More on Recovering the Reformed Confessions

I want to respond more indepth to Dr. Clark’s book, Recovering the Reformed Confessions. I do want to stress some of the book’s positive attributes, but I still think his section against 6-day creation creates in the book a fatal flaw that ends up undercutting his main point.

There are some really great things in this book. First and foremost is the writing. I think Dr. Clark is a clear and accessible writer. He is easy to read, to understand, and the book has an enjoyable tone and pace. This is not easily done.

Second, the premise that we as reformed churches need to recover the wonderful documents that are our heritage is true. We need to not be afraid of speaking confessionally. He puts his finger on a real problem and is right to address the idea. We are children of a heritage, and we ought not be nervous nor afraid of it.

Third, one can tell from reading this book that having a Church History class from Dr. Clark would be a lot of fun. Anyone who quotes from John Thomson is okay in my book, and Dr. Clark does it twice. His view on Illegitimate Religious Experience and his application of that to the Great Awakening is right on target. The PCA would do particularly well to listen to that point of advice.

Fourth, one has to admire his willingness not only to point out problems, but to suggest solutions. Ways to recover the Reformed Confessions and Heritage in this modern culture. I don’t particularly agree with all of them, but it makes a good book that does more than critique, but suggest solutions.

Fifth, the section on Illegitimate Religious Experience is also well done and applicable to us today. In fact, it might actually be more applicable to the modern evangelical situation than the Religious Knowledge. It was helpful for me.

Yet, I still have this against the book. In his section about Illegitimate Religious Knowledge he puts in 6-Day creation. Leave aside the debate about it for a moment. This commits Dr. Clark to saying that those things that are not included in the Reformed Confessions are things one cannot be certain about. Thus, to be certain about extra-confessional material is illegitimate. Fine. If that is what one wishes to hold it is a defendable position. The problem is that Dr. Clark is not consistent to that point throughout the rest of his book.

Let me give an example. Dr. Clark goes on to argue that our knowledge of God is analogical (staring on page 123). He attempts to argue that this is part of the warp and woof of the confessions embedded within the creator-creature distinction. This point is highly debated most famously in the Clark-Van Til arguments. This indicates (not stated in the book, but one can read between the lines) that Dr. Scott Clark would argue that Dr. Gordon Clark is not confessional at all. Now where is analogical knowledge spelled out in the creeds? How is that not an extra-confessional issue? How is 6-Day creation illegitimate religious certainty and analogical knowledge is okay? Dr. Scott Clark tries to ground analogical knowledge in the confession in WCF 7.1 “distance between God and the creature”, but that is a pretty big stretch. As is the appeal to the phrase “as it were” in the Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 27 about the Providence of God. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I am not against analogical knowledge. IN FACT, I think the biblical discussion of analogical knowledge is one of the best in the entire book. It is clear, cogent, and powerful. One does not need to be aquatinted with the debate at all to see the argument and understand what is going on. I just think it makes Clark inconsistent in this particular book because of his stance on 6-Day Creation.

Dr. Clark also argues for exclusive singing of Inspired Words (not quite exclusive psalmnody). His point here is that the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) is in the creeds and the RPW requires only the words God inspired. I am going to deal with that more tomorrow, but I have to again ask, how can 6-Day creation be illegitimate to be certain about, but not singing hymns is okay to be certain about? It just does not make sense. The same thing could be said about the second service on Lord’s Day section in this book.

My ultimate point is this: Dr. Clark argues that things outside of the confession cannot be used a boundary markers of Reformed church and then argues for several such boundary markers that are outside the confessions. That is my real problem with the book. When this book goes into a second printing it would be greatly improved in its own internal consistency if it simply removed its discussion about 6-Day creation completely. That way he never forces himself to argue that extra-confessional things are illegitimate to be certain about, and then his suggestions, which are all just as debatable whether or not they are confessional or extra confessional as 6-Day creation, do not conflict with his previous arguments.

McLaren versus the Bible

You have to pity Brian McLaren. His latest internet push for book sales shows just how little he really understands or how incredibly dishonest he is.

He starts out wondering why people don’t like him, specifically evangelicals. He then goes on to say that evangelicals are trained to punish people who are different. Ignoring the obvious insult for a second, I want to continue with what McLaren is actually arguing for a minute. McLaren claims that his conscious is tormented by a few things that the “religious authorities” teach, and he has the courage to question it. That is why he is hated. He gives a few examples, but if you want them all you need to buy his new book. Clearly one example is that God sends unbelievers to hell. The idea that God sends people to hell torments McLaren and he is question that. Apparently also Global warming, evolution, homosexuality, and women not being allowed as ministers also keeps McLaren questioning those means spirited religious leaders. McLaren makes sure that we know he is a good guy. "I love God, Jesus, the Bible, prayer, worship, serving others -- the whole package." This is where McLaren is either being totally dishonest or just does not get what he is actually saying.

McLaren rejects the idea of hell. Yet, passages from the Bible abound about hell. The “lake of fire” in Revelation for example. Jesus himself tells a parable about Lazarus and the rich man, who is in hell. McLaren thinks homosexuality is okay, but the Bible states clearly that it is unnatural, sinful, and originally a death penalty crime in God’s Judicial Law. McLaren likes evolution despite passages like Romans 5:12f that specifically state that death did not enter the world until Adam sinned. That sort of rules out evolution. And I am not even going to go into Genesis 1. So McLaren has only two options.

One, he blames religious leaders for making all of this stuff up despite it all being easily located in the Bible. This means the Bible is not the infallible rule for life, it is his tormented conscious. That puts McLaren in the role of God deciding what is and is not true Christianity.

Two, he is lying when he says that he loves the Bible (at the very least). McLaren’s real problem is not with religious leaders. It is with God’s own Holy Word. He does not like hell. That means he has to not like all of the talk of Jesus about separating the sheep from the goats (Matt 25), and the weeping and nashing of teeth (Matt 22). McLaren likes homosexuality or finds it okay in God’s sight. That means he has to reject and hate Romans 1, Levitcus 19, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and Ham in Genesis. He can’t have it both ways. He cannot accept the doctrines condemned in the Bible and still accept the Bible.

Either option he takes, it is not the religious leaders that torment McLaren, it is Jesus of the Bible that torments McLaren.

Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion Rights?

According to National Public Radio pro-life people like me are now officially to be called Anti-Abortion Rights while pro-choice people like Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson and President Obama will be called Pro-Abortion Rights. This apparently is a move to more neutral language than the inflamatory Pro-Life label that the people use to label themselves.

Remember this is a government funded outfit. Just in case you wonder what the government thinks of you Pro-Lifers and of course what they think of unborn children.

Recovering the Reformed Confessions and 6 Day Creation

R. Scott Clark’s book Recovering the Reformed Confessions is a good book, but I do have to take issue with something he said in his second chapter: the chapter about the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty. Basically, Clark’s argument is that where the Confessions are silent it is a point of liberty and those who wish to add (specifically in this case) 6/24 creation as a test of religious orthodoxy are illegitimate. The chapter briefly covers to other things that are extra confessional or anti-confessional: Theonomy and basically the Federal Vision/Shepherdism. The largest section is directed at 6/24 hour day creation proponents. It seems clear to me that the RCUS in particular is in view and indeed we are specifically cited as the only NAPARC denomination to not grant liberty on this point and we appear in a footnote. I will be addressing why Clark is wrong on this point.

Full disclosure moment. Dr. Clark was formerly in the RCUS and left on mostly amicable terms. Dr. Clark now teaches at Westminster Theological Seminary California which is no longer supported by the RCUS mostly for their non-6/24 hour stance on creation.

Points of disagreement

1. Clark starts by stating that proponents of the 6/24 hour day view of creation have always been unable to show a theological reason for holding to this view. He also claims that this stance has "little to do with the Reformed Confessions" (pg. 48). I could not disagree more. This has a lot to do with the Reformed Confessions and theological reasons abound. Creation in 6 days with rest on the 7th day is the foundation of the 4th Commandment. The 4th Commandment is covered in Confessions. What on earth does the Heidelberg mean in Question 92 when it is reciting the law including the basis that "in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth." Surely then the meaning of the word "day" has confessional implications, and is not restricted to Genesis 1 as an extra-confessional debate. What about Question 103 where the catechism states in its explication of the 4th commandment "especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church . . ." Again the troubling word "day" appears. The Westminister also states "within the space of six days". Surely then it is considered a confessional matter. Yet, Clark waves this off as a simple rejection of Augustine’s instantaneous creation, not a pronouncement upon the days. Yet there is more confessional situations at stake here. The articles of the nature of Scripture are at stake. Article 7 of the Belgic Confession requires us to "reject with all our hearts whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule [Scripture]". Is that arguably what is going on with the statement about creation? Article 7 also speaks of not respecting the writings of men above Scripture no matter how holy they are, which presumably ought to include the writing of scientists as well as theologians. And it states we ought to believe all that it is in the Scripture. What about the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7 that states Scripture is clear and even the unlearned can understand it. Is that true of the GapTheory or Framework? Or is the clear teaching of Scripture 6/24 hour days. And what of WCF 1.9 that says Scripture ought to interpret Scripture and the meaning is one. Can the meaning be one but the message from the ministers be four fold as the PCA would have it on creation? Or WCF 1.10 that says Scripture is the supreme judge of all things. Does that not put it over science? Should I not believe the words of God even if science is against me?
2. Clark dismisses the argument of David Hall and others that point to WCF 4.1 and the "in the space of six days" statement as addressing a different question. That was to keep out Instantaneous Creation and thus has no bearing upon Day-Age or Framework theories of the day. Yet, does not this argument work against Clark as well? The divines simply did not say "God did not create instantly." Rather they stated it was six days. A confessional marker. Also, if what question they were answering is important then is the Confession not applicable to any questions that come after them? Evolution is a challenge to the gospel that is well after the confessions. Does it mean we are all at liberty? Or does it meant that it was not specifically rejected in the Confessions because those views are not yet invented? It seems to me this argument could cut either way, Clark just makes it cut his way and ignores the rest.
3. Clark has a long excursus on heliocentric versus geocentric universe discussions in the past. He is clearly attempting to draw a parallel between the two. Clark wants to argue that using Scriptrue as a text book for science is bad theology and science. First, no one is saying Scripture is a science book. Second, all people are saying is that where the Bible does speak it must be obeyed. Comparing Genesis 1’s repetition of a 6/24 hour formula for creation to the geocentric world debates is a long stretch. It is more an attempt to smear than a real argument.
4. Clark claims these men came to their views "exegetically" and thus it is an extraconfessional and exegetical disagreement (pg.50). If the requirement for things to be considered confessional is that they are exegetically based then we ought to apologize for the Canons of Dort as the Arminians were exegetical. They were just really really bad exegetes of Scripture. And thus they were condemned. Framework and Day Age and Gap Theory are also really really bad exegetical examples. And they are also clearly examples of letting science control the exegesis, which does run into some confessional problems as noted above in point 1.
5. Clark states this is not a debate between "two religions . . . not even between two different hermeneutical principles, but rather a debate over the application of those principles and specific exegetical applications" (pg.61). Clark here makes a good point that it is not two different religions. But does the RCUS say that if you believe in Theistic Evolution or Old Earth that you are not Reformed? No. Is this chapter supposed to be about who is Reformed and who is not? No. The chapter was about Illegitimate Religious Certainity. The question then is can we be certain about 6/24 hour day creation. And to that the RCUS has answered yes. Clark has changed the question a little to make the RCUS seem to be saying something we are not. We are not disagreeing with the theology, piety, and practice of prior men in history who may have held to an Old Earth. We are simply saying that one can understand God’s word and what it teaches in Genesis 1. Science does not have the ability to change the words. I do want to point out that I disagree with Clark that it is not about differing hermenuetical principles. How one can use a Grammatical-Historical approach and come away with anything other than 6/24 hour days is beyond me. I do believe then it is about different hermeutical approaches.

Now I believe what is really motivating Dr. Clark here to try and smack down the RCUS and any other Creationists who stand with us is about protecting men like B.B. Warfield, Machen, and A.A. Hodge as Reformed and true. They would fail this test about 6/24 hour day creation. And fairly clearly Clark thinks any marker that allows in Seventh Day Adventists and keeps out Warfield is Illegitimate (pg.49). Of course no one is trying to let Adventists in as if the Confessions do not exist. It is for Warfield and Princeton that Clark strives. That is why Clark devotes 14 pages to the extra-confessional liberty he believes ought to exist and only 4 to the anti-confessional position of Theonomy and 4 to the Covenant Moralism which he also thinks contradicts the Confessions. I will address this issue in a separate post.

On Faith is at it Again

On Faith is at it again. They are continuing to pretend to be a real place of discussion about faith, but their consistent lack of actual Christian theology is disturbing. This does not mean they are not getting big name writers. In their recent homosexuality in the military discussion they managed to let Brian McLauren advertise for his latest book. McLauren does not divulge how he reconciles Homosexuality and the Bible, but it is clear that the power of people’s testimonies has made him rethink the idea that being gay is a sin. Thus, we know how McLauren reconciles the Bible and homosexuality: he throws out the Bible. In the actual debate section about gays in the military, only Chuck Colson defends “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and his was a practical not a theological position.

Oh but it gets worse. Not only are they pushing the leftist agenda about the military, they are actually against the idea of Evangelism overseas. The Panel has more against the idea of proselytizing and evangelism than it does for it. The idea that there is truth and people ought to adhere to it is anathema to these guys, unless of course that truth is the greatness of homosexuality or global warming or some other lefty idea.

It gets even worse. Eboo Patel writes an article about how Van Jones (the former Green Czar and avowed Communist) is a “faith hero”. The thrust of the article is Van Jones did not get angry at people like Glenn Beck who exposed his political views until the White House fired him. And then he gave a speech when he was receiving all of these awards apparently for his massive communism where he actually called for living as one country with people like Glenn Beck. There are lots of problems with this article such as mainly focusing on Van Jones’s public responses that come after his elevation back to power. It is a lot easier to be nice in public and after you have been honored for your crazy beliefs. The second big problem is that Eboo ignores the problem of being a Communist and a Christian or a person of any faith at all. Communism views religion as the opiate of the people and an evil. How are these two positions reconciled? Eboo does not care. Van Jones is a faith hero while pushing things that are based on principles fundamentally opposed to faith. That is disturbing for anyone other than Eboo. I won’t even get into the comments.

Eboo Patel is probably not a Christian considering his name and obvious ethnic descent, but I could be wrong. What is clear is that this On Faith is not really an attempt to generate a discussion about Faith in life and in politics, but to make it look like Left Leaning anti-religious Communists are indeed people of faith. Where are the articles that speak of the evil of abortion? Where are the articles that recite the anti-Christian nature of communism? They do not exist. Such a distortion is on purpose.

The Team that Changed Baseball

I just finished reading The Team that Changed Baseball by Bruce Markusen. It is about the 1971 Pirates and argues that they finished the job of integration started by Jackie Robinson. The book is a nice review of the World Championship run, and taught me quite a few things that I did not know.

However, the book suffers a little from lack of constant focus on his theme. The beginning of the book is great as it shows the unity of the team and its racial mix of blacks, latinos, and whites. It shows how Bill Mazaroski helped teach defense to Dave Cash, which actually costs Maz his job at second base. But as the description of the season wears on Markusen loses sight of trying to prove that the 71 Pirates changed baseball. He does a nice job of discussing the season, and does occassionally mention the outbursts of Clemente or Doc Ellis, and how everyone got along anyway, but if you are reading the book to find out how this team changed baseball you are over two thirds of the way through before Markusen really proves his case. It is in the chapter on September where you see that on September 1, 1971 the Pirates fielded the first all minority line-up in MLB history. All 9 positions were a minority. Here is where the heart of his thesis lies and he discusses how each player reacted and even tries to figure you if the coach, Danny Murtaugh, did it on purpose or not, and whether or not that improves the theory of the book. He talks of the quota system in baseball, and the sterotyping of Latinos as good defensive players and blacks as big hitters being shattered by the Pirates. It is an interesting case and one that probably ought to be discussed more when integration is discussed in baseball.

The book is still good if you are reading to learn more about the Pirates run to the Pennant and World title. One of my favorite little stories in the book is about catcher Manny Sanguillen and pitcher of crucial Game 5 Nellie Briles. Game 5 was the swing game as the series was tied 2-2. Briles was a surprise starter, and had pitched 6 shut out innings when he had a disagreement with Sanguillen. Sanguillen wanted to throw mostly sliders and change ups in the inning to keep Baltimore off balance. Briles wanted to throw fast balls and shorten the game since the Pirates had a 4 run lead. Sanguillen took offense, since Sanguillen called the game to that point and thought they were doing well. He went back to home plate and refused to put down any signs. The two met on the mound again and Sanguillen said, “I no need signs to catch your junk.” And continued to refuse to put down signs. They played the whole inning without the catcher knowing what was coming. The shut out was intact and Sanguillen was able to catch all of Briles’s “junk”. What a remarkable athlete Sanguillen really was.

I recommend the book, but read it for the drama of the 1971 year and series. I think the argument could be made that the 71 Pirates changed baseball, but this book only makes that argument a couple of times and if you are looking for a book to make that argument then this is not the book for you.

Lent - Why Bother - a Response

I am reading through my Christianity Tody which is surprisingly interesting this month. They had a brief two page article featuring three opinions on the topic of Lent – Why Bother?. I was really disappointed that all three were in favor of Lent. It sort of defeats the purpose of having a viewpoints article if the views are all the same. I was more surprised because one of the view points was from Michael Horton. He favored an "evangelical" celebration of Lent.

Now, I have made my thoughts known in the past about Lent, and why I don’t like it. I also have some dear friends who do celebrate it, and I don’t want to unnecessarily anger anyone. However, the lack of an “anti-Lent” position should be rectified. So I will speak against again here.

Horton admits that the Reformers railed against the connection between the fasting and penance of Lent with works of merit that expiate our sins. Such things are rightly condemned and ought to be by all Protestants. He also quotes the Puritans who taught Lent passed on superstitions, constrained the conscience, and degraded the Lord’s Day. All valid concerns, which are not really addressed by Horton. Horton goes on to suggest an evangelical keeping of the 40 Days of Lent. He does not mention whether or not this includes fasting, but one would assume it does. He makes a big deal of the number 40 in the Bible, which while maybe true does not need to be tied to Lent, which is not mentioned in the Bible. Horton believes Lent is a wonderful time for instruction and following the Life of Christ to prepare for Easter.

While I respect Horton a great deal, I think he is dangerously wrong here. Lent will tend to teach people a meritorious expiation of sin on our part as we suffer along with Christ on the road to Easter. It must be specifically taught against each and every Lent, and probably multiple times during Lent. I would bet the majority of people believe their suffering during Lent is meritorious in some manner or another. It is the default position. They practiced Lent in the Methodist church where I grew up and it was the default position there. It either helps us share in the suffering and thus share in paying for our own sins, or it means we are more holy now than when we began the fast. Both are dangerous positions. If Horton does not think that this is the default position for Protestants practicing Lent he should just look over a few columns to read the viewpoint of Baptist pastor and Professor Steven Harmon. Harmon states that the "dominant paradigm for Christian discipleship this side of heaven is "sharing in his sufferings" (Phil. 3:10.)" Harmon makes giving up of meat or something like that into sharing in the sufferings of Christ, which I think is a bit of a stretch in the first place, but he also says it is the main part of discipleship, which is also wrong in my opinion. Clearly, Lent is a way to share in the sufferings of Christ for Rev. Harmon, a Protestant.

The Reformation began in earnest in Switzerland by breaking this very idea. The rejection of Lent was the first major step taken by Zwingli toward total reformation. The Affair of Sausages was right and good. Now, I have no doubt that Horton does not want people to think that they are actually participating in Christ’s suffering, and really just thinks it is a teachable time, a time to prepare for Easter (something I am not sure is necessary either). But the tool of Lent is so bound up in bad theology that one wonders exactly how beneficial it would be to use it.

Pro-Life Rally Observations

It really is frustrating to see the media lie as much as it does. And in January every year the media blitzes us with pro-abortion messages. Sadly it is not just is shows like Private Practice, but in the news as well. The March for Life is a good example. I did not go to the one is Washington, but I did go to the one in Lincoln, NE. It was 15 degrees and it had been a bad year for the Pro-Life group in NE. Ben Nelson turned his back on the movement despite having been endorsed by Pro-Life NE (which did generate a change the leaders of Pro Life NE signs) and the regents of the University of Lincoln decided to start murdering babies for their stem cells in the name of science . . . or federal funds it was hard to tell. But thousands of people showed up. I don’t attend many political rallies. I can count the number I have attended on one hand and still have enough fingers left to grip a baseball. And one of those rallies was at the Beacon in Spartanburg, SC, so it is hard to tell if I went to see Ambassador Keyes or the Bacon O Plenty. But, I have a few observations to make.

1. The make up of the Pro Life march was young. There were lots of youth there from youth groups, and not with their parents. The vast majority of the people in attendance were born after Roe v Wade passed. In fact of the main speakers only two were born before Roe v Wade. The Nebraska Speaker of the House and Attorney General were both born after Roe and were good speakers. A few of the other legislators probably were too, or at least they were infants when it passed. The Governor, one Senator, and probably the Regent of University were all born pre-Roe. In the crowd the age group that was missing was the women who were of solid voting age during Roe. Those who were thirty something when Roe passed were almost non-existent at the walk. Any reports to the contrary are just false.
2. There were 8 Pro-Abortion protestors. I think when they biked passed me there may have been 9, but when they lined up at the end of our march I only counted 8. They collectively had at least 25 signs. They must have been up all night making those things. And all in all their signs were mean and disturbing. The nicest one they had was “Sex Ed Saves Lives” and they had several that suggested some bad things about women and coat hangers and one that was a paragraph long insult on my intelligence. The Pro-Lifers did not have any negative signs about pro abortionists. In fact, the meanest signs were about the Pro Life Leadership and their endorsements. There was one that said “Bye Bye Ben”. I guess that counts as negative.
3. Ben Nelson did not even send a letter. He is not running for re-election or he would try to repair that bridge. I expect him to throw Pro-Lifers under the bus this year.
4. The thing that disturbed me the most is that the number of Roman Catholics to Protestants is overwhelming. I think every Catholic Church must have been there. They prayed as they walk for the most part. The Newman Club from the University was there, and the march waited for St. Mary’s Catholic Church to finish its Mass before they started. When it let out it added at least several hundred people to the walk. I did not see one sign for a non-Romanist church. Including my own to admit my own fault although I know I was not the only one from my church there. One has to wonder where the Protestants were. Why is the Pro-Life movement so dominated by Romanists? I think it is a condemnation on how many mainline Protestant churches have folded on this argument. They caved early on and now a whole generation of people has grown up and left the mainline church embracing again the biblical position on life.

In the end, it was a good thing. I probably will go back next year. And maybe next year I will make a church sign to carry.

Apology versus Repentance

One of the things that the world does not understand is repentance. To repent is to turn away from something and turn to its opposite. In Christian terms it means turning away from your sin and turning to the everlasting arms of Jesus Christ for forgiveness. Now repentance consists of admitting your sin, and then turning to the one who forgives us of our sin and by his power, the power of the Holy Spirit, avoiding such sin in the future.

Our culture does not understand this and it is getting worse. Apologies now are a joke and show us that people do not really understand what apologies are about. Repentance is what is needed not the so-called apologies we so often hear today. Let us just look at a few of the recent ones.

“I wish I had never touched steroids,” McGwire said. “It was foolish and it was a mistake. I truly apologize. Looking back, I wish I had never played during the steroid era.”

Here we see McGwire apologize for playing in the steroid era, not for actually being apart of it. Not for causing the steroid era. Who is to blame in this apology? Not Mark. No, the problem lies with the era in which he played. I can’t reprint the whole thing, but it got worse as he denied actually getting any real benefit from the steroids, which makes one wonder why he is apologizing for them at all.

Adam Lambert, an American Idol loser, who kissed his gay keyboard player on national TV apologized by saying “Maybe that wasn’t the best first impression to make again… or the first second impression.” He also said that it was not obscene. Any apology that includes the word “maybe” is not a real apology, but rather an attempt to deflect the negative consequences for one’s bad behavior.

Tiger Woods put out an apology where he admitted he did not live up to his own principles, and that he was not perfect and had made transgressions. That was actually a rather good apology if he had left it right there. His apology is five paragraphs, but three (the longest three) paragraphs are about the transgressions, not himself, but of the press trying to get the story. Then his last paragraph returns to his own failure and he makes another mistake. “For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology.” Not only is it bad to spend most of your apology talking about the evil press, but it is also wrong to apologize only to your “supporters”. If I am not a golf fan or a Tiger fans, was I not offended? Do I get an apology too?

Of course politicians are my favorite. Take a look at Senator Dick Durbin apologizing for calling Guantanamo Bay a “gulag” and Nazi comparisons. In this apology Senator Durbin apologizes for only the negative effects or insinuations from his comments, and never actually the comments themselves. He apologized for any negative light his words might have cast and some believed they were across a line, and to them he apologized. He apologized for pain and grief some took from his words. The words are the bad guys, not Dick Durbin. And for those who had the belief that they were wrong, you guys get an apology. That is not an acknowledgement that what he said was wrong. It is like someone saying, “I am sorry you got upset when I hit you.” Not a real apology. Of course in D.C. this apology was considered honorable.

The Bible of course gives us plenty of examples of real repentance. Psalm 51 is one of the great examples of that. First, we see that David turns to God. Asking God to wash him and forgive him. It is to God we must turn for help and it is against Him that we have sinned. All of the above apologies fail to acknowledge the Lord. David admits his sin in verse 3. He does not duck it, he does not qualify it. He is not apologizing that he got Bathsheba pregnant, but for the sin itself, not just the bad consequences that came from it. Verse 4 is an acknowledgement that God is the one sinned against. No longer do our apologies in this world admit that God is the author of the standard, and it is also to Him we owe an apology. David goes on to fully admit his iniquity and beg for purification and the help of the Lord. This is the admitting of sin and the turning to God for help. David knows that on his own he is nothing, he needs the clean heart from God to avoid such sins in the future. Notice also verse 13. Then after forgiveness David will go forth and teach others about God and how not to sin (by relying on Him). This is not something one sees in apologies much any more. Now they want to apologize and be left alone. They did their apologizing, now they want the subject dropped. Yet, David wants to go and teach others how to avoid sin and teach them the ways of God.

Our culture has rejected Christ as it standard, so it is not surprising to see that apologies today are man-centered and not directed at all to God. But, now the culture is losing the idea of standards altogether. Apologies are no longer really apologies for behavior, but apologies that others did not like what happened. That is not the same thing. Do not make the mistake of thinking that these sort of pseudo-apologies are only for the rich and famous. Oh no, they are making their way down to our youth. Soon, the idea of repentance will altogether be lost. Soon Christians will not only have to teach people to be sorry for their sins, but how to be sorry for their sins. Pray God sends a spirit of repentance upon us all, so that we might rightly confess our sin and our dependence upon Jesus Christ himself.

Review: For God and His People

I have finished reading Jean Henri Merle D’Aubigne’s biography of Ulrich Zwingli For God and His People. It is excellent and I highly recommend this book. D’Aubigne is a fantastic historian, and he makes sure we get a thorough look at the reformer of Zurich, Ulrich Zwingli. It is loaded with quotes from the time, although not always cited. The portrait of Zwingli is a man who stood for the Bible and salvation in Christ above all things. Much more so than Luther, Zwingli wanted a return to the Bible. His reforming days are shown and his struggles to change not only Zurich, but also all of Switzerland. We are introduced to many of his reforming friends, so it is also a good book to get glimpse of other reformers too. The book does not fall into mindless praise. It does openly criticize when it feels compelled to do so, although the other at one point explains his reluctance to engage the facts too much in a biography. I personally thought D’Aubigne went a bit too far in his rather harsh treatment of Zwingli’s end when Zwingli argued for war. Not this his assessment of Zwingli making a mistake and even sinning was wrong, but I felt he may have brought it up a few too many times. The information he obtained about the Marburg Colloquy was very interesting. I had not seen the Colloquy discussed in such detail before. I did not know that they had actively kept Zwingli and Luther apart on the first day before the formal Colloquy began. The fear of the two men’s tempers was enough to make sure they did not cross each other too early.

One other slight criticism I had was that the book did not always keep the chronological order. The Marburg Colloquy takes a whole chapter, as it should, but the next chapter actually starts prior to the Colloquy. One has to make sure he reads the dates and keeps the dates straight or one will get a few of the events out of sequence. It does not happen often, but it did a couple of times and I thought it worth noting.

Still, I do recommend this book, which is not very long making it enjoyable and easily readable. It is impossible to read this book and come away with the view that Zwingli is an unimportant figure of the Reformation. Rather this book restores Zwingli to his rightful place as the Father of the Reformed Reformation.

Hall of Fame snub

Hall of Fame votes are in and only Andre Dawson made it in. Bert Blylevin is ripped off again. But he is within 10 votes.

Jayson Stark cast his vote for his Hall of So-So Players, and posted it on-line at ESPN. He voted for 10 guys. All 10 that he was allowed to vote for. That is crazy. I am not sure what Jayson was thinking.

It appears that Stark thinks you just have to be better than the others at your position during your time to make the Hall of Fame (the other guys at ESPN all seem to have the same attitude). Clearly that is his main criteria, which confuses the Hall of Fame with the All Star game. And not surprisingly All Star Games and Silver Slugger awards become the standard Stark uses to put people in the Hall. Alomar is a maybe in my mind, but Larkin should be out. Stark’s big argument for Larkin is Silver Slugger awards. What? So what that only A-Rod has more Silver Slugger awards. They didn’t give out Silver Slugger awards during the days of players like Honus Wagner, who surely would have more. That is a false way to make it look like Larkin compares favorably to those guys in history. McGriff is also a no. Stark admits he misses the numbers that most consider as numbers that put you in the Hall, and fails to mention how long McGriff played to try and get those numbers. The numbers are inflated because of expansion and because of his extra time where people did everything they could to get him those extra 7 home runs to hit 500. But he didn’t, and it does matter that he didn’t. When you think back on the 90’s do you think of McGriff as a dominate first baseman? No. Edgar Martinez is a DH. Plain and simple that means he is out. He gets zero benefit for the field. And as a DH who did not have to go into the field, his hitting numbers should be higher than other HOF candidates. They are not. Thus, he is out. Dale Murphy is on his list again the only reason is that Dale Murphy was a power hitter during his time. Murphy is shy of 400 homeruns and his other numbers are good, but not great. Stark’s defense. “It is the numbers in their time that we are supposed to be looking at.” That is not true. You are supposed to decide if that person is an all time great or not. Dale Murphy was one of the most fearted right fielders of his time. But not of all time. Jack Morris too was good, but not good enough. A career ERA of almost 4 is too high. The only one on his list that belongs is Bert Blyleven and perhaps Andre Dawson. I would like some more time to think about Tim Raines and Roberto Alomar.

Let us just look at one major example of how Stark’s view of best in his own time backfires (other than it requires people to get in the Hall from every position for every generation) and is not good. We will use his favorite: Barry Larkin.

Let us look at Larkin compared to Ernie Banks. Both played 19 seasons, but Banks played almost 400 more games than Larkin. Which brings up a legitimate concern about Larkin, he was constantly hurt. Larkin has a higher AVG than Banks and a higher OBP, but a lower OPS. How can that be? Well, as much as Stark wants us to think that Larkin’s power and Silver Slugger awards changed the position, he did not garner nearly as many bases as Banks. Thus, why not say that Banks changed the position? His 500 HRs are why he is in the Hall. Larkin for all his slugger awards only hit 198.

But Stark wants us to examine Larkin only in regards to his own age. So let us do just that. Without names of course.

Player 1 = 1963 hits, 195 homeruns, 1123 runs, 860 RBIs, .265 AVG, .330 OBP, .759 OPS
Player 2 = 2340 hits, 198 homeruns, 1329 runs, 960 RBIs, .295 AVG, .371 OBP, .815 OPS
Player 3 = 2365 hits, 185 homeruns, 1231 runs, 1003 RBIs, .285 AVG, .352 OBP, .767 OPS
Player 4 = 2586 hits, 173 homeruns, 1285 runs, 1194 RBIs, .298 AVG, .365 OBP, .782 OPS

Which one is the sure fire Hall of Famer that Stark wants in? Can we find Larkin? Does he stand out from this group of contemporaries? Player 1 is Jay Bell who played fewer games and seasons than Larkin. Player 2 is Larkin himself. Player 3 is Alan Trammell and Player 4 is Julio Franco. Larkin does not really stand above any of them. Not a one of these players deserves the HOF. They were all good and did good work. They were all above average, but they are not HOFers. Add to that the fact that Trammell, Bell, and Franco all led the league in a category at least once in their careers even if that category was sacrifice hits. Larkin never led in any category ever. Not even sacrifices. Larkin fails even by Starks standards. Hall of Fame Players are supposed to be great, not just a little better than the other guys during his life span.

Bert is great. 60 shutouts is amazing. 6th all time in strikeouts is clearly Hall material. Add low ERA and two World titles, and what more do you need?

Bowl Game recap

I know the bowl season is not over. Tonight there is still show down between the MAC and the Sun Belt conference and the so-called title game between the SEC and the Big 12 where each conference will be battling to stay above .500 in the bowl season, but it is enough to talk about the sesson anyway.

If you look at this year’s bowl results, one thing should jump out at you. The smaller conferences are just as good as the so called BCS conferences. The Mountain West Conference went 4-1 in the bowl season. Their only loss was TCU to Boise State. Wyoming, Air Force, BYU, and Utah all won their games. Boise State by the way beat the Pac 10 champion during the regular season and the Mountain West Champion in the Bowl Game. What more do they need to prove before they are considered for the National Title?

The real problem with the BCS is that it claims to give us a national champion. That is why there is only two solutions to this problem. One is go back to the bowls the way they used to be, or go to a tournament where only conference champions get in. Once you allow "at-large" bids in then it is no longer a true national championship tournament, but a subjective way to make sure large schools win.

Did you know that only two teams have gone undefeated twice including a BCS bowl game win during the BCS era? Can you name them? No, not USC. They only did it once. They did it the year they won the one and only BCS title, and there were two other undefeated teams with BCS bowl victories that year. No, it is not Florida. They did it once, but the other national title year they had one loss to Ole Miss during the regular season. The two teams are Utah and now Boise State. That is right. The two most consistent programs in the country are Utah and Boise State. Their seasons ended with wins in BCS bowl games including Utah beating the stuffing out of Alabama last year. These teams deserve a shot to play for the national title.

We have to get rid of the BCS in the long run. It is a system based on two subjective polls, which should be your first warning sign. Then they add in the computers, which are supposedly not subjective. But if you have ever looked at the computer rankings they are awful. They ruined the BCS this year. The final computer ranking had Ohio State behind Iowa despite the fact that Ohio State beat Iowa head to head. It had TCU very far down so much so that it cost TCU the third spot in the ranking. Yes, if Texas had lost to Nebraska it would not have helped TCU play for the national title. The computers by the way also did not have Nebraska ranked in the top 25 either before or after their close game with Texas. The computer has to go.

I vote put it back like it was. Let the AP vote a champ and the coaches vote a champ and leave it be.

Top Stories of 2009

As 2009 passes away I thought I would just give a quick review of some of the important stories of the year. Who can really resist a top 10 list at the beginning of the year?

10. Michael Jackson’s death. Yes, yes, I know I will take great heat for this, but in the end, Michael Jackson was the King of Pop. His sudden and unexpected death deserves note. He was a man who was very troubled, and it is a shame that he was not able to get his life together. Even though the man could sing and dance like few others, it could not bring him joy, happiness, or salvation. Such things are not found in money and fame. His death is a reminder of that at least.
9. Czar’s, Czar’s, and More Czar’s. Now I like history and I am constantly amazed that Americans allow positions of Czars to exist at all. Surely nothing more anti-american existed than the Russian Czars and the Roman Caesars, but now we have dozens of them running around the constitution in our government. Unaccountable and outrageously insane. Van Jones and Kevin Jennings are just a few examples of the people actually doing the work of the executive branch outside of the checks and balances of the Constitution. Such things are not good.
8. Inauguration of Barak Obama. Anyone who does not put this on their top 10 list is outright lying. It was an inauguration of a US President, something not often done, and it was the first African American President in history. An important event no matter what one’s politics.
7. Government Motors. The unprecedented, unconstitutional, and disasterous take over of two of the Big Three American Car makers does not get enough press. It created some outrage, but not nearly enough. The American government owns GM. The American Government is a large shareholder Chrysler, which is now owned primarily by the Union, which gets to negotiate with Ford, the only private car maker left in America. Don’t forget the way the White House forced people to take this as well. Really the last straw that helped lead to the massive Tea Party Movement, which finished as an honorable mention for biggest stories of the year. A horrendous story that should make every list.
6. Ben Nelson shows his true colors. This one might be colored by my being a Nebraska citizen now, but Ben Nelson showed the world his true colors. Not just by completely selling out his Pro-Life supporters (the Right to Life had endorsed him), but by his obvious prostitution of his vote for health care. But then his reaction to pro-life criticism was amazing. Saying he felt bitten by the “house dog” was fairly insulting and it was one of the nicer things he said. I can only hope that one of the top stories of 2012 is Nelson getting what he deserves. But if I were a betting man, I would put money on Nelson being a coward and not running for re-election.
5. Russia murders opposition. Not enough attention is paid to the threat of Communism. China did several things showing their aggressive nature is back, but nothing tops the return of murderous Russia. They assassinated people in Chechnya, Istanbul, and Dubai. Let us not forget that it was late 2006 when Russia poisoned and killed a former spy in London, and the poisoning of Ukranian President Victor Yushchenko in 2003. Add that to the military bullying of the Republic of Georgia, and one can see Russia as a threat internationally.
4. The Episcopal Church ordains gays. This decision not only effectively split the Anglican communion, but is a dramatic betrayal of any loyalty to the Bible. It cannot be minimized. It probably had a hand in the later offer by the Pope to have a way for Anglicans to return to Rome. It also fueled the Homosexual marriage movement, and is simply stunning no matter how one looks at it. The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran) follow their lead and jettisoned any remnant of Bible fidelity and while the PCUSA avoided active ordination of gays their high court avoided making a definitive ruling about it and that is a bad sign.
3. Iranian Election Stealing and Crackdown. The fact that the Iranian President finished third in the election is not so surprising, but the fact that the world sat by as he maimed, arrested, and killed those who wished to see democracy actually carried out is. Barely even condemned in words by the President and his friends around the world. At least when China crushed the Tennemen Square protestors the American President was outraged. This time we were more supportive than outraged.
2. Terorrism on American Soil. I have to include the bomber of the Detroit flight, which now it has been confirmed that he was not working alone despite our President assuring us he was a lone wolf. Two arrests were made that day. But mainly the attack at Fort Hood. Islamic jihadists are attacking our soil and did kill many American soliders at Ft. Hood. They narrowly missed on Christmas. Expect more in 2010.
1. Global Warming Fraud. It is now undeniable that Global Warming is a fraud. After all the money poured into “Green” and the awards given out to those who believed in Global Warming to learn that it has really all been a massive fraud should easily rank as the biggest story of the year. A multi-national conspiracy to manipulate data to get the result they wanted. Between saying they were using “tricks” to redefining “peer review” to most importantly the “fudge numbers” that allow them to take any data and turn it into warming are all major reveals. The very fact that people were not fired immediately and that some people still hold to Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever it is called is even more amazing. Easily the biggest story of 2009.

Of course I hope all will submit their thoughts on the list, their own lists, or stories you think ought to be on the list.

I just read a piece from Peter Leithart from the on-line Credenda Agenda called On Not Blackballing. The argument in the piece is that it is the Reformed tradition to be inclusive. His evidence is from a book about the openness of the Westminster Assembly and the English Delegation getting certain condemnations removed from the Synod of Dort. Both showed a willing to be inclusive of certain positions and not have a down the line dogmatism. Thus, the Reformed tradition is one that is tolerant of certain divergent views and it should not use those documents to blackball certain people or at least certain positions out of the Reformed churches. Such action would violate the very spirit that made the documents. Or at least so goes the argument.

This was an interesting piece since Leithart himself is now going to be on trial with the PCA in his presbytery and the SJC has basically already condemned him. This article seems then to be a bit of plea not to go down the road that the PCA appears to have chosen to go down.

However, his argument has one glaring hole. Even if we agree that the documents (Dort and the Westminster) are documents that are open to various positions, what does it mean for those positions that are clearly outside of those documents? If Dort was unwilling to condemn the idea that some people could temporarily enjoy some soteriological benefits, does it then mean that those who teach sacraments convey salvation benefits must be tolerated too, or those who change the definition of election taught in the standards must not be forced out of Reformed churches? Does it mean that everything not specifically condemned in the Canons of Dort are to be accepted? Such appears to be the plea. But, it seems to me that if the Synod was as open as he claims that those things that contradict the teachings of Dort then not only are not acceptable, but must be blackballed. If such an open Synod did not leave room for it then it cannot be tolerated in any way shape or form. The same can be said for his point about the Westminster Confession. If the Westminster was still nice to some who argued for positions that were not in the end adopted, those who outright go against the Westminster cannot be allowed anywhere near a Presbyterian pulpit? If it was so bad that such an ecumenical gathering could not allow it, then it cannot be allowed ever. That seems to make sense to me.

So, I wonder if Leithart has not argued himself into a corner in this article. Clearly Leithart does not believe he has violated the Westminster or Dort for that matter. But, when I think I have not violated the speed limit, it does not get me off the hook when the officer shows me the radar gun. What matters is whether or not I did violate the speed limit, not whether or not I think I did. Ultimately God is the judge of such things, but on earth the church will make such a decision. It is what pastors mutual agree to when they join a denomination.

I am not a big fan of the PCA judicial system. In fact, I think it is a mess. But, I do hope Leithart actually sticks around for the trial rather than running to the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals. I think all sides deserve a day in court.

Merry Christmas!

Let me wish everyone a very Merry Christmas. A remember that we celebrate because the Word was made flesh so that we might be saved from our sins. Has there ever been a better reason to feast than that?

One Child Policy in America?

Thanks to the EPA everyone is now officially a polluter. CO2, Carbon Dioxide, the stuff we all exhale, is officially a pollutant. Yes, the stuff that helps plants stay green is actually bad for the environment, that is if you believe the government.

The question is why? Since it is becoming clearer and clearer that Global Warming is a hoax and no real science supports carbon dioxide warming the planet, why the EPA decision. Well, I believe the reason is two fold. One, so that even if the Congress fails to pass the Cap and Trade the EPA will just impose it. But I think the other reason is the real one.

Two, this is about population control and forcing people to abort or not have children. Yes, the policy that is currently in place in China is the goal of environmentalists who are communists in the end anyway. Think I am crazy? Take a read of a Canadian journalist who believes the government killing machine in China is a great idea. Global warming can only be stopped if fewer humans exist. Because humans are the enemy. That has always been the real point. People are bad. And now they want to control population in order to achieve their goals. Global warming is just the latest reason to promote their love of death.

You might be saying, "That is just one wacko in Canada". But wait, it is also CNN and apparently a lot of their viewers. Jack Cafferty thinks that if we keep having children their will not be enough stuff and that the problem is “religious fundamentalists” like me. That is right. The reason emerges. These people promote one child per family despite the obvious math dilemma, despite no science to support them, and despite the disastrous effects in China, they still argue for aborting or preventing all children after your first. Why? I believe the answer is in the laying the blame at the feet of fundamentalist. They hate God. Man is in the image of God, and thus, anti-religious people hate man too. They will prevent him from being born if they can. Those who hate God love death. And death is what they hope to deal out when they are promoting this one child policy.

Keep an eye on this subject. It is not over. It will come up for debate again and again. The war on Christians and their families has just begun.

The Conference to watch in Basketball

The College Basketball season has started, and I just wanted to make sure that everyone is watching the right conference. Keep your eye on the Missouri Valley Conference.

Currently only Drake and Creighton are below .500, and Creighton (3-5) has beaten Nebraska, who beat USC and TCU earlier this year. They also have two undefeated teams. Missouri State (8-0) with wins over Auburn, Tulsa, and Eastern Michigan to name a few. Illinois State (7-0) is also undefeated, but with a weak schedule so far with the only win of any note being over Illinois Chicago. Wichita State (8-1) and Northern Iowa (6-1) have only one loss and are a bit stronger than Illinois State. Witchita State destroyed Iowa at Iowa and played Pitt close. Northern Iowa beat Iowa and Iowa St. in addition to Boston College on the road and East Carolina at home. Their only loss is to Depaul. The Conference has an overall winning record on the road and even Bradley (5-2) has beaten Illinois, who was ranked in the Top 25 at the time.

So just make sure you keep an eye on this conference. They are loaded with teams that have potential. It will be an exciting season and perhaps a multiple bid year for this confernce.

Intellectual or Anti-Intellectual: Does truth matter?

Intellectuals are not ever really held to standards anymore. At least with how the term is usually used. People are intellectual because they are, or because they work at a university or something like that. Those who come along and buck the system are not intellectuals, they are stupid and ignorant, or at least they are until their team wins and then they are the party line and now intellectual. Which leads me to this question? Does truth matter when we are considering someone to be intellectual?

Take this recent bru-ha-ha about Global Warming. Some scientists, who were all considered intellectual and some of them at least had shared in a Nobel Prize, were all faking their data and making things up. The truth stared them in the face, and they went in the opposite direction despite the truth. Surely we can now recognize that these people are not intellectuals, but rather silly liars despite the Nobel Prizes and degrees hanging on their walls.

But do we have to wait for proof of out right fraud before we apply the truth to discerning whether people are intellectuals or not? Take Karl Marx for example. He still has millions of followers, but all of the Communistic countries like the USSR have been placed firmly on the “ash heap of history” or at least have altered their economic system to allow capitalism. Does Marx rate as an intellectual? What about the next step in John Maynard Keynes. His system does not appear to work, but still has devoted followers, at least politically. Milton Friedman led a critical movement of Keynes and for almost a generation economists agreed that his theories did not work. Is Keynes an intellectual? More importantly can both Keynes and Friedman be intellectuals? One of them has to be right and the other wrong? Is the one who is wrong still an intellectual despite being completely wrong? What role does truth play in who is and who is not an intellectual?

Let me get one step closer to a point. What about Charles Darwin or Jay Gould (inventor of Punctuated Evolution)? Are these men intellectuals? Darwin had a scientific theory. He proposed what he considered evidence, and even admitted the lack of fossil records, but assumed they would be found soon enough (they have not by the way). It is not really a testable theory as we cannot re-create the beginning of the world in a test tube. Gould’s ideas are even less testable as he makes the lack of evidence a sign of evidence for his theory, convoluting the whole thing even more. But the untestable point goes both ways, as there is no way to actually prove evolution either. Yet, these men are considered intellectuals. But, if they are completely and totally wrong then should they be?

The Bible tells us that the fool says in his hear there is no God, and the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. Can one be both an intellectual and a fool? Maybe depending on the definition, I guess. But the point is that it seems odd to me that today we throw around terms of intellectual and anti-intellectual (or worse terms such as liars and skeptics)without regard for truth.

Forgotten Reformer: Oswald Myconius

Forgotten Refomer: Oswald Myconius

Okay, so I am not yet done with this series. I have time for (at least) one more. This one is Oswald Myconius. Born in 1488 as Oswald Geisshussler in Lucerne Switzerland. He was a good student and during his studies in Rothwyl he met Berthold Haller. Oswald went to Basle in 1514 to be a teacher. It was probably Erasums who called him Oswald Myconius, which he then took to himself. Many scholars changed their names during this time. Making their name Greek apparently is some sort of status symbol or something. He became a teacher in the city and there he made the acquaintance of Ulrich Zwingli. It is with Zwingli that Myconius becomes life long friends. Myconius married while in Basle as well. During this stay in Basle, Myconius also became friends with Oecolampadius and Wolfgang Capito. Yet, Myconius would not stay in Basle forever. He went to take a teaching position in Zurich in 1516. There is some evidence to show that Myconius was already teaching some Reformational truths during his time in Zurich including claiming that the pope was not to be followed if he contradicted the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, Myconius is in Zurich before Zwingli and laying some ground work for the Reformation there. Although it is to be remembered he is only the head teacher at the Cathedral School, and not yet a pastor. But in 1518, it is Myconius who convinces the Cathedral chapter to extend the call to Ulrich Zwingli to be the pastor. Together Zwingli and Myconius begin to spread Reformational truth to the people of Zurich. Yet, the partnership was only to be for a year as Myconius then went back to Lucerne with hopes of spreading the Reformation to Lucerne. He was often attacked and was ultimately unsuccessful in Lucerne. But in 1522, Myconius took a position as pastor of Einsleden, where Zwingli had preached from 1516-1518 and Leo Juda from 1518-1522. Thus, there he stood in a line of Reformational preachers, and did not have to endure the attacks upon the gospel and the false slanders of his character. He did not stay long as by the end of 1523 he is in Zurich teaching the school there again. He returns to the pulpit in 1531 upon the death of John Oecolampadius as the head pastor of Basle. It is there that he aids in the editing and publication of the First Confession of Basle. He stays there laboring until his death in 1552.

Myconius was an early convert to the Reformation and worked for it everywhere he went. He was not able to reform Lucerne, but he was the school teacher there. He did aid in the reformation of Zurich. In fact, he played a large role in getting the people to call Zwingli to the pulpit and then returning again in 1523 as the battle reached its climax. He filled an important slot upon the death of John Oecolampadius as the head pastor of Basle. In doing so he helped keep Switzerland on track in the Reformation despite losing Zwingli and Oecolampadius in one year. His election to the post in Basle shows how highly regarded he was by his contemporaries as Basle usually promoted from within, but they went out of the city to get Myconius. With the publication of the First Confession of Basle, he helped usher in the age of Confessions, and he helped in the formation of the First Helvetic Confession, which united all of Reformed Switzerland in 1536. Myconius along with Grynaeus were responsible for the Latin publication of the confession.

Myconius was Zwinglian in his view of the Supper. A view he defended from all detractors. But he was not a robot merely regurgitating the views of his friend Zwingli. Myconius held that Christ really did descend into hell, a view not commonly held by many reformers, and Myconius was eager to find common ground with the Lutherans. Much more so than the rest of the Swiss Reformers. But Myconius was never able to find that common ground. Nevertheless, he did not stop trying.

Oswald was also apparently a little bit of a hot head. Once he came home in Zurich to find that his house had been ransacked and his wife and child were very shaken by the experience. Oswald tracked the man, who was a Swiss mercenary soldier, and confronted him in the street. This of course ended badly for Oswald, who would recover from his injuries. In Basle he would also yell back at people who occasionally heckled him from the congregation. I guess times were a little different back then.

Myconius is forgotten because of his largely secondary role in the Reformation, never being the one who actually reformed any town (although neither did Calvin). Still, Myconius was a member of that original cabal or Swiss reformers. For that reason alone we ought to remember Oswald Myconius, an original reformer.

Anti-Intellectualism or Intellectualism: Palin, N.T. Wright, and other thoughts

Yes, I think I will link these things together in this blog.

I have been extremely impressed by the blitzkreg of media opposition to Gov. Sarah Palin’s book. I have not read it, nor do I intend to, but people like David Brooks are attacking her as an anti-intellectual joke? Is she really a popular idiot or is perhaps David Brooks confused on what it actually means to be intellectual just like he is confused as to what it means to be conservative? I cannot answer for sure whether Gov. Palin is intellectual, but I can say for sure that David Brooks gets the definition wrong, but he is not the only one.

Take a look at Dr. James Jordan, famed Federal Vision pastor, in his article Closing of the Calvinistic Mind. In this article he tries to explain to us that there used to be Reformed Intellectuals, but no more. His list includes people like R.J. Rushdoony, father of Theonomy, and Herman Dooeyweerd, Christian Philosopher also involved in the movement. These are a sampling of the Christian Intellectuals Jordan refers to in his article. Evan Runner, Cornelius Van Til, also draw mention, and are also in some way associated with Theonomy or the Amsterdam School of Philosophy. Klaas Schilder garners a mention, Schilder has much in common with modern day Federal Vision. He seems to honor Bishop N.T Wright as an intellectual thinker in today’s world in other articles. The same question can be posed to Dr. Jordan as David Brooks, what makes an intellectual anyway?

It seems clear to me that the definition of both Brooks and Jordan of an intellectual is someone who broaches new ground and is an original thinker. Such a definition is probably largely accepted, but is it right? Should the church constantly be broaching new ground? Should we be rethinking justification by faith alone? How is this definition of an intellectual compatible with foundational established truths? And the answer comes back, it is not. Intellectualism then is anti-thetical to established truth. Do we really need Bishop Wright to re-think the incarnation and justification, or is that act of intellecutalism an act of denying truth? Do we need someone to re-think conservatism in politics or is re-thinking conservatism an inherently un-conservative act?

There is no doubt that David Brooks believes intellectualism involves coming up with new ideas and new solutions rather than spouting the same old cut tax formula. This is why Brooks believes the era of Reagan is dead and supports candidates like John McCain and supported Barak Obama. For Brooks supporting a major liberal like Barak Obama does not negate his self proclaimed “conservatism”. It is intellectual to support these other intellectuals and conservatism is redefined into Barak Obama’s liberalism. The same is true for the Federal Vision and N.T. Wright. They follow the intellectualism and end up redefining Justification and Election until it is really something closer to Romanism that Protestantism. That is what a good intellectual does in their system. Re-think, which means re-define.

I wish to suggest a different definition of an intellectual. A true intellectual is someone who can take difficult concepts and present them to the masses so that they are easily understood. Such an ability is indeed rare, but it shows great intellectual ability. To be able to explain things so that all can understand takes total grasp of the subject and a knowledge of language and others that ought to be what defines an intellectual. Ronald Reagan is a great example. He could communicate the truths of economics and politics in a manner that was memorable and easily understood. Let me give another example by citing someone who is oddly left off of Dr. Jordan’s list. Francis Schaeffer was at the height of his popularity in the 1970’s, the same time frame spoken of by Jordan, and he was also a conservative Presbyterian. Yet, Jordan leaves him off of the list of intellectuals? Why? Schaeffer had a larger following than Dooeyweerd and Rushdoony combined. But what Schaeffer did not do was break new ground. He did not promote the new idea of Theonomy, but rather communicated the basic truths of a Christian worldview so that many could understand.

Jordan calls people that fit my definition of intellectual "popularizers". They simply make a message popular, but they do not rethink the message or come up with a new message. And I surely agree that "popularizers" exist. But, should we be rethinking the gospel of Jesus Christ, should we be changing it? I think not.

Next installment: Anti-intellectual or intellectual: Does truth matter any more?