True College Football

If you are all caught up in the drama of the Bowl Championship Series, then you are missing out on real college football action. The real football takes place in the I-AA Division, now known as the Championship Sub-division in a sad attempt to make the BCS look better. The I-AA playoffs start this week. Yes, I said playoffs. And this year has more stories than one could ask for. Just let me list a few.

The three undefeated teams are playing and this makes for a wonderful series of potential match-ups. Montana, McNeese St., and Northern Iowa are all looking to run the table and be declared National Champs.

Other first round games have high drama as well. Deleware plays Deleware St. for the first time ever. The traditionally white school plays the traditionally black school for the first time in football. The tension between these two schools is high, and this game is actually going to be on ESPN. Deleware by the way is a traditional powerhouse including one championship in 2003.

Appalachian State plays James Madison in the first round. Appalachian St. is looking for their third straight title, but they are playing James Madison the last team to win other than App St. So, a good battle of previous champions that ought to be on TV.

And of course looking down the road, one could see Southern Illinois get a rematch with undefeated Northern Iowa in the next round. Southern Illinois is 10-1 with their only loss coming to Northern Iowa. This game, if it happens, will be a slugfest.

And of course, my alma mater, Wofford College, is in the playoffs after a good season that saw them defeat Appalachian St., and by virtue of that tie breaker be the Southern Conference Champion. The Southern Conference is the traditional bully in I-AA going all the way back to Marshall’s days as title winners.

I will go ahead and make my prediction. It is not exactly a long shot, but I think Northern Iowa is going to run the table have the undefeated season. North Dakota St. (10-1, but is ineligible because they have not been in the league long enough)has a legitimate complaint about a really bad rule, but in the end it is all Northern Iowa.

The PCA, The SJC, and the FV

I have to comment on the discussion surrounding the Standing Judicial Commission’s (SJC) recent pronouncement against the Louisiana Presbytery and how the affects Federal Vision leader Rev. Steve Wilkins.

Just for some quick background, complaints had been made about the orthodoxy of Rev. Wilkins because of his Federal Vision. The PCA Study Committee passed a report against the Federal Vision. Rev. Wilkins was cleared twice by his own presbytery, but complaints continued from both in and out of the presbytery. The SJC has decided that Rev. Wilkins was wrongly cleared, and we await a plea of guilty or not guilty by the Louisiana Presbytery.

Now I have to say that I think Doug Wilson has a very valid point about this being a very slick system (just for clarity comparing Wilkins to Machen is wrong). Wilson has a very comical summary that really has no answer from the anti-Federal Vision side. The idea a man could be excommunicated without ever being declared guilty or being personally allowed to appear is ludicrous. Hopefully, it will not happen in such a manner. Many other ministers have begun to refer to the PCA as the un-presbyterian church in America or just putting a ? instead of the word Presbyterian. There is a shade of truth to those accusations.

However, here is where the Federal Visionists go completely wrong. They focus in two distinct areas. The first is that the SJC has never been a place where the verdict could be appealed. This is not some new invention put in place to put down Rev. Wilkins this is the system set up in the church constitution. All of this judicial process has taken place according to the way the PCA does business. Nothing has occurred that violates church law. It just turned out that Wilkins can now be defrocked without being on trial. It is hard to blame people for following the rules. These PCA ministers who now refer to their own denomination as un-presbyterian should have been complaining about the rules for years and decades. If they truly think this unpresbyterian, then why did they not complain before? The fact that only now do they complain about it shows the true nature of the complaint. It is not against the system, but rather against the outcome. They would love the inability to appeal if the verdict had gone the other way.

The second point is against Wilson himself. Are we really supposed to think he cares? His denomination accepted a man who was defrocked in the plain light of day for not only for heresy (infant communion) charges, but also for spiritual tyranny and tax fraud. This man’s ordination (despite being removed by the defrocking) was accepted. After such actions, which apparently were not the first, should we think that what the judicial processes of other denominations mean anything to Wilson or to the CREC? When viewed in this light it appears that Rev. Wilson is merely setting the stage for what he wants to happen. Regardless of outcome, The CREC will extend a spot to Rev. Wilkins and any who follow him and to their churches. All of the complaining is public relations.

So in short, I do find the judicial process in the PCA to be less than Presbyterian. No one should be excommunicated or defrocked without a hearing or trial where he is found guilty. If the PCA thinks the Louisiana Presbytery should be found guilty for not finding Wilkins guilty that really out to come after someone declares Wilkins guilty. However, the rage and arguments coming from the Federal Vision movement is contrived and fake. It would not matter what occurred they would still be complaining. They would not respect the decision of the PCA, and the CREC is the ultimate destination for all FV men.

Various Notes and Lessons

I have a Youth event this weekend, so this and the next quick blog are all you should expect from me this week. Preparing for this event is taking up more time than I thought. So here are a few quick things that would have gotten fuller treatment if I had the time.

If you want to keep a good opinion about our country and its vigilance to stay safe from enemies do not ever study Joseph McCarthy or the Red Scare of the 40’s and 50’s. I will probably post a fuller review of the new book Blacklisted by History about Senator Joseph McCarthy, but needless to say, it is a devastating look into how our country allowed communists to set our agenda for years. Disturbing to say the least.

College Football has been crazy this year. Lots of people are wondering why and what the meaning of it is. Sadly no one gets it quite right. The true point of this year’s fiasco that is college football is that the BCS system is fundamentally flawed and broken. The question and debate is not about whether or not Kansas belongs in the title game, but really the question is why is Hawaii just brushed aside. What this year has shown us is that BCS conferences are really not any better than any other conference that are not part of the BCS. Go back to the beginning of this year when Boise St. beat Oklahoma. The Big Ten this year has two losses against Division I –AA. Let us remember that Division I-AA teams play the BCS teams on the road. Yet, when the top I-AA teams get a shot at the big boys, they can win. North Dakota St beat Minnesota for the second year in a row. Appalachian St. beat Michigan. Northern Iowa beat Iowa State from the Big 12. Other power house I-AA teams like Montana did not get a shot at any BCS or Division I-A schools. In fact, when the USA Today did its conference power rankings, which are naturally weighted for the Division I schools the Southern Conference (I-AA), the Gateway (I-AA) and the Colonial (I-AA) all finished ahead of multiple Division I-A conferences.

The lesson from this football year is that the BCS is a power grab by conferences in order to not reveal how weak they can be. The lesson is that until a playoff system is instituted without polls and all conferences are created equal, no champion is a real champion in college football.

Rev. Armstrong clears Rev. Shepherd

Rev. John Armstrong has proclaimed Rev. Norman Shepherd to be a minister of the gospel and not a heretic. I suppose that is his right, after all Rev. Armstrong’s ACT 3 is a very ecumenical organization that if it ever proclaimed anyone to be a heretic that would be a headline. However, what is the basis of this clearing of Rev. Shepherd’s name? Well, Rev. Armstrong fails to provide us with anything. Instead he freely admits that Rev. Shepherd teaches:

that the faith by which we are brought into union with Christ in salvation, i.e., the faith that brings justification in the present and at the final judgment, is vital, living, penitent, obeying faith.

That is the crux of the debate. Is it faith alone or faith and the obedience and repentance? Shepherd tries to merge the three and Protestantism has always kept them separate. So, no real vindication is provided instead just a re-statement of the problem at hand followed by a magical declaration that frees Rev. Shepherd from heresy. Why does this bother me? Well because Rev. Armstrong takes a shot at me through my denomination. He states,

Several very small and conservative Reformed denominations have drafted statements calling Rev. Shepherd's teaching heresy. As I listened to Norm teach this weekend, and then heard him answer question after question faithfully, I was struck once again at how clearly biblical his theology of salvation is. It is so easy to put a label on someone's ideas and then refuse to actually hear them and really deal with what they teach. By this kind of attack on Shepherd many wonderful people in the churches are confused and do not understand what is actually being taught in many cases.

It is true the RCUS is a small denomination, but it is untrue that we did not listen to what Rev. Shepherd said and wrote. In fact, the RCUS had Shepherd out to try and clear up the issues at hand all the way back in the 70’s when he first started getting in trouble at Westminster. So, in one sense not only did we listen we took 30 years to condemn his teachings. Plus, if you read the RCUS report, we actually have quotes of troublesome theology. You would think that if one were to brush aside the small reformed denomination one would want to at least deal with their concerns. But, alas, Rev. Armstrong feels no need to do that because of his powerful experience this past weekend. I suppose others can follow suit and put their confidence in the wonderful striking experiences, but do not pretend that his words have been cleared. They have not. The controversy remains are we saved by faith alone, or by faith, repentance, and some obedient non-meritorious works.

Bishop Wright and John 1:1-18

Bishop Wright makes several argument about his position from Scripture. Remember is argument is best framed by this quote:

no first-century Jew could think of a human being, far less than himself, as the incarnation of God. Jewish monotheism prohibits it; and even if it didn’t (If we take Alan Segal’s point about pluriformity within early Jewish God-talk), there is no actual model for it within Judaism. (Jesus’s Self Understanding)

Bishop Wright begins by stating that all title such as Christ, Son of Man, and Son of God only point to the Messiahship of Jesus, his vocation, rather than being the Second Person of the Trinity. This fact is generally granted for the title of Jesus except Son of God and perhaps Lord. More in-depth argumentation against the idea that the Son of God title means Second Person of the Trinity can be found in a 9 part series of posts by Rev. Jeff Meyers. I believe Rev. Meyers is arguing along a similar path as Bishop Wright with regards to the title ‘Son of God’. Now, I do think that the title Son of God refers to the divinity of Jesus, but I am simply going to grant his point here. I do not think that the self-knowledge of Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity hinges on the title Son of God. So I will just pass this point, but noting my disagreement for now. Perhaps in a future post series we can take that subject up.

The first point that any discussion of Jesus as a self-aware Second person of the Trinity should start is with John 1:1-18. This familiar passage gives us a clear picture of the Incarnation and is the traditional defense of Jesus as God. Bishop Wright of course deals with this passage.

The Word became flesh, and tabernacled in our midst’: eskenosen is of course a Temple-image, and if we understand John 1:1-18 in terms of its Jewish roots, and its parallels in, for example, Sirach 24, this should not surprise us. Word, Wisdom, Spirit and ultimately Temple and Torah—these are the themes which, in Judaism, speak of the one, true and living God active within the world in general and Israel in particular, promising future decisive personal action to save Israel and the world. These are the themes of the Prologue, and of the whole Gospel; and I suggest that they are also major themes in the Synoptics.

Bishop Wright seeks to make John 1 about a picture of the Temple. The Word tabernacles with us. I have no objection to the Word tabernacling with us, I have disagreement with the spin placed on it and the use of the other words. Bishop Wright takes ‘Word’ as a reference to 2TJ’s manner of speaking about the work of God. Wright’s reference to Sirach 24 is puzzeling as it speaks of Wisdom tabernacling and relates Wisdom to the Torah, but nothing about the Word. But here is where Wright’s methodology dominates his Christology. There are ways to use the Logos (the Greek of Word) that do not involve Wright’s 2TJ. For example the term ‘Word’ had a long Greek history. The Stoics, a major philosophical force in the first century used the term freely to mean the principle through which all things came to be and to which all returned. Hellenistic Jews used the term often to refer to Divine Reason. So the term obviously found its way into widespread Jewish usage too. John could be communicating here with the Greek philosophy of the age by calling out their Logos that created all things is actually God and with God and now has taken on flesh. It would fit more with the audience of John since it appear he is not directing his gospel to the First Century Jew.

Of course the other problem that Wright does not address in his on-line articles is that John (no matter whose reading one takes) is beginning with the Word who is God and with God. This Word is what takes on flesh. John begins with the eternal divine nature of Jesus and then tells us Jesus took flesh, the human nature. When we begin with the Second Person of the Trinity and move to that Person of the Trinity taking to himself a human nature, then it becomes hard to imagine a Jesus who is not self-conscious of his divine nature. In fact, the method of Wright to ask what a first century Jew could possible have thought is the exact opposite of the method of John in his gospel.

As for John 1:14 where the Word tabernacles among us somehow being a reference to the Temple which overthrows the centrality of persons and natures in Christology, I think there is a better explanation. John 1:14 seems to me to be alluding to the much repeated formula of God being our God, we being his people, and he dwelling among us. Leviticus 26:11-12 comes to mind. There we find out that the tabernacle should be among the people because He is our God and we His people, and He will walk among us. Jesus is fulfilling the picture the tabernacle gave us. I do think John 1:14 is referring to the picture of the tabernacle and the temple, but instead of reading John 1:14 as a First Century Jew and think of Jesus serving like the Temple as a way God works among his people, we ought to view the temple as a picture of Jesus. In short, it seems to me Wright wants to take his First Century Judaism and let that dominate his view of Jesus, and I think we should take out view of Jesus and let that dominate the view of Judaism.

In summary then I do not buy Bishop Wright’s explanation of John 1:1-18 because he seems to brush aside too much by claiming the Temple view, and because John is clearly beginning with the self away Second Person of the Trinity and taking to himself a human nature. This more than implies a divine-human who is more than self-aware. The only way to get to Wright’s self aware human who is unaware of his divine nature is to fall into Nestorianism by making two persons. The text does not allow it.

Getting back to Bishop Wright and Christology

Easing our way back into the N.T. Wright discussion I want to stress a few things before getting into the Scriptures. As we examine the Scriptures we will be looking to refute the main proposition of N.T. Wright’s new christology.

Let me be clear, also, what I am not saying. I do not think Jesus “knew he was God” in the same sense that one knows one is tired or happy, male or female. He did not sit back and say to himself “Well I never! I’m the second person of the Trinity!”

I am saying that Jesus did know he was the second person of the Trinity and that he was self-conscious about it. I think the Scriptures teach that as well.

One might think that this a pointless debate, but I believe that it is a real one. Bishop Wright gets taken to task a lot for his views about Paul and Justification, and rightly so. However, N.T. Wright is also re-writing Christology and it is going under the radar, or at least it is not getting the same fire as his views about Paul. It is something that I think this generation of the church will have to struggle with again. Listen to the Right Reverend Wright on the subject.

Let me put it like this. After fifteen years of serious historical Jesus study, I still say the creed ex animo; but I now mean something very different by it, not least by the word “god” itself. The portrait has been redrawn.

Bishop Wright has no problem confessing creeds like Chalcedon, Nicea, and the Apostles, but he means new things by the words he finds there. The idea that one can keep a creed with the same wording and throw out the meaning is disturbing enough, but the self-conscious re-writing of Christology ought to strike at the very heart of the church. Of course a re-working of Christology can and will often lead to a re-working of the Trinity as well. Now, I cannot speak for Bishop Wright and his view of the Trinity, and we cannot take his confession of ancient creeds because of his willingness to put his own meaning into other people’s words. But, the ball is rolling, Wright is influential, and you will see the Trinity under attack before you know it.

*All quotes from Wright in this post are found in his article "Jesus and the Identity of God

A World Series in Perspective

Let me just take a minute to speak about the World Series. The worthless Boston Red Sox have won again, and we are going to have to sit through the pro-anything-New-England rants that ESPN will fall into for who knows how long. I just want to set a few things about this year’s fall classic in perspective.

1. The Red Sox had the added benefit of the man investigating steroids for major league baseball working on their payroll. That probably explains why David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez never surface as possible steroid users. It also puts into context the timely steroid accusation against Cleveland pitcher Paul Byrd before crucial Game 7.
2. The Rockies suffered not so much because of their 8 day lay off between games, but because there was absolutely no punishment for the Red Sox going 7 games. They went the distance against Cleveland, but got 3 days off themselves before the World Series began. The World Series should start the day after a scheduled Game 7 or no later than one day after a Game 7. It was possible for the Red Sox to throw their best pitcher in Game 7 of the ALCS and then pitch him again for Game 1 of the World Series as pitchers often go on three days rest in the playoffs. It allowed the bullpen of the Red Sox to be completely rested and let them fix their rotation how they wanted it. The problem is not the long layoff for a team that wins their Championship Series in four, the problem is there is no downside to going seven games.
3. The Red Sox did not beat the best team in the National League. They did not even beat a division winner. Hardly a feat worth celebrating.
4. The Red Sox drastically underachieved their Pythagorean Win total by 5 games.
5. There were a lot of people talking about how Josh Beckett is one of the great all time pitchers in post season play. He does have an impressive record of 6-2 with a 1.73 ERA with 82 strikeouts. But just compare him to Bob Gibson. Gibson has a record of 7-2 with an ERA of 1.89 with 92 strikeouts. Now at first glance these look comparable. But then one should remember that Bob Gibson only pitched against the winner of the American league in every one of his 9 games, 8 of which he completed. Beckett pitched only 3 of his 10 appearances against the champion from the other league, and Beckett managed to only complete 3. In other words, Josh Beckett has good post season numbers because he faces lesser post season competition. In World Series play he is only 2-1. That is the number one ought to compare to the likes of Bob Gibson.
6. A lot of ESPN commentators are falling all over themselves to declare Josh Beckett among others as a lock for the Hall of Fame. Beckett currently has a record of 77-52. Hardly awe inspiring. He has only broken 20 wins one time (this season), and has only broken 10 wins 3 times out of his seven year career.

I just point these few helpful things out so that we can remember that every team that wins the World Series is not automatically the Best Team of All Time, nor is it necessarily filled with Hall of Famers. In fact, Curt Schilling is the only person I would consider for the Hall of Fame at this point on the Boston roster.

Now that I have baseball out of my system, I will get back to theology.

Whatever happened to Paleo-Conservatism?

I found this map on Patrick Ruffini. I find it an insanely interesting map. I think it demonstrates the break down of the Republican Party very well. The Neo-Conservatives have risen to power by aligning themselves with the Theocrats, who value social issues and are willing to have big government fix it. They are also then willing in return to let the Neo-Cons have some other big government programs.

Not surprisingly the Theocrats live in the Bible belt and are the most dedicated to riding the party machinery that got them this far. Thus, Ron Paul and his traditional paleoconservative / libertarian values are rejected out of hand. These states prefer instead people like Gov. Mike Huckabee. It produces a constant supply of Republican Senators who are not going to change government, but use it. Example, Trent Lott. The Neocons also reside in the South, but also reside in the Ohio River Valley and in some Mid Atlantic states. Thus, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia give little to paleoconservatives like Ron Paul. The best example of this is Rudy Gulliani, but one could also use some of the ousted Pennsylvania Congressman and the current Minority Leader in the House. Now we also see light pink in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and North Dakota. The reason here is that these states are Democratic to the core. It is one of the great shames of the Democratic Party that they fail to win Iowa and North Dakota in Presidential election years.

Thus, Paleoconservatives live in Plains and in the West. Here are the people who would rather not have government messing things up. These people are also not so free trade oriented. This is where real conservative values still live on. Senator Tom Coburn serves as one example. Perhaps a more poignant example is the Constitution Party actually got a man elected to the Montana State Legislature, a legislature that has an equal number of Republican and Democrats with one Constitutional Party man to break the ties. A harbinger of the futuer?

The only surprise is that so much of New England is dark red or red at all. However, it could be because that region is anti-war and give money to the anti-war candidate. It also could be that Libertarianism is stronger than I thought in New England.

Regardless, this map shows that Ron Paul is not a lone wolf. His thorn in the candidacy of the Republicans will continue. He has won most of the debates despite being attacked by every moderator in every debate. If something does not change, I am not sure the Republican Party will survive. Look for more losses for the Republican in Congress in ’08, and then remember this map. I bet it will keep bearing true that the darker red the state the more the Neocons in office lose. In ’06 the Republicans lost seats in Montana, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Maine, and narrowly won in Tennessee.

National Disgrace in our National Game

The Colorado Rockies are in the World Series. As a former resident of Colorado, I am excited. As a baseball fan, I am sick. This is just more proof that the Wild Card is the worst thing ever for baseball. The Rockies had an incredible stretch run to make the playoffs, but they fell one game short of the Arizona Diamondbacks for the NL West crown. The Rockies had an exciting one game playoff with the Padres to make the playoffs, but in reality it was a game to see who finished second and third. Those are called consolation games, and they should be pointless. Now the Rockies have beaten the Diamondbacks in a four game series, and are going to the World Series. The 162 game season did not matter. The Diamondbacks were better all season long, but in the end it was all overturned and the first loser is now in the position to be the big winner. This has already happened an embarassing four times (1997, 2002, 2003, and 2004). Many more wild card teams have made the World Series and failed to win such as last year's Detriot Tigers. It is a disgrace to the game of baseball. It is a disgrace to those who care about winning, and it makes those who play a full season of quality baseball look like idiots. I hope we all come to our senses soon.

Era of Good Feelings

The Era of Good Feelings by George Dangerfield is an interesting book primarily because it has a view of American history that is almost a polar opposite to my own. Dangerfield writes engagingly about the history of America from the War of 1812 to the election of Jackson in 1828. Dangerfield views the Monroe administration as a complete failure. He thinks the John Quincy Adams adminstration a visionary one that was ahead of its time. Dangerfield thinks such things as the Missouri Compromise led to the Civil War, and were failures overall of government. He blames men like Daniel Webster for being unwilling to take that next step to abolition. He thinks very little of Henry Clay even Clay’s role in the Missouri Compromise. All of this and he does not view the War of 1812 as an impressive victory for America. That is just a sampling of the many things upon which we disagree. I on the other hand often view this time period as the highlight of America. It was the Constitution at its finest hour and the beginning of the Golden Age of the Senate. Dangerfield’s major problem is that he views history from the results rather than the parameters. He thinks the end of slavery was a good thing. On that he and I agree. However, Dangerfield views slavery from a post-civil war mind, and thus, the war is a good thing since it ended slavery. I think that unfair to pre-civil war history. Jackson, Clay, Webster, and others tried to end slavery without war. They felt war was the great evil, and they tried to end slavery in a matter according to the Constitution rather than just brandishing the bayonet.

Despite these things which do come out in his book, the book does a good job of giving a thorough account of the Era of Good Feelings. He does especially good work on things like the Panic of 1819, and the attitude of John Quincy Adams as a whole. The book is fairly long, but if you like history books, this one is pretty good. Feel free to check it out for a little light reading on the weekends.
The Era of Good Feelings by George Dangerfield is an interesting book primarily because it has a view of American history that is almost a polar opposite to my own. Dangerfield writes engagingly about the history of America from the War of 1812 to the election of Jackson in 1828. Dangerfield views the Monroe administration as a complete failure. He thinks the John Quincy Adams adminstration a visionary one that was ahead of its time. Dangerfield thinks such things as the Missouri Compromise led to the Civil War, and were failures overall of government. He blames men like Daniel Webster for being unwilling to take that next step to abolition. He thinks very little of Henry Clay even Clay’s role in the Missouri Compromise. All of this and he does not view the War of 1812 as an impressive victory for America. That is just a sampling of the many things upon which we disagree. I on the other hand often view this time period as the highlight of America. It was the Constitution at its finest hour and the beginning of the Golden Age of the Senate. Dangerfield’s major problem is that he views history from the results rather than the parameters. He thinks the end of slavery was a good thing. On that he and I agree. However, Dangerfield views slavery from a post-civil war mind, and thus, the war is a good thing since it ended slavery. I think that unfair to pre-civil war history. Jackson, Clay, Webster, and others tried to end slavery without war. They felt war was the great evil, and they tried to end slavery in a matter according to the Constitution rather than just brandishing the bayonet.

Despite these things which do come out in his book, the book does a good job of giving a thorough account of the Era of Good Feelings. He does especially good work on things like the Panic of 1819, and the attitude of John Quincy Adams as a whole. The book is fairly long, but if you like history books, this one is pretty good. Feel free to check it out for a little light reading on the weekends.

N.T. Wright Methodology

Bishop Wright has done a lot of study on First Century Judaism or more broadly Second Temple Judaism (from here on 2TJ). His knowledge is far beyond mine in that area. Bishop Wright makes Second Temple Judaism the centerpiece of his theology. He uses it to frame his questions. Just one example:

Can we, as historians, describe the way in which he might have wrestled with this question within the parameters of his own first century Jewish worldview? (Jesus and the Identity of God)

It is through the lens of 2TJ that Wright redefines Christology as well as other things like Justification, Covenant, etc. Some of objected to his understanding of 2TJ, and they may indeed be right. Again, my knowledge would be far to inferior to even weigh in on that debate. However, I would like to see more time spent on debating whether or not Wright is doing the right thing by framing all his understanding of the New Testament off of 2TJ literature. That seems to me a more basic and more methodological question. Allow me to list several things that I believe need further clarification from Bishop Wright before his redefinition can begin to be debated.

1. Judaism in the First Century was not monolithic, how can one know which framework Jesus fit? Much like Christianity today Judaism had lots of different types and differing understandings. We know of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. These two could not even agree on what constituted the Bible. First Century Judaism would have embraced both Josephus the Romanized Jew as well as Zealot leader Eleazar ben Yair whose followers committed suicide rather than face being conquered by the Romans. We also know the Essenes would have been in existence adding yet another sect with yet another different outlook upon all the questions that Wright deals with. Which 2TJ framework do we impose on Jesus when we seek to understand how he used the word ‘Logos’ or his view of the temple and of the prophets?
2. Why must we sift the NT through a 2TJ view of the world rather than a Hellenized Jews view of the world? It is true that all of the writers of the Bible were Jews, but were they Hellenized Jews or more strict 2TJ Jews? This seems an important question when it comes down to deciding whether or not to accept a Jewish spin on a word or a Greek spin on a word. Paul, the author with the most books in the Bible, was from Tarsus, a highly Hellenized city whose philosophers and library rivaled Athens. John who five books of the NT seems to be writing to a highly Greek or at least non-jewish audience. He even goes so far to define the word rabbi in John 1:38. This has great import in the reading of the Christological passage of John 1:1-5. Remember that Joseph the earthly father of Jesus spent time in Egypt a place more inclined toward Greek views of life than Judaic views on life. Could that not have played a pivotal role in Jesus’s upbringing?
3. If Jesus is self-consciously divine would not this place him above the discussion at hand. This gets back to my criticism from the last post of assuming the answer in the question, but it is worth mentioning again. Jesus as God could be far above the fray of Judaism as it existed in the first century.

Most importantly is this last and final objection.

****Why should we take a Jewish understanding of Jesus since it was the Jews who misunderstood Jesus, turned him over to be killed, and persecuted the early converts to Christianity.*******
It is a legitimate question to ask if any of these Jewish sources should be used in our understanding of Christ in the first place. Just look at what the Scriptures say on the matter.

John 5:46, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me."
John 8:39, "Jesus saith unto them “If ye were Abraham’s children ye would do the works of Abraham."
2 Corinthians 3:14, "But their minds were blinded: for unto this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament, which vail is done away in Christ."

The point is this: why do I want to use the First Century Jewish understanding to enlighten the Bible. The First Century Jewish understanding did not understand the Old Testament, let alone the New. Bishop Wright can argue about what 2TJ thought about God until he is blue in the face, because their actions show they did not understand God at all. Bishop Wright has made no reasonable argument to show why the 2TJ should be accepted as a legitimate way to understand the OT or the NT. I hope that in the books that I have not yet read he deals seriously with the verses quoted above and the several more just like them. Until he does, he has not proved anything. Until he does, his methodology must be rejected.

However, I would be remiss if I did not deal with the Scriptural arguments he uses. So next we will turn to those arguments.

Air Travel Dislikes

I just got back from a trip to sunny Sacramento, and I have to make a few comments about air travel. Needless to say, I hate it. Let me just list a few things about air travel that make me sick.

1. It is designed for business, and not family. I was on this trip alone, but as a member of a big family, I find it disheartening to see travel by air become the property of the business class. The people on planes hate children. They will ask stewardesses to move them away from young children, they will shoot mean looks at kids under the age of 10, and they mutter under there breath about how awful children are.
2. The sole reason Democrats are able to play the ‘rich vs. poor’ card and get it to work is air travel. I understand people buying first class seats get better service, and I can even live with them getting on the plane early. However, United Airlines has given their ‘premium’ customers a special lane to help them get through security faster. Security is about safety, not about money. That one just annoys me. And, United also provides a red carpet for those ‘premium passengers’ during the ticket taking process. I am serious. There is a red carpet at every gate that people who miles points or in first class get to stand on while their ticket is taken, and then it is roped off so everyone else has to go through a different line. Just for the record cutting across the red carpet to get to the second class passenger line is frowned upon.
3. LAX is the worst airport in the world. Oddly enough it has nothing to do with air traffic or crowds. It is too big to appear clean. It was not really dirty, just not overly clean. In addition to that, I expected more out of LAX. It is a giant airport, larger than most normal sized cities. Yet, if you don’t like McDonalds or are not adventures enough to eat Mexican right before getting on a plane with one bathroom, you are going to starve to death in LAX. The Delta wing had nothing besides those two options. The United Wing had a few other highly overpriced stores like ‘Wolfgang Puck Express’ (isn’t the point of Wolfgang Puck restaurants to eat Wolfgang Puck type food? Is not an Express version of that self-defeating?) or one pizzeria that I saw make at least three different people late for flights. Minneapolis has tons of restaurants, Denver at least has multiple fast food chains like Burger King, but LAX has nothing.
4. People never obey the rules. It does not matter how many times flight attendants, gate keepers, or ticket takers tell the business passenger that the suitcase designed to fit in overhead bins of a 747 do not fit into the overhead bins or under the seat of ‘puddle-jumpers’ they will take them on and try it anyway. You have to pry those things from their cold dead fingers. Then the airlines let them put it under their feet, but not properly stowed away. That way it serves as a nice projectile if turbulence hits and can crowd the already non-existent space of the person sitting next to them. Don’t even get me started on staying buckled until the seat belt light is off.
5. Cell-phones. I am the only person in America that does not own a cell-phone. One is not allowed to use a cell-phone during flight, and that is good. However, I was unaware that not talking during the flight necessitated people to talk on the phone until the very last minute when the stewardess asks them to turn it off. It also means that as soon as the announcement states it is okay to use cell-phones again (if not before), everyone must either text someone or phone someone. If you have a cell-phone and are not on it as the plane is on the way to the gate, it is a sure sign that you are a social outcast.

Those are my thoughts about the trip. I will get back to blogging as soon as I can.

N.T. Wright on Person and Nature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jena 6 displays racism

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

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

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

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

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

Wright, Chalcedon, and Nestorius

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6th Anniversary of September 11th

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

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

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

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

Defeating Xerxes or Enabling Stalin?

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Solution to Faith and Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St. Bartholomew's Day Massacare - Peter Ramus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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