Pirates are officially reloaded

The new look Pirates make their debut tonight. They have officially given up on this season with the trades they have made. People who started the year on the Pirates roster and are no longer with them include: Sean Burrnett, Erik Henskie, Adam LaRoche, Ian Snell, Nyjer Morgan, Jon Grabow, Jack Wilson, and Freddy Sanchez. Only the last three are missed. Also gone is the ace of last years staff Tom Gorzelanny, who did not start the year on the team, but did pitch from the bullpen some this year.

However the trades, with the possible exception of Morgan and Burnett to the Nationals, have all improved the long term prospects for the Pirates. The trades this year have also continued to build the Pirates in waves. The Pirates got some people who are going to be on the team right now and make a huge impact including pitcher Kevin Hart from the Cubs. I also expect you will see Jeff Clement at first base before the September call ups, but at least then. He will have a huge impact. Lastings Milledge will be up in September as well and his try out for the team will begin. I suppose we ought to count Ronny Cedeno here as well. He is the place holder at short stop. It is better than having to try Brian Bixler again at short, but he is just a place holder considering two short stops were drafted in the first four rounds last year. They also received a lot of people who will make their arrival next year including Jose Ascino from the Cubs (pitcher), Tim Alderson (pitcher for Sanchez) and Argentis Diaz (short stop for LaRoche) who will probably make a debut with the club sometime next year. Then a ton more prospects will show up after that including Aaron Pribonic (pitcher), Brett Lorin (pitcher), and Nathan Hadcock (pitcher), Casey Erickson (pitcher for Henskie), and Eric Flyer (outfielder/catcher for Henskie). This was a terrific year for trades for the Pirates and I am not sure I included all of the prospects we received.

I think the future of the Pirates looks very bright now. I have predicted that they will win the World Series next year, and I might have to lower that to simply win the NL. The reason is the bullpen. I am not sure what the Pirates will do next year for left handed bullpen support. They got rid of their two best this year leaving only Donald Veal, who is improving, and possible Phil Dumatrait assuming he does not win a starting job next year. That may hurt them, but they ought to have an amazing rotation next year. They will have a great increase in power with the addition of Pedro Alvarez (who I think will join mid season), and Jeff Clement at first. Let us assume that Garret Jones continues his power and is on the the team next year giving one more year for Tabata to mature, that will keep his power, and if Milledge takes the other corner spot then that is more power than Dwelven Young. The hole at first will be filled by Clement. The hole at third is filled by Alvarez. The hole at short created by Jack Wilson can be filled by Argentis Diaz, or perhaps Brian Friday. The hole at second is the biggest problem. It can be filled by Jim Negyrich (.272 in AA but season ended with a non-basbeball surgery) or Shelby Ford (hitting below .200 at AAA) or maybe moving Cedeno to second or Bixler (.262 at AAA but below .200 in several major league stints). One might could hope that they try to move Andy LaRoche to a new infield spot, but we are not going to get our hopes up for that one. Perhaps the idea that the Pirates will go with is to move Dwelven Young from outfield to second base. He played second once already this year and pulled off an amazing catch and he is hitting above .300. The Pirates management has hinted that will give this a try, and that would open up a spot for Milledge or Tabata to start in the outfield. If they do this, then they will have a real shot at winning the NL and perhaps the world series. Of course they need a healthy Ryan Doumit behind the plate, but they will not need him as much next year. He is the RBI guy and the power guy and without him this year we could not get the big hit when we needed it. Next year adding power with Alvarez and Clement along side the surprising Jones and a healthy Doumit should give us a lot of guys to fear with the bat. Put McCutchen at the top of the line up, and they will have lots of chances to drive in runs.

The rotation could be anything, which means if someone is failing they can do something about it. Brad Lincoln is ready as is Daniel McCutchen from AAA. Virgil Vasquez and Charlie Morton are showing good things at the major league level, Phil Dumatrait will be back from his injury. Zack Duke made the All Star team, Ross Ohlendorf has shown flashes and Jeff Karstens will compete for a place. Add in the can't miss prospect of Tim Alderson just received along with Jose Ascino not to mention Kevin Hart who showed he could win starts and pitch great with the Cubs, and the Pirates have an over abundance right now.

I am looking forward to all of these trades finally paying off.

Forgotten Reformers: Italian Reformers

Now I hope that we all took time to remember John Calvin on his 500th birthday. But it is time to return to remembering those other reformers who are so often overlooked. The Italian Reformers as a whole come to mind. The reformation in Italy was unsuccessful because of the local power of the Pope and the vicious nature of the Inquisition. Throw in constant political turmoil and wars for northern Italy between France and Spain and little of the Reformation took permanent hold. Still, the Reformation did happen in Italy, we have just forgotten them.

Some of us could probably remember Peter Martyr Vermigli who did reform a small town before being forced to flee. We might even come up with Bernard Ochino, whose renoun as a preacher affected many. But he too had to take flight. The very brightest among us might have heard the name of Juan de Valdes, a Spanish man who came to Italy in 1530 as a humanist and critic of the Roman Church. He continued such things in Italy and eventual in Rome itself. He never officially broke with Rome always hoping to Reform the church from within, but did apparently hold to Justification by faith alone. His death in 1541 was felt by most of the Reformers in Italy because they all had drawn hope and inspiration from him. But the work of Reformation was not really done by Valdes as he did not break with the church.

The Reformers we have forgotten include men like Celio Secundo Curioni. Celio was born in 1503 and became reformed while reading Melancthon and Zwingli. He was arrested for trying to led a group of men into Germany to attend their universities. Rome tried to woo him back by sending him to local universities that were under the thumb of the Romish Church. Celio responded by stealing the relics that were hauled out for parades. They were bones of some saint. Celio replaced the relics with the Bible and a note. When the parade came around the monks hauled out the relics to discover the Bible. Celio had fled and would live on the run for most of the rest of his life. The monks never forgot the insult. He continued to teach the doctrine of the Reformation as he traveled around. He was arrested again and put in chains on his legs. His feet began to swell and the captors allowed him to have one foot free at a time. He created a false leg from his surroundings, and then asked the guards to switch the legs. They did so and now he was unchained and the false leg was left behind in the chains. He would escape arrest once more when he got up to be taken in by the authorities. He forgot to put down his eating knife and the men were frightened. He then was able to flee. Eventually Celio ended up in Basle where he lived out his life in safety. He died in 1569.

Then there is Pietro Carnesecchi. Carnesecchi was the personal secretary of Pope Clement VII. But, he was ousted from that position when the next pope took over and Carnesecchi began to see the abuse of power that came with being a pope. He then also became convinced of the truth of Justification by faith. This was while he was listening to Juan de Valdes teach the Scripture. He was absolved of heresy once, probably because of his former high spot in the church allowed him powerful friends. He spent some time in France among the Reformed there before returning to Vience to teach the evangelical truth. He was summoned to Rome, but refused to go. He was excommunicated and then arrested. He was martyred by the Inquisition somewhere around October of 1567.

Aonio Paleario was also martyred for his faith. Paleario was a lawyer by trade and was able to successfully defend himself against heresy charges. But suspicision of heresy often prevented him from holding down jobs for long. Finally he was able to hold a professorship in Milan for several years. This job was secured for him with the help of Cardinal Saldeto. Yes, the same Saldeto who was rebuked in Calvin’s famous letter. It turns out Saldeto was a liberal Romanist who desired to see the reformation of the papacy and the church as a whole. He was quite helpful to many of the Reformed in Italy. His last letter to Aonio Paleario encouraged him in his work, but chided him for reading too many Germany Reformers. Paleario would finally be brought up on charges that he could not escape. He died a martyr in 1570 for believing in Justification by faith and rejecting purgatory. Paleario’s great contribution to the Reformation was a book published anonymously entitled the The Benefit of Christ’s Death. This book was printed all over Italy including 60,000 times in 6 years. It made its way to England through Caridnal Pole, who was for a time thought to be its author. Many people including Carnesecchi were put to death for being Protestant and one of their charges was that they had copies of The Benefit of Christ’s Death. Copies with notes in the margins by Edward VI have been found. The book is mostly forgotten today but had a wide impact during the late 1500’s.

It has been reprinted in a book entitled The Italian Reformer, which is a book about the life of Paleario. May these reformers be forgotten no more.

Pirates First Half Analysis

The Pirates have had a disappointing first half. They really faltered right before the All Star break, and their inability to beat in division opponents is not a good thing. They can still make the .500 mark, but it will take a much better second half.

With that said, the Pirates have had some really encouraging things happen this year. McCutchen appears to be as advertized. Some young bullpen guys have developed like Evan Meek and Jesse Chavez. Yet a slump prone offense has been their undoing along with Ian Snell, who was demoted to the minors far too late to help the team.

What the Pirates really need is a Carrier. By that I mean someone who can carry the team when it hits those inevitable slumps. The great teams have more than one, but the Pirates do not have any. They have some guys hitting really well this year like Freddy Sanchez (.316) and Dwelven Young (.311). McCutchen (.292) and Robinson Diaz (.295) have done well but only have appeared in just over 30 games a piece. Garret Jones is also hitting .310 in 11 games. These guys are doing great, but these guys are all singles hitters with the possible exception of Garrett Jones. But it is too early to anoint Jones as anything. A Carrier needs to be someone who hits for extra bases. He does not necessarily have to be a big time homerun hitter, but someone who can and who gets lots of doubles. A Carrier can come to the plate and hit a homerun to give a slumping offense instant runs, or hit a double to put someone in scoring position immediately, or even double in the guy who is standing on first because of a walk. A Carrier also needs to be good in the clutch, so that he gets the RBI no matter how he does it. The Pirates do not have such a guy. I believe the Pirates were hoping that Ryan Doumit would be that guy, but he got hurt. If the Pirates are going to make a run at .500 Doumit has to be a Carrier for the second half of the season. The Pirates would have liked Adam LaRoche to be a Carrier, but he has flopped for years now. He is having a great year by LaRoche standards this year, but look at his stats. Adam has over a third of his hits go for extra bases. He is second on the team in doubles and first in home runs. A good sign for someone to be a Carrier, yet he barely ever gets hits. His average is .250. He has 39 RBI's five more than Freddy Sanchez and his brother Andy LaRoche. Freddy hits second in the line up and Andy hits sixth (he has moved around some). Jack Wilson the 8th hitter is only 8 RBI's behind Adam. Adam hits in the clean up spot and he has to come up with more RBI's. I fully expect him to be traded.

All in all I am excited to see the new look Pirates continue their play. Charlie Morton pitching is something I am interested in. The impact of a soon returning Ryan Doumit should have a positive effect. I also am hopefull that when the September call ups come we will get to see Jose Tabata. These are things that should keep Pirate fans coming to see the team. If only baseball went all year long.

Forgotten Reformer: Simon Grynaeus

Since the Calvin 500 push is on, it seems a decent time for me to return to the task of remembering the Forgotten Reformers. Simon Grynaeus is today’s forgotten reformer.

Grynaeus seems to have come to a Reformed understanding apart from most contemporary influences. He was a biblical scholar who came to Biblical beliefs. Thus, it is hard to pinpoint his departure from the Roman church because he was not a part of a particular movement. Simon was born in German (1493) and in accordance with what a lot of Renaissance scholars, changed his last name to Grynaeus. He had already been suspected by the Dominicans of non-catholic beliefs prior to his appointment to the chair of Greek at Heidelberg in 1524. Heidelberg was still under Roman control at this point, and so Simon must still have been at least outwardly apart of the Roman church. However, his views of the Lord’s Supper rejected Transubstantiation and took a Zwinglian approach. This led him into a correspondance with John Oecolampadius in 1526. In 1529 he went to Basel to replace Erasmus, which means that by this time Grynaeus must have been fairly open about his Reformed beliefs. In 1531 he toured England with letters of introduction that helped him be received by men such as Thomas More, and he furthered his education there. He did return to Basel in time to be at the death bed of Oecolampadius.

Grynaeus was more than just an academic. He did active reforming as well helping with the Reformation in Wurttenburg in 1534 and the work in Tubingen. He was a primary editor of the First Helvetic Confession with Oswald Myconius in 1536 (the confession was primarily written by the late Oecolampadius). He represented all of Switzerland at the Worms Conference in 1540. He died the next year in an outbreak of the plague which seems to have happened often in Basel.

He also aided the church through his children. His son Samuel became a professor of law. Simon was related to the future head pastor of Basel, John Jakob Grynaeus. Simon’s descendant Simon (of 1725-1799) made a modern German translation of the Bible and worked for the Reformation.

Grynaeus was a teacher of the Reformation and did just that for most of his life. He taught in Universities where he raised up the next generation of pastors. It is to be remembered that John Calvin went to study under Simon Grynaeus in 1534 to more fully master Hebrew. It is men like this that are forgotten because he did not write much or at least not much that has survived, but his legacy is important nonetheless.

Pirates News UPDATED

The Pirates are on the move again. They are only six games out of first place, which for most teams would mean they are in the race. Of course no one thinks the Pirates are in the race, but the next 13 games will tell if they are still in it. If they can stay within five games or so of first place at the All Star break, I think the Pirates would avoid off loading most of their team this year.

That said, they are going to make some moves no matter what. For example the recent trade of Eric Hinske Hinske was the obligatory off season free agent signed by the Pirates. He played mostly outfield with some third and first mixed in. He was not doing very well, and not giving them the power off of the bench they wished. So, they traded him. After calling up Steven Pierce, who can also play first and outfield, the need for Hinske was gone. They got two Single A prospects for him. The Yankees must be out of their minds. This can only be seen as a good deal. It gives Brandon Moss and Steven Pierce more playing time, and gives them two prospects. Garret Jones, who is generally not considered a part of the future of the Pirates but is hitting .307 with 12 homers in Triple A, has been called up to take Hinske’s place.

What should Pirate fans expect? I think they should expect one more deal no matter what. Garrett Jones is a full time outfielder and a left handed one at that. Steven Pierce is on the team right now as well, and supposedly was told he was going to play outfield. Pierce is a natural first baseman who for the past two years has been learning outfield. This year in Triple A they told him to go back to first base and was only told last week when he was called up to the majors, to play the outfield. I expect that along with the addition of Jones to the outfield this week means that Adam LaRoche will be dealt even if the Pirates remain in contention. Pierce will then become the full time first baseman. Adam is hitting better than normal and is a free agent in the off season. He is the best power hitter the Pirates can offer and is not a part of the future of this team. Expect Adam to go no matter what.

If the Pirates do fall out of contention in the next two weeks, you might could Jack Wilson go, although I am wondering if the Pirates would do this without a short stop who is big league ready right now. If they got the right offer, I think they would. The other possible trade is John Grabow, the lefty out of the bullpen. He would probably garner some interest, and could get a prospect or two in return. Now if the Pirates are still in contention, I think they keep both of those guys. If the Pirates are playing to win this year, you will know by the fate of Grabow and Wilson.

UPDATE: The Pirates have just traded Nyjer Morgan and Sean Burnett to the Washington Nationals for Lastings Milledge and a right handed pitcher named Hanarhan. It is a pretty bad trade for the Pirates. It is a major gamble that Milledge will be better than he ever has been before and that he will grow into the player people hope he will be. If that falls through this is a major mistake. I do think it might be an attempt to compete this year and not an indication of a large scale sell off. Morgan is a leadoff hitter, which the Pirates already have in McCutchen, and with Tyler Yates down with an injure the Pirates need a right handed power reliever. So, that is the logic I guess. Bad trade. First bad one of the new ownership in my mind.

A required post on the NBA draft

Look, I think we all know that I dislike the NBA. And if I am forced to pick an NBA team, I cheer for the Nuggets. However, I am really interested in what the Minnesota Timberwolves do in this year’s draft. They have four first round picks, plus the 15th pick in the Second Round in a draft that most agree is a deep draft. I have long thought that the best way to rebuild a team in the current NBA is not through free agents, but just trading everyone to get draft picks. This is what the Timberwolves have apparently done. They traded away their best player to get another draft and some other frontline guys to the Wizards just a few days ago. The Timberwolves were a lottery team last year, but ought to be a playoff team this next year.

Since the Timberwolves are drafting both 5th and 6th they ought to have at least two impact players. They seem to have a decent front court with Al Jefferson, Kevin Love, and Cory Brewer. Add in Sheldon Williams and Ryan Gomes just to name the young guys, and the front court seems okay. That is why I hope the Timberwolves do not trade up to get Hashem Thabeet. He will not be as good in the NBA, and they need back court help. They ought to be able to get Stephen Curry (of Davidson) and Tyreke Evans (Memphis). Either could play shooting guard or point guard. At 15 they can probably pick either Tyler Hansbrough or DeJuan Blair. I think Blair is the better pick, but both ought to be there. That gives them some more front line strength. They pick again at 28 where they can pick whatever overseas guy they like the best or they could pick Patty Mills from Saint Marys. That kid can shoot the lights out. Darren Collison from UCLA should also be there. Then take pick 45 and just get the best guy remaining on the board, probably an overseas guy, and you should be set for an exciting year.

If I were the Timberwolves, I would take Curry, Evans, Blair, and Mills. You would have three guys that can shoot the lights out, and one tough inside guy who could give some quality off the bench minutes as he develops into an NBA player. The starting line up for Minnesota in 2010 would be Evans, Curry, Brewer, Love, and Jefferson. Add in Blair and whatever European you got in round two to come off the bench with Gomes and Williams and the team has its rotation. The three guys they got from the Wizards are all pointless with only Songaila having any chance at playing. I hope they keep all the picks, and I hope they take Mills with their late pick. If they do, they could shoot their way to a Playoff appearance.

The Emergent Conversation Dead?

The Emergent Church movement or conversation is in real trouble. There has been a large swell of disappointment and the change in leadership or stepping aside of leadership has not really helped. A small look at some of this is helpful. Nick, the Hopeful Skeptic appears to have touched off the latest round of trouble with his blog about his disappointment in the movement. What is left of the Emergent Village is trying to get back to basics and link up like minded churches with a nice map of where such churches can be found. One interesting note about the map is the Mark Driscoll and his Seattle church do not appear to be listed. Of course the map drew some scathing comments from former Emergent types such as Remonstrans This was too much for former National Coordinator, Tony Jones. Jones unleashes a bitter diatribe at those who think the movement has lost heart or soldout and points to the emergence of women and minorities in the movement. Josh Brown declared the movement dead while the other extreme was represented by Jonathon Brink who wants everyone to partake of his enthusiasm. Of course Team Pyro and Phil Johnson were there to offer their thoughts on the death of the Emergent Church with a warning that the underlying problems that lead to Emergent Church still exist.

But I think this debate about the death of the Emergent Church and their response is enlightening. I do believe that this movement is dead for several reasons.

1. The movement was based on Post Modernism. That is about the only thing that joined the group together, and that led to much of its problems. They could not even agree on what Emergent meant, much less define any standard beliefs. Nick the Skeptic thought it was a movement that was organizing into something more, but Tony Jones hated the idea of a revolution despite the fact that Brian McLaren was writing his books and promoting the idea that “everything must change”. Josh Brown thinks it failed because it became a church or at least an organization. Showing again that for two to walk together they must be agreed. Post Modernism does not make a firm enough basis to stand together upon since it is naturally a individualistic theology/philosophy.

2. Emergent Church was primarily a protest. It was a protest against many things. The mixing of politics and church, the traditional way of worship, the current fads in Evangelicalism (too unauthentic), and for many the theological truths especially inerrancy. The point is that protest movements are hard to keep together because not everyone is protesting the same thing. Some may not be against a more traditional theology. Those people were run out of the movement early on. See Mark Driscoll. Others may not be so against traditional styles of worship or completely in favor of liberalism. Some might feel the need for some politics, and others might just be against conservative politics. After initial success the differences emerge and are very hard to keep together. I think this is part of the problem with the Emergent Movement.

3. Emergent Church was never really divorced from politics. This is going to be a bit contoversial, but I believe it is true. When one reads the works of Emergents, anger toward the Religious Right and Politics is top on their list. Notice that almost every one of the above linked articles has references to politics. Nick referenced Obama through a quote. Tony Jones cannot help but mention Fawell and Dobson. Remonstrans mentions the social gospel at the end of his post that fits into a Liberal Democratic Agenda. The Emergent Church and Liberal Politics were always intertwined. The Liberals won the election that always cools a movement. Plus, President Obama is not turning out to be the Messiah as Nick alludes too. That will also hurt the movement. This of course passes over the fact that Doug Pagitt has stepped down from leadership of the Emergent Village and moved into politics as he is running for the Minnesota Legislature. I think it is a glimpse of where the priorities of the movement lie.

4. Emergent Church is built on social action, not theology, and that is always doomed to disappointment. This fits nicely with the above point as Emergent types come to understand that the state is a quicker engine to accomplish goals such as "ending poverty, war, and environmental destruction" (From the end of Remonstrans blog). There will always be poor with us as Jesus told us and wars and rumors of wars are not going anywhere either. Environmental destruction is debatable as to whether or not it is even occurring. Thus, a movement focused on these things is destined to lose members, focus, and eventually run out of gas. It happened in the 60’s and 70’s so that the 80’s was an era of Yuppies not Hippies. Social activism is not wrong in and of itself, but when it is taken by itself apart from theology, it will be a failure and exhausting to those in the crusade. This has happened in the Emergent Conversation/Movement/Denomination/Organization.

In conclusion, I think that the entire Conversation of Emergent is doomed. I do not believe that it will be able to revive itself. Thus, while I understand what the Pyromaniacs are talking about when they think the underlying problems still exist, I think this particular manifestation is dead.

I watched Marley and Me yesterday. It is a hard movie to review. Owen Wilson is impressive in his acting. He does a good job at being more than just a comedian, but he does not lose his comedic touch in this movie either. Jennifer Aniston does what you expect. Her girl next door look and style fits perfect with this movie. There is a nice contrast made between the main character and his best friend. It is movie of self-discovery. It is a movie that does an amazing job of showing real life reactions and real life troubles. That translates into a movie that is very understandable, and gives the audience a deep connection with the family on screen. It is surprisingly free from pointless scenes and carries a fairly family friendly rating. The best movie to compare it with is Old Yeller. In fact, Marley and Me is this generations Old Yeller. I felt the same after watching Marley and Me as I did after Old Yeller. I said to myself, "That was a good movie. But I would rather poke my own eyes out than have to watch that dog die again."

Forgotten Reformer: Pierre Viret

Pierre Viret is another forgotten Reformer, but one who did and suffered so much for the Reformation that it is almost a crime that we neglect this man. Viret was born in Orbe Switzerland in 1511. He attended university in France where he became a Protestant. He was convinced to be a minister of the gospel by Guillermo Farel. Farel convinced him to minister in the country of Lausanne. Here Viret became the Reformer of this little place, which I believe today is a part of France, but then was free. It is Viret who invited Theodore Beza to teach at the University of Lausanne. There the duo had a tremendous impact on the reformation in France as many Frenchmen came to be trained in Lausanne, and then went back to France. Viret would also help reform Geneva with Farel and Calvin, but his heart was in France. While in Geneva Viret was fed poison by a Romanist sympathizer. It did not kill him, but he did suffer problems from it for the rest of his life. Soon, Viret journeyed back to France. There he served and preached in many different congregations from Paris to Orleans. Eventually he settled down in Montpellier where the region became Reformed mainly through his preaching. In 1565, Viret was warned in an anonymous note to flee, and he did so just before the Romanist army took over his area. Viret then served for a short time in Navarre where he had taken refuge. He would not be able to avoid capture forever, and he was taken in by the Romanists with 11 other ministers. Seven of those ministers were executed, but so many Romanists came forward to speak of the love and kindness showed by Viret that the magistrate let him live. He continued preaching for the Reformation, but in 1571 he died as his body finally gave out.

Viret may well have been the most popular preacher in all of the Reformation. He Reformed Lausanne, and had a major role in Reforming Vaud and Geneva. He also of course played a very important role in France even being elected President of the National Synod of the French Reformed Church. Thousands followed his preaching. Riots broke out sometimes as people tried to disrupt his preaching. He was poisoned. He lost two wives and multiple kids to the plague, but nothing shattered his devotion to the cause of Christ. He preached it everywhere he went. Viret is sometimes associated with Calvin since they worked together in Geneva, but Viret was not someone Calvin trained. Viret in fact had a Zwinglian view of the Lord’s Supper, and was more beloved than Calvin in Geneva. I read somewhere (but I cannot find it now) that Viret was paid more than Calvin despite Calvin being the head pastor in Geneva. Viret is truly an example of someone on the front lines of the Reformation. He felt the call to be a missionary preacher, and that is what he did his entire life. Let us not forget the work of this brave man, nor his legacy of undaunted courage for Christ.

President Obama and the Cairo Speech

We have had plenty of time now to see who our new President is. This Cairo Speech is a beautiful example of President Obama, his methodology, and his fundamental flaws. Of course members of the main stream media think that this speech puts Obama on par with God . . .really he compared Obama to God. But that is what it takes to get a job at Newsweek. When that magazine folds, I will take my family out to a nice dinner to celebrate.

President Obama’s methodology should be noted first. He loves the "on one hand . . . but on the other hand" construction. He uses it all the time, and uses it again in this speech. I believe it is because Presdient Obama believes that looking at a problem from all the angles will solve it. But is also because he believes that there is never a problem where you either have to chose the one hand or the other. There is never a black and white situation for President Obama. There is never a situation where the two positions are contradictory. It has to be admitted the other major method used by President Obama is lying. I don’t see much other way around it. "Islam has a proud tradition of religious tolerance." It is hard to imagine that is anything other than a lie. And when you sight Indonesia as your example it is hard to take it seriously. Obama was attempting to lie to get on their good side. Even the United States Council on Religious Freedom counts Indonesia as a country that allows persecution of Christians by Muslims. Not exactly a good tolerance rating there. Just because the government does not officially sponsor persecution as it does in many Middle Eastern countries does not mean that Islam is being tolerant of Christianity in Indonesia.

President Obama himself is on display in major speeches like this. There is much that he needs to be criticized for in this speech. One can wrangle about whether or not it is right to apologize for the Iraq war, as he basically did in this speech. One can argue whether or not he should have spoken of terrorism and the sponsorship of it. It is a policy debate when you are discussing Israel. They have no fundamental right to expect our support. But, it is a clear shift in policy by demanding Israel come to a two-state solution and stop settlements. President Obama is clearly pro-Palastinian in this speech. It is clear the biggest thing in the speech is this statement.

For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That is a rejection that the job of the President of the United States is to look out for the good of the United States. Now he may just be talking about sujugation, a physical oppression, but that part is not repeated. He appears to be saying the mere elevation of your interest is now a bad thing. His view of being our President is to NOT serve our own interests. He considers such things as failures. Such a statement is astronomical. Unbelievable. And it is not really being reported on.

Obama also needs to be corrected on fundamental facts. After claiming to be a “student of history” he messes up every single statement on history in his speech. According to President Obama part of the debt of civilization to Islam is the compass. Now there is a debate about who invented the compass. Some think it was the Olmec, a native tribe in South America. This is not held by many. Most think it was the Chinese. Others think it was invented independently in Europe and first used as navigation there. I have not seen anyone, other than the President, argue the Islamic world invented the compass. The argument for the invention of the compass by the Islamic world would have to be based on the fact that they had it, and we just have not yet discovered the proof for it. The Compass is mentioned in France almost 100 years prior to seeing any evidence of it in the Islamic world, and that does not get the Islamic world ahead of China. Algebra is universally attributed to the ancient Babylonians. While Babylon is roughly modern day Iraq, Babylon pre-dates Islam by 1,000 years. Only the grossest of ignorance can claim Islam gave us Algebra. I think the printing press is so well documented that to pretend the mastery of printing came from Islam is an insult.

This leads me to my point. President Obama can extend the olive branch all he wants, but he is living in a world of delusion and lies. Islam has not contributed to civilization, at least not very much. They may have kept many manuscripts alive that we later used in the Renaissance, but the question needs to be asked, why did they not have a Renaissance? If when we discovered the old texts kept in libraries in Muslim countries, we had a rush back to the sources and learned and grew and had a period of intellectual revival, what is it in Islam that prevented that from happening? Is keeping a book on a shelf keeping learning alive or is it simply storing something for others? Islam no matter how much we pretend is not a religion of peace, and their effect on countries is obvious to the naked eye. President Obama can put Judaism, Islam, and Christianity on a par as he did in the speech, but it is a falsehood to try and live by it. Like I tell my kids, it is one thing to pretend you are Superman, but it is another to live like you are Superman. The first is in good fun, the second is dangerous and deadly. Just to drive home the point. President Obama quoted from the Koran when he stated that "if one murdered anyone in the land it would be as if he slew the whole people", but the next verse is the important distinction found in the Koran. That verse goes on to state: "The punishment for those who strive against Allah and His Messenger [Mohammed] . . . is execution . . ." A verse about peace is followed by a verse that demands the death of all those who do not follow Mohammed.

In the end, this speech is a useless exercise in egotism. There are fundamental differences found in the religion of Islam and the religion of Christianity that will not allow them to exist side by side as if they are the same. One has a view of civilization that is about bloodshed, hatred, subjection of women, and has holy war as one of the great virtues. The other has a view that is about forgiveness, salvation, and love. They are not both the same.

Seeing the Pirates and Joe Mauer

The NBA is nothing compared to Major League Baseball. If you watched the conference finals, you will now understand that the NBA is rigged or at least it is attempted. LeBron got every call he could possibly get and the Lakers did as well. That along with the Puppet Kobe and Puppet LeBron commercials should tell you who the NBA tried to put in the finals. The Nuggets beat LA in Game 1, 3, 4, and 5. Thanks to poor officiating they were only able to win Game 4. Oddly LA won Game 2, but the refs gave that one to the Nuggets. If the NBA is not rigged then the refs are the single most incompetent group of people on the planet. No reason to ever watch the NBA again.

But the main point of the post is to talk about the Pittsburgh Pirates. I will have the pleasure of seeing them in action this year as they come to Minnesota, and I am going to attend a game. This means I will also probably get to see the greatest player in the game today, Joe Mauer, catcher for the Twins. Mauer missed most of April with an injury, but hit .414 in May with 11 homers and 32 RBIs (.500 OBA and .848 Slug for those interested). He was the first catcher to ever lead the American League in Batting Average a couple of years ago and quietly last year he did it again. I have little doubt that he will win another batting title this year.

But the Pirates are still the main attraction. They are my pick to win back to back World Series titles starting next year. They will break .500 this year. They are five games below .500 right now, but I am not worried. They have spent all but a few games without their biggest bat, Ryan Doumit. They have also had their closer miss a few games and are still without their 8th inning guy, Tyler Yates. But the main reason to be excited about the future of the Pittsburgh Pirates is Greg Smith. Who is Greg Smith? Well, he is the front office guy in charge of the Pirates Draft. They Pirates had the best draft in the majors last year. They picked Pedro Alvarez and managed to sign him despite lots of dirty tricks by his agent. They signed 6 of their top 10 picks. Including the steal of the draft, Robbie Grossman, a high school outfielder in the 6th round. Grossman was a top two or three round talent that people avoided because he had committed to Texas and seemed adamant. The Pirates drafted him anyway and then gave him a one million dollar signing bonus, which is unheard of for a 6th round pick and for the Pirates who are notoriously cheap. Grossman is now playing for the Class A West Virginia Power. He has a .710 OPS and is 16 out of 18 in the stolen base department. Not bad for a kid right out of high school. The Pirates draft fourth in this year’s draft and get a complementary pick because they failed to sign their second round pick last year.

Another reason is the great trades the Pirates pulled off last year. They did have to lose Xavier Nady and Jason Bay plus some relievers, but they got back Jose Tabata from the Yankees, who will probably arrive in the Pittsburgh outfield in 2011 giving the Pirates great options with future Free Agents like Nate McClouth. Add to that Brian Morris who was the center piece of the Bay-Rameriez deal. Morris ought to be in the rotation by 2011. And after all of the draft day busts from past years, these sorts of deals are important. The previous front office guys drafted lots of pitchers who almost all failed. Everyone from Kris Benson to VanBenschoten to 2007’s Daniel Moskos (who might be an alright closer, but does not look so good as a started). This would explain why Greg Smith got the reigns of the draft last year and he looks good at it. Add to that the amazing re-emergence of Brad Lincoln (2006 first round draft pick who had Tommy John surgery the minute he pitched for the Pirates in the minors). Lincoln is on track to be part of the 2011 rotation as well.

This is all good news for the Pirates. By the end of this year we will get a glimpse of Andrew McCutchen, which will give the Pirates an amazing outfield. Steven Pierce will probably be a September call up for even more depth there or to replace a hopefully traded Adam LaRoche at first. By the end of 2010 we will see Pedro Alvarez at third and maybe Brad Lincoln in the rotation. That will help us fill the hole at third and get rid of Ian Snell, who is now officially in my doghouse for his inability to get anyone out in the first two innings and refusal to throw inside. 2011 will bring Morris and Tabata and the Pirates are looking good to be competitive for years to come.

History of Conservatism: How every party has abandoned the conservative

The first thing one must do in an undertaking of this nature is define his terms. What exactly is a conservative? The Free Online Dictionary defines conservative as “favoring traditional views and values:; tending to oppose change.” This is a fair enough definition, but what exactly does it mean to have a traditional view of government since we are talking about conservatives in government? There are two main philosophies of government. One is Natural Law, which is the idea that the people get their rights from their Creator or nature and the government is there to protect those rights and follow the Natural Law. The second view is Positivism, which states that the government gives you your rights. I do not think it necessary to prove the Natural Law view is the one that is the traditional view. The Magna Charta was a Natural Law document so what the American Colonists were fighting for in the American Revolution was their Natural Rights. This is exactly what the opening of the Declaration of Independence teaches us. We have inalienable rights from our creator. Thus, the American Revolution was about the protection of Natural Rights. So the traditional view in American government and politics is Natural Law. The tending to oppose change part of conservatism is easy enough in America. A conservative is one then who wishes to stick to the constitution and not change it or the ways we govern. Thus, the people that are so often called ‘strict constructionists’ and ‘originalists’ in their view of the constitution then are conservatives. However, one might notice from the definition of conservative that they can be slow to act. They tend to oppose change and thus are better at opposing plans and action than actually coming up with a positive plan on how to proceed. This will be easily seen as we trace the history of conservatism in America and how often it is used and then betrayed by the political parties.

It should be noted up front as well that the Conservatives are the majority. I think the historical survey will bear that out in full. But seeing as this will be a highly debated point, I will return to it in a later chapter.

This history of the Conservative movement in America then is one riddled with failure, but they bring only success to the party they support. This may seem like a contradiction, but I assure it is not. Conservatives themselves fail more often than not to stop the growth of government, and the invention of new ways to govern outside of the Constitution. They have failed to keep Natural Law as the basis for our society, and they have failed to control the organs of government for all, but extremely short periods of time. Yet, the support and the votes of the conservatives have brought success to the party that currently woos the conservative vote. Again the historical survey will bring this more the forefront, but it needs to be said now. It needs to be said now because we need to understand that the Conservative movement is not attached to a particular party. Conservative and Republican are not synonyms. In fact the Republican Party was founded to be against the Conservatives in America. The Conservatives spent a long time in the Democratic Party, but again, the Democratic Party was founded ton the back of a man who was only slightly conservative, and thus it was not a party for the Conservatives.

Why then do the Conservatives win their party elections, but not ever control the parties themselves? This fundamental question is answered again in the definition of conservative. Conservatives do not want power, they want stability. Political parties are founded to get and keep power, and dare I say it, even grow their own power. Conservatives do not wish to see a growth in power and are not willing to do whatever it takes to get the power. Thus, they cannot control a political party. They will not be able take the reigns of power and keep them because their message is usually “no”. It is hard to win people over to “no”. But it is easy to win people over to “I will give you money if you are poor” or “I will give you money not to grow corn.” That is a much easier sell. Add in the fact that Conservatives argue for and believe in Natural Law, and their goose is cooked. Believing in natural law means their ethical standards are fixed. They cannot change. The non-conservatives whether we call them liberals or progressives or whatever are not bound by traditional morals. Sure, some believe in them and follow them, but the party or group that holds to Postivism is by definition not bound by morals. They are able to change morality in order to serve their needs. A good example of this is all of the lying that is now so common in politics. How often does someone come out and say “I did not have sex with that woman” and it turns out they did. Or say “I was not briefed on that issue”, and they were. Lying is a means to an end, not a violation of a moral code. That is why so many people in power have no problem with cheating on taxes because they do not believe in moral codes, they believe in changing codes. Which also means they believe that ethical standards do not apply to them. Only governmental standards apply to them, and sometimes those do not apply either because those standards can be changed.

The goal of this endeavor is to show that Conservatism is a major force in America, indeed a necessary force. But also to show the flaws in the Conservative movement and it current way of operating. Historical awareness is important in anything, and judging from how loosely the word "conservative" is thrown around these days, a good dose of historical awareness is necessary. This I hope to accomplish in upcoming posts.

Seven Pounds Movie Review

I just finished watching Seven Pounds with Will Smith. It is a good movie. It is yet another Will Smith movie with very Christological references and themes. It is not quite as good as I am Legend with Will Smith, but mainly because I thought some of the early filmography of Seven Pounds was a little weak and/or confusing. But, other than that minor complaint, the movie is excellent. I don’t want to give too much away, but even the trailers let you know that it is a movie about a man giving gifts to others. Christ also gives gifts to men. How the gifts are given is important and the three main people focused on in this movie are all very biblically explained. One receives a new life. That phraseology is even used in the movie. Sight is also given to the blind. Scriptural references find their way into that exchange as well including one very obvious “slow to anger” comment. The third receives a new heart, and it is hard to imagine a more scriptural picture than that. I highly recommend this movie. Like I said, the beginning is a little slow because of the filming, but stick with it. It is a gripping movie that has a good message. Well done art that can be enjoyed by all above the age of 13.

Did you know

Here is something you didn’t hear on the news. Many pro-lifers were arrested for peacefully protesting Notre Dame’s awarding an honorary doctorate to President Obama. Among those arrested was a Mrs. Norma McCorvey, better known as “Roe” from Roe v Wade. She was arrested as an anti-abortion protester.

Forgotten Reformer: Jan Laski

I just returned from the RCUS Synod where we heard Rev. Eric Kayayan give a few talks about Calvin in honor of the 500th anniversary of his birth. He did a good job talking about Calvin’s life and how that contributed to his life and work. However, it reminded me of my year long task to speak more of the forgotten reformers. Calvin was a great reformer, but he was primarily a ‘man of letters’ as they were called back then. He did preach the gospel without a doubt, and he organized Geneva, but his main influence is through his written work. He was not a foot solider of the reformation. Again, I have nothing against Calvin, I just think some of the other guys need to get more publicity.

One of those men is Jan Laski. Laski was a polish man borin in 1499. Laski was a Romanist priest, who converted to the Reformed faith. When that happened is not easy to tell, but it was clearly before 1542. It probably happened while he was in Basel. He went there in 1523 where he met Erasmus, Oecolampadius, and Zwingli. He became a pastor in Emden in 1542 clearly at this point preaching the Reformation and the doctrines of grace. He became the first superintendent of the Reformed Church in East Friesland in 1545. Persecution from the Holy Roman Empire and some Lutherans would chase him from Emden to England, where he pastored at the famous Stranger’s Church in London. This church had enormous influence on the Puritan movement as this church was outside of the rules of the Church of England. Laski supported Hooper in his refusal to wear the Vestiments. Bloody Mary would take the English throne and Laski was on the move again. He went to Brandenburg for a time, but would return to try and help reform his homeland of Poland. Laski was considered a heretic and was wanted for heresy, but he traveled back to Poland anyway. It was in Poland in 1560 that he died.

Laski’s influence cannot be overstated. Laski was a follower of Zwingli’s view of the supper, not Calvin’s view. Laski is a major influence in Puritanism, one that is often overlooked today. Just as a way of proof that Laski was more influential than Calvin with the faction that would become known as Puritans is the incident at Wesel. Wesel was a German town that had an exile church during the reign of Mary. The church had both French and English members. Many of the English wished to follow the Church of England, and the Church of England told the Wesel church that if they simply accepted a couple of the vestments they would be allowed to worship unmolested. The church wrote to both Laski and Calvin for advice. Calvin advised that they keep the vestments since they were indifferent theologically (for Calvin at least), and then the church would not split. Laski advised the church to reject the vestments and suffer the consequences. The church took Laski’s advice and all non-conformist, including the French, were kicked out of the church. Laski had great influence.

Laski helped form the ideas of church government that still impact the Presbyterian church today, namely that elders and ministers are the same except that ministers are able to preach and give the sacraments. Laski influenced the Heidelberg Catechism with some of his own early catechisms. Laski helped introduce the Reformation in Emden, England, Netherlands, and Poland at least. His contemporaries held him in high regard. Jerome Zanchy, Italian Reformer who taught at Heidelberg, held that Laski’s name should always be mentioned in the same breath with Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli.

The Rev. Eric Kayayan spoke beautifully about Calvin, and rightly so. He spoke of the great influence of Calvin, and again, rightly so. Rev. Kayayan mentioned all the people to whom Calvin wrote letters, such as the people in England, the exile churches, and even King Sigismund of Poland. It hit me then that Calvin was able to write to these people because of the labors of others, such as Laski. Would Calvin have been able to write to Sigismund if Laski had not done such good work? Would Calvin have had any influence in England if it had not been for Bucer, Vermigli, and Laski? Probably not. That is why Jan Laski needs to be remembered. He is a man who was a true foot soldier of the Reformation.

Forgotten Reformer: Ambrose Blarer

Ambrose Blarer is a forgotten reformer although he has contributed a great deal to modern churches and should be remembered by those who appreciate hymnody. Ambrose was born in 1492 to a wealthy family of Constance (sometimes spelled Konstanz). He probably became Reformed in his university days. He studied at Tubingen where he met Philip Melanchthon. Ambrose’s brother, Thomas, studied at Wittenburg under Luther himself, so Ambrose would clearly have been acquainted with Reformation thought. Despite all of the Lutheran contact, Ambrose became reformed and favored Zwingli’s view of the Lord’s Supper. Ambrose became a monk, but his reformed thought got him kicked out sometime between 1520 and 1523. By 1525 Ambrose was preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ in its purity to the people of the southern Germany city of Constance. His brother Thomas was on the city council, which helped give political support to the new preaching. Constance was the seat of a bishop, so it was no small feat when the city declared for the Reformation. Blarer had a great deal of help from his cousins, Johannes Zwick (a pastor) and Conrad Zwick (another politician).

Blarer would not be content to free just the city of Constance from the grip of Rome and the papal anti-christ. He would also serve as the main Reformer for the cities of Ulm and Memmingen. Blarer also aided in the reformation of other towns such as Montebeliard, and countless others through his correspondence. Some of the work would be undone during the Augsburg Interim imposed after the victory of Emperor Charles. Blarer refused to sign the Augsburg Confession and fled to Switzerland in 1548. There he continued to preach in Swiss towns and give out advice to whoever sought it. He died in 1564.

His impact however was greater than this. When the Reformation took cities over they did not always come to the same conclusions regarding music. For example, the people of Zurich did not participate in singing at all at first. It actually took some time before the people took up their voices in song. The people under Bucer, Zell, and Capito, sang only psalms in the beginning. But the people of Constance wrote and sang hymns. By 1533, the Blarers and Zwicks had written a Constance Hymn Book. It was half psalms and half hymns. Ambrose wrote several hymns and he collected hymns from others. He did include many of the Lutheran hymns, and he also got several other Protestant Reformers to contribute hymns like Leo Juda of Zurich. Ambrose wrote catechical hymns, he wrote evening and morning hymns, and he wrote festal hymns. It took less than five years before Strassborg changed their worship style to include these new hymns flowing out of Constance. In 1540, Blarer collected more and published a new edition and had his friend Johannes Zwick write a defense of hymnody for the preface. These Reformers gave us the great tradition of hymns and adding hymns to our services. This is no small accomplishment. These men not only preached the gospel, but loved to sing the praises of their God and Savior. Blarer took a lead in that, and for that alone he deserves to be remembered.

MLB predictions

I have not made my predictions for this year's major league baseball, but better late than never.

First, let me say the Pirates are going to finish above .500. Yes, they are only 1.5 games out right now. That is amazing. If they can stay within 3 games of St. Louis during this stretch where Jack Wilson (hitting over .300) and Ryan Doumit (RBI leader last year) are on the disabled list and Nate McClouth (last year's all star) is missing a few games then the Pirates are going to compete for a Wild Card and perhaps the NL Central Title. This is a great start for them and they still have last year's bright spot Phil Dumatrait to add to the bullpen or rotation where ever he is needed as soon as Phil gets off the DL.

But the team to watch, and my pick to win the World Series is the Minnesota Twins. Right now they are under .500, but only 1.5 games out of first in their division. They are doing this without the person who should have won the MVP last year, Joe Mauer. Mauer led the AL in batting average last year, and when he gets back, the Twins will take off again. They have the best manager in baseball and a really good pitching staff. Expect the Twins to be in the post season this year.

As for the NL, I think you have to say that the Dodgers are going to win the NL. I hate to admit that, but I think Joe Torre is the second best manager in baseball, and they do not have a lot of competition out in the NL West. The Mets are going to fold down the stretch as always and leave the Dodgers without serious competition. I do not think that Pujols can keep the Cardinals in the running by himself and Chirs Carpenter is already hurt. The rest of the Cardinals are on steroids so you never know what you are going to get from them. The Cubs made a giant mistake in the offseason with Milton Bradley, and their pitching is not good enough. So, there you have it. My 2009 picks.

Paedocommunion vs. Confirmation: Part 2

I just want to take a brief glance at the history of Paedocommunion in the Church. Venema apparently does this in his book and comes to the conclusion that some churches may have practiced it and others probably did not. I agree with this assessment. In fact some of my thoughts can be found in the comment thread on this post. You can find some arguments that Paedocommunion is the historical practice by Tommy Lee on the web.

The Reformers rejected the practice and Wolfgang Musculus is the only one with any sympathy toward it at all. But even he rejects it in the end. The Roman Catholic Church had long since rejected the practice and Eastern Orthodox Church kept the practice. If you read the articles in favor of Paedocommunion you will see that many scholars think the Roman Catholic Church did not practice infant communion in the first and second century. I will not undertake a refutation of their refutation at this point as that would be tedious. However, I simply want to point out the fact that scholars are not as agreed as they would have you think. But more importantly I want to draw attention to their reasoning as to why the Roman Church dropped the practice. Mr. Lee writes:

If paedocommunion was the common practice of the church in ancient days, then why do we not practice it today? Keidel asserts that infants and children were forbidden from the Lord's Supper because of "the doctrine of transubstantiation and the doctrine of concomitance (i.e., that Christ is present entirely under either kind)... The fear that infants and children might spill the wine and thereby profane the actual body and blood of the Lord appears to have been the primary reason for this discontinuance."49 Actually, it was not only the infants and children who ceased drinking the "transubstantiated" wine. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries all of the laity (in the West), adults included, began to back away from the cup. 50

Yet, I see this as a blatant attempt to spin the historical debate in their favor. If the only reason to forbid the Table to infants was a heresy, then we should give it back right? There are several things that make it obvious that this reason is not the best, if one at all. First, Transubstantiation was not official, but was the primary understanding as early as the beginning of the Eleventh century as Pope Leo X had condemned views opposing Transubstantiation by 1050. That is a few centuries earlier than most of these people admit that infants no longer took the Supper, and it seems likely that Transubstantiation must have been around prior to that in an accepted way for Leo to be able to make such a decision. Second, people withdrew from the cup at different times in the history of the church. Pinning down one reason is difficult. In footnote 49 Mr. Lee does admit a growing demand for intelligent reception. Then he also has this important toss away phrase.

Other contributing factors may include the separation of confirmation from the time of baptism (made necessary because Christianity grew rapidly while the number of bishops did not) which encouraged a break down in the three part rite of initiation into the church (baptism, confirmation, eucharist) and the development of the idea of childhood.

Note the dismissive italics. Yet, it is clear that this separation is important. Confirmation used to be handled right after baptism and then the Supper was placed in their mouth. All three signs of being a member of the church crammed into one ceremony. Interestingly you will note that the Eastern Orthodox Church still does all three at once, and the Roman Church does not. Do you think this has any bearing on the fact that the Eastern Orthodox still communes infants and the Romans do not? Probably. The rite of confirmation moved, and with it communion.

Confirmation has already moved by the time of Charlemagne as Ratramnus of Corbie defended the removal of Confirmation from baptism by declaring it the ordination of the laity. In other words they were called into true service of God now at Confirmation, declared of age to participate in the fight. It should be noted for the theory above that Ratramnus rejected Transubstantiation. Confirmation prepared people for the fight of Spiritual Warfare, which necessitated maturity. This language can be seen with regards to confirmation as early as the fifth century in France. We also see that Confirmation for the Welch in Great Britain was not done until they were seven as early as the 9th century. Egbert Archbishop of York in the early part of the 8th century makes it clear that in England (at that point still separate from the Welch) a seven year old is confirmed and then they receive Communion. The Council of Lambeth (1281) made it clear that no child should partake of Communion until after Confirmation. They were not introducing a new idea, but strengthening the neglected rite of Confirmation. Pope Leo XIII in 1897 stated that the practice of the ancient church was to confirm children before their first communion, and that practice should be maintained. I will just assume the Pope has access to more ancient documents than I do, but I do realize that trusting a pope is not a good idea.

The point being here is that Confirmation has always played an important role. Even in the churches that did give the bread and wine to infants, they were almost always confirmed first. Now, I am clearly not arguing for a Roman Catholic doctrine of Confirmation, but I am saying that it is something that cannot be left out of the discussion.

And in fact when the Reformers re-examined everything they of course did not believe Confirmation a sacrament, but they did find it a useful rite of the church. One based now on catechism, instruction, and knowledge. And it served as a wonderful way to make sure children were ready to take the Lord’s Supper. Bucer introduced catechism based Confirmation into the churches of Germany and the churches of England. This of course rubbed off on the German speaking Swiss cantons. The French speaking cantons followed the lead of Calvin, who also performed catechism based Confirmation usually at about age 10. The historic Reformed position then is pretty clear. It is not just allowing people with a profession of faith to the Table at a certain age, it is allowing people to the Table after Confirmation, which involves instruction from the church.

And that in the end, is what I am arguing for. I am not arguing for some random age. I am arguing for participation in the Lord’s Supper to be after a church based examination that involves more than just a profession of faith, but an actual in-depth time of study and knowledge before being allowed to the Table. I shall call it Confirmation Based Communion. I think it is biblical, historical, and the proper thing to do. I hope to expand some basic Exegetical arguments in the next posts.

Paedocommunion vs. Confirmation

I am afraid that the paedo-communion discussion has been lost by the reformed side of the debate. I don’t wade into this lightly because I have some friends who are adamant about the issue, but I fear they are losing. Why? Because it has already been accepted in principle, now all that is left is to haggle over the age. The serious problems of paedo-communion are too often left out of the discussion, or worse, assumed to be true.

Let me give some examples. Steve Hays at Triablogue asks this question.

I have one question: If a pregnant woman takes communion, is that a form of paedocommunion?

Now I admit Hays is not arguing for either side just looking for some clarification, but you would be really surprised to see how often this argument comes up. Hays does not comment on the incipient sacramentalism in the thought. If the baby in the uterus partakes of communion through the mother then clearly we have the transmission of a spiritual blessing through a physical act: the act of eating. Which by the way is exactly what they say. Wilson calls it "eating grace" (Reformed is Not Enough. Pg. 93).

Rev. Douglas Wilson and Rev. Lane Keister are currently blogging through a book by Rev. Cornelius Venema about the issue of paedocommunion. I have great hopes that this will still end up in a strong rejection of paedocommunion as carrying with it a latent sacramentalism. However, Rev. Keister informs us that the book will make a difference between the "strict" view of anyone capable of eating coming to the table and the “soft” view which accepts young professions of faith. Rev. Wilson rightly called this a major flaw. More to the point Rev. Wilson informs us that the book considers the "soft" view a mere modification of the historic reformed view. Things get worse when we see that Rev. Keister admit he is a soft paedocommunionist. This debate is now between a "Strict Paedocommunist", a "Soft Paedocommunist", and a book that thinks "Soft Paedocommunism" is acceptable.

This is why I fear the debate is lost. The practice of allowing children and people in general to the table has been very lax in America for generations. The entrance to the table for most people is merely a Conversion Narrative (an invention of the New Side Presbyterians in the First Great Awakening). If you can tell people when you were saved or that Jesus is your savior, and the Session/Consistory believes you then you are allowed to the Table. Is that the historic Reformed Practice? More importantly, is that the Biblical practice?

In the next several posts I would like to examine this question as thoroughly as my meager efforts can. You will notice the title of the post involves the issue of Confirmation. I think that Confirmation is left out of the discussion far too often, and perhaps is the reason that all the important ground has already been ceded to the Paedocommunists. Few churches practice this rite of the church that was fully endorsed by the Reformation and a prerequisite to the Table.

Tax Day Protest Thoughts

The Tax Day Tea Parties illustrated several major things that ought to scare everyone of us.

The first is a point that cannot be stressed enough. There are some people out there that actually think Keith Olbermann is a journalist. That is astounding and proof that some people will believe anything. Self-Delusion of course is the greatest and Keith himself may actually think his sexual joking about the Tea Parties was real journalism. There is no doubt in my mind that as big a liberal as Edward Murrow was that Murrow would be horrified that Olbermann was on TV and using his catch phrase. I think Murrow would slap Olbermann and tell him a few choice words.

Second, the media as a whole is completely biased. Journalism is dead. It will never come back and it will be hard to maintain a free country and be informed since TV stations are tools of the political parties now. MSNBC was disgraceful in its coverage as was CNN. Fox News went the opposite rout and tried to act as if they were are a part of the Tax Day Tea Parties, which is just as unjournalistic. Not good.

Third, people do not understand taxes. This is what worries me the most. This CNN reporter shows her complete hatred of the protestors, but also her complete ignorance of taxes in this clip that is a must watch. Notice how her response to the man’s complaint about his liberty is to cut him off. In the reporter’s mind taxes and liberty are unrelated. Then she goes even further when the man speaks directly to his taxes been too high, she states that his state is getting a lot of Money from the Federal Government, as if that makes taxes okay. She clearly thinks taxing people in order to give the money to other people is a great idea and does not understand why this guy is not on board. She clearly did not do a lot of listening to the people while she was out there.

The flaw that not only this reporter, but just about all 500 plus representatives in Congress make is that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” as was noted by Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v Maryland. That was of course an undisputed point because that is exactly what Maryland wanted to do the Bank of the US, destroy it. Maybe now it will be clearer to all why liberty is at state when we discuss taxes. If you tax it, you can destroy it, and you will at one point if the people do not keep vigilance. The Federal Government now taxes your phone calls, your gas, and most importantly your income. They have the power to destroy your income. That is why people go to the streets and fear for their liberty. That is why the original Boston Tea Party also. If Parliament had the power to tax anything and everything then there was no liberty. They were slaves of Parliament, slaves to the will of Parliament.

Every civilization before America understood this. Taxes are not Patriot as liberal Democrats want you to believe. They are a necessary, but they are far from patriotic. More revolts are about taxes than about anything else. You can even look in the Bible to see a tax revolt under Rehoboam. It is not because people are selfish and want their money, it is because taxes destroy. They destroy their liberty, their freedom, and cannot be tolerated at certain levels. Either the people end up revolting, the government listens and lowers taxes, or the nation collapses on itself. This is just fact. Sadly a fact that no one notices today.