamists are idealistic wars, not actual wars. Thus, I do not think that POW’s can be used as an example. The War on Terror may never end. Surely Justice Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas, would not say that we could scoop up poor people in Mexico and hold them at the US Embassy in Mexico City because we are currently in a War on Poverty. Surely they would not think that we could kidnap Columbian drug lords and hold them at military bases around the globe forever because we are in a War on Drugs.

Another point can be made here and should be. If I agree that the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution is only talking of American citizens, does that mean that foreigners have no rights? Of course not. If we want to find out what the original intent of the Constitution was, then we would understand that we were never to detain foreigners even if they were fighting America. That is a power not granted to the government in the Constitution. Yes, the clause on the writ does not apply to them, but the Constitution does not enumerate a power that allows detention of foreigners either. This can be illustrated by the commonality of prisoner exchanges in actual wars like the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and so on. Even during actual wars the government did not keep prisoners forever. Occassionally prisoners were just released on their honor to go home and not fight anymore as if they were still prisoners. Do you think that people obeyed such things? Well, let us just say General Winfield Scott, presidential candidate in 1856, broke his vow after being captured in the War of 1812. This would cut down Scalia’s argument that people return to fight on the battlefield when let go. The founders thought this an insufficient reason to hold enemies. When Grant stopped prisoner exchanges during the Civil War it was a huge scandal. Such things were not done. One could even sight Andrew Jackson who hung two English citizens in a military tribunal after capturing them in Spanish Florida for aiding Indians in their fight against America. This caused a huge controversy. England almost declared war except that America apologized for its behavior.

The main point I want to make is that people have the right to liberty, and our government cannot take it away. Justice Scalia is right. Many of these terrorists might go back and do something stupid like fight us again. However, that does not give us the right to imprison them without charges. It does not give us the right to hold them until we deem the days of terror over. He has a right to be free simply because he is made in the image of God even if he is going to do something sinful and stupid with that right. If he has committed a crime then he should be charged and tried like everybody else.

Thus, I was disappointed with both sides in this decision. I long for a day when the court stops playing politics, stops following Positivism, and stops playing games with the Constitution and the Natural law upon which it was founded.

I expect apologies

HA! I was right! I was right! I was right! The NBA did rig games and they used the refs to do it. I was right!

I have had that theory since I was young. I used to tell my family that I could predict who would win a playoff game after watching the first 5 minutes based on foul calls. I had an extermely high success rate. My family never believed me and mocked me ruthlessly. Today's revelation was not one to me. Just confirmation of a long known fact. I cannot believe that this is not getting more notice. The consipiracy theorists that have been mocked by their families and by ESPN, I might add, deserve apologies.

I hope the NBA goes away never to return.

Another Tyler Biography

I promise to get back to my look at apologetics soon. However, I feel compelled to write a book review of John Tyler: Champion of the Old South. Do not let the sub title fool you. This is simply a biography of John Tyler and a very fair one at that. It is much better than the previous Tyler biography I read and reviewed. This biography defends Tyler from the charges of inconsistency and does so very well. He endeavors to defend why Tyler went over to the Whig party and how Tyler still remained true to his beliefs at the same time. Although he does not mind criticizing Tyler as he makes it clear that it was a political mistake for Tyler to do it; however, it was not political inconsistency.

That is what makes this book so great. You follow Tyler through his entire life, not just his presidency or his years in the Senate. The writer, Oliver Perry Chitwood, is very insightful. Of course he is critical of the slavery issue with Tyler, but it is not the main focus of the book as the sub title might imply. As you travel through Tyler’s life and one learns of all the things Tyler did you get the occasional aside from Chitwood that examines Tyler’s actions. One that was particularly fascinating was when Tyler and other famous Virginians responded to the call to revamp the State Constitution. Most of the calls of unfairness in the old Constitution came from present day West Virginia, then still a part of Virginia. Yet Tyler and the rest of the leaders of the state came from the East and depended upon the famous families for support who all lived in the East. Thus, while the Constitution was updated some, it did not address they carefully avoided dealing with the real complaints of the westerners. This kept the people on the other side of the mountains furious, underrepresented in Virginia politics, and created a bitter feeling of being cheated by the leaders of Virginia. Chitwood believes that this failure to bind the west to the east in Virginia as South Carolina had done when she rewrote her Constitution directly cost the South the Civil War. Western Virginia was loyal to the North and made Lee have to fight that area of Virginia rather than have it as a base for the South. West Virginia was soon created and the North had a new ally against the Old Dominion. It was an interesting hypothesis that makes you stop and think. That is happened a lot during this very good biography.

Do not expect Chitwood to be a story telling biographer like a David McCullough, but he is a thought provoking biographer and that to me is more important. If you are interested in John Tyler this is the biography you should read.

Man after God’s own heart

I have just completed a very edifying (to me at least) series on the Life of David. I enjoyed it immensely and it was eye opening to me often. Of course I think the question that cannot be ignored when studying David is what exactly does it mean that David is a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14, and again in 16:7). However, I was extremely disappointed in the commentaries I often used because they did not pay enough attention to this question, and thus, I also think they missed one of the major themes of the books of Samuel. Admittedly, this is partly because our English Bible as two books of Samuel as opposed to the Hebrew Bible, which has Samuel as one book. Thus, the commentaries were often broken up into 1 and then 2 Samuel and would look for themes in each book rather than find a unifying theme or a theme that ran throughout.

For example, Joyce Baldwin does not even make a comment at all upon 1 Samuel 13:14 as if it was not that important. Keil and Delitzch do not spend long upon it nor do they reference 1 Samuel 13:14 when God says he looks upon the heart at the anointing of David (16:7). I think that comment is meant to remind us that God has chosen a man after his own heart to be the next king as well as make the contrast between David and Saul clear. Dale Ralph Davis’s commentary on 2 Samuel is more about the kingdom than about David, and his quoting of the 1 Samuel 13 is only to point out flaws in David and never to define what is meant by the phrase. Walter Brueggemann actually jumps off his liberal leaning deep end in 1 Samuel 13:14 and has a very sympathetic view of Saul! No kidding. He actually thinks Samuel withheld the promise from Saul on purpose and had been looking for an excuse to remove Saul from the throne. Brueggemenn argues that the punishment is far to severe. Disturbing. Even the book, After God’s Own Heart: The Gospel According to David by Mark Boda only mentions the verse twice. I do think Boda gets it right on page 136 when he says that David’s quick repentance at Nathan’s revelation in 2 Samuel 12 shows that David is a man after God’s own heart as opposed to Saul who argued with Samuel’s proclamation of sin. However, he failed to carry that short paragraph through the whole book.

I believe that the text is saying that David is a man after God’s own heart and the rest of Samuel reveals what that means. Basically, I think the text is showing us that David is a man after God’s own heart because David loves God’s word. That is what the text tries to show over and over and over again. We get stories of David in Chronicles as well, but Chronicles is clearly following the temple. Samuel is contrasting David’s attitude toward the Word of God with those around him. First, Saul, later Joab, Absolam, and a host of others. Let me try to illustrate. I will focus on David’s life, but I think it is apparent earlier in Samuel too for example Samuel’s own reaction to God speaking as opposed to Eli’s sons or even Eli himself.

It starts at the introduction of Saul. Saul is annointed King over Israel in chapter 10 verse 1, but it not made public to Israel. Yet when it is public, Saul is hidding among the equipment (v.22). Not exactly a bold trust or ready acceptance of God’s word. Of course in chapter 13 Saul is already elevating himself as the King of Kings and ignoring God’s word. He does not wait for Samuel to make the Sacrifice. His sin is primarily not obeying the word of God as given by Samuel, not in doing the work of a priest (13:13). He is finally rejected as king in chapter 15 because he disobeys the word again. Chapter 16 David is promised that he will be king and in chapter 17 we see the story of Goliath. Here David does not fear and kills Goliath while Saul sits in his tent and trusts in armor more than in God. Notice in places like chapter 20 that Jonathan believes the promise or word of God to David and chooses David over Saul. Note in chapter 22:5 of 1 Samuel how quickly David obeys rebuke from God this time through the prophet Gad. The rest of chapter 22 is devoted to Saul making war on God and his Word by trying to kill all the priests. Notice how David turns to get a word from the Lord through the priests/ephod in chapter 23. Every time David spares Saul’s life it is because he respects God’s word and the fact that God will not have his annointed harmed. That is a sign of David’s love for God’s word, not sign of David’s respect of Saul. The contrast is made explicit at the end of 1 Samuel as both men are in tough positions. Saul goes to a medium to try and resurrect Samuel. Saul does not turn to God’s word. In fact it is said God refused to answer him (28:6). So Saul turns to a medium. David on the other hand turns to God in the Urim and Thummim in chapter 30. What seems like an obvious choice to pursue those who kidnapped your loved ones, David makes sure to clear it with God before doing so. Respect for God’s word. In the early parts of 2 Samuel we get to see the warlike attitudes of Abner and Joab. Joab repeatedly breaks God’s word and the king’s word. We see David fail to transport the ark according to God’s word in chapter 6, but he corrects himself. Showing he knows where to turn when sin is exposed. Chapter 7 God gives him a promise, which is a high point of the narrative. God’s word to David serves as the turning point of the whole narrative. We then get chapters 9 and 10 where David deals out the Hesed of God (lovingkindness) to Mephibosheth and to Ammon (which was rejected). This is to contrast David with Joab who deals out only murder. David lives out God’s word, Joab does not. Again we see David sin, but is quickly repentant when confronted with the Word of God in chapter 12. This is another turning point of the book. In chapter 12 Nathan promises trouble that the sword will not depart. The rest of the book shows that Word of God being fulfilled. First with Amnon then with Absolam, both of whom show no respect for God’s word despite being confronted with it, and on with the other rebellions. Ahithophel hangs himself in chapter 17 because he realizes that God is with David and not Absolam and instead of repenting, he hangs himself ala Judas. Chapter 21 is again David inquiring of the Lord and doing what he says without question. The last words of David in chapter 23 are about God’s word. God “spoke by me” (v.2), “spoke to me” (v3.), and verses 5 to the end are about the strength of God’s promise/word to him and his house. It is about ruling under God’s word and trusting God’s word. The last story in chapter 24 shows us again David’s tender conscious to sin and his quick trust of God when confronted with the Word of God again by the prophet Gad. That story culminates with God answering prayer and David obeying the Word of God by buying the threshing floor. Another example of David obeying the word of God.

In short I wished that the commentaries had wrestled more with the meaning of being after God’s own heart. In the end, I think that tremendous application can be made to our lives if we understand exactly what it means to be after God’s own heart.

Obama Meter

I think I have stumbled on a way for all you Political Pundits or Democratic supporters of Barak Obama out there to figure out how wounded Senator Obama really is. It will be too late to do anything about it, but you should be able to know if Obama is in real trouble in the general election after the South Dakota results come in on June 3rd. South Dakota and North Dakota are fairly close in demographic with North Dakota being slightly more liberal. The North Dakota primary was on Super Tuesday and Barak Obama won by over 20%. The Dakotas are not the South so racism is not a real factor up here. African Americans are pretty rare in this region and discrimination against them is not part of the culture. However, most of the people up here are going to be slow to vote a woman into the role of Commander and Chief. Patriarchy is at its highest in this old German Russian part of the country.

Now the North Dakota victory for Barak was prior to the ‘clinging to religion’ comment and before the specter of Jeremiah Wright came forth. I still think Obama will win. He has the support of all the major super delegates in this state including Tom Daschale. Yet, there are no real polls to speak of and both campaigns are calling it a tight contest. Even after Hillary made the Robert Kennedy comment in Sioux Falls, SD. So, the standard of victory has been set by the North Dakota Primary. Whatever the result of the South Dakota Primary turns out to be you should be able to lay them side by side and see exactly how far Obama is fallen. If Obama loses South Dakota, no one in the Democratic Party should support him for anything.

Party Troubles

Republicans and Democrats are not the only party struggling with party identity these days. I just watched the Libertarian Nomination for President. It took six ballots (I guess I only watched four). Former Republican Bob Barr took the early lead, but was tied with Mary Ruwart, a long time Libertarian, on the fourth ballot. She took the lead after the fifth ballot, picking up former Democrat Mike Gravel’s delegates. The fifth ballot eliminated Wayne Allen Root, who took the stage to address the delegates as the others before him had done. Root then endorsed a Barr – Root ticket in what for me was a surprise move. Root’s delegates followed his lead and Barr became the nominee. Earlier delegates on the floor could be over heard speaking with great outrage at Barr being the leading candidate. Barr did a lot of un-libertarian things while in Congress. He was a leader in the Clinton impeachment trial, which many Libertarian’s did not care much about. Barr was a leader against medical marijuana, which goes against the Libertarian ideal that drugs should be legalized. Barr has recently reversed himself on medical marijuana, but is still against total legalization and still favors funding other countries to help fight the “War on Drugs”. This is very un-libertarian. Barr also voted in favor of the Patriot Act, but again, has reversed himself on that one as well. Congressman Barr also supports a National Sales Tax and will probably not decrease spending on the military which many Libertarians desire. Barr joined the Libertarian Party only about two years ago. Mary Ruwart took her defeat rather hard as her endorsement of Barr went as far as "I will keep working" and "we will see what happens". Her speech was not a happy one, and she never said anything about supporting Barr. Root was also soundly booed when he endorsed Barr for President.

In the end, the Republicans and Democrats are picking the candidate that has the best chance of expanding their Party, and apparently so is the Libertarian Party. As for the over all effect of this nomination, it could actually play a major role. A recent Rasmussen Poll shows that Barr picks up enough of the vote percentage to tip the election to Obama. Barr is also from Georgia, where he is polling at 8%, and that may be enough to give the deep south state to Obama who will do well there with the high African American population. Either way, I find it interesting that the move of every party seems to be to a Big Tent status. Both major parties claim to be Big Tent, and the little parties are trying to claim ground from the disaffected leaving those parties.

By the way, I am not a Libertarian. I just found this interesting.

Well I am finally back from my vacation and Synod. I will blog more later, but let me just give you the few lessons I learned on my trip.

1. Hotels hate large families. Usually they do not have the ability to room more than 5. They have removed the concept of rooms with an interior door because they do not want you to bring your kids to their hotel.

2. The execption to this rule is Americinns. They are hands down the best hotel chain for families even giving us free microwave popcorn.

3. Sleep Inn likes to trick you into staying. They said they could room my large family for a certain price. What they refused to tell me was that they were splitting my family into two rooms and that the price quoted would be per room. They even gave me two bills rather than one. Never ever stay at a Sleep Inn. They did not even have bath tubs which is a very bad thing when your family has four members under the age of 5.

4. The only place for "Southern Style Chicken" is Chic-Fil-A. I have now had the Arby's version (pathetic) and the McDonald's version (better), but they both pale in comparison to the real deal.

Update

I know that I am supposed to be putting up stuff about Van Til, Schaeffer, Federal Vision and the Pirates crumbling hope, but I had this beautiful little girl. So, I am behind a little.

In the meantime, please read James's wonderful blog about Jeremiah Wright.