The URCNA Report on “the Federal Vision” gets a review No comments yet

The URCNA FV Study Committee Report has just been published. It’s a thorough and substantial report which, as to be expected, has some excellent statements. There are, however, several features of the report which concern me and these I would like to enumerate and address on my blog.

Why do I care about this report? For several reasons. I am good friends and colleagues with many of the leading FV personalities. I’ve known John Barach, for example, for about 15 years. He and I were classmates at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in the mid-90s. John is among the brightest fellows I know, with a memory nearly photographic. While at M-ARS, where he aced all of his courses, John learned to read Dutch — which enabled him eventually to translate Dr. Van Houwelingen’s fine commentary on 1 Peter and important exegetical and theological material by Benne Holwerda. He also underwent some paradigm shifts at seminary in the trajectory of Klaas Schilder’s theology. I remember him walking into class some mornings, with a Thomas Kuhn twinkle in his eye.

Read the rest: Episcopos: Interaction with URCNA Report on FV (1): Introduction.

Heads of Household Membership & Male-Only Voting in the Church No comments yet

Increasingly, I have been made aware of an idea and practice floating around in Reformed circles of the need for heads of household membership in a church, with its sometimes attendant practice of “male-heads-of-household voting.” What follows are my thoughts on the practice.

Read the rest at Patriarchy.org: Church Issues.  Let me know what you think.  I haven’t reviewed this in quite some time.

Thinking about the climax of Season 5 of BtVS and Human Nature No comments yet

In her study of Roman gladiatorial combat and arenas (Blood in the Arena: The Spectacle of Roman Power) Alison Futrell describes the Phoenician practice of human sacrifice transplanted to Carthage: “The young victim was placed in the arms of the bronze image of Ba’al Hammon, arms that sloped downward toward a pit or large brazier filled with burning embers. Once the child had been cremated, the ashes were removed and placed in an urn, which in turn was placed in a pit, sometimes lined with cobbles, and then covered over. A burial marker, a cippus or stela, was often placed above the urn.”

Carthage belies the theory that cultures outgrow this barbarism as they become more educated and sophisticated: “At Carthage . . . expansion of political hegemony, cultural sophistication, and child sacrifice simultaneously peaked, in the fourth and third centuries B.C.” When Syracuse invaded in the early fourth century, “the nobles of Carthage sacrificed some two hundred of their children.”

via Peter J. Leithart » Blog Archive » Carthaginian Tophet.

I watch or read atheists make statements about human nature that look to me for all the world like blind faith.  Are we going to claim that “religion” made otherwise good people burn their children to death?  But that just pushes the question back further.  Why not say, “Screw you, gods. We’re keeping our children no matter what you do to us or don’t do for us.”  I mean, we have these people’s myths.  There’s no way these people had respect for these gods beyond hoping for gifts and fearing curses.  So why not choose to live or die with one’s children

Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a really (ne0)pagan show in many ways, but Buffy’s insistence that even if a god was going to eventually kill her sister, at least that last thing she would see was Buffy fighting to protect her, was nothing like these Phoenicians (or many others).

Happy Father’s Day, Mark No comments yet

In addition to a couple of balloons (one decorated with tools I don’t use), I got two objects for Father’s day, one of which I am consuming and the other I am using as a tool to aid in that consumption.

Objects are standing on Bible and history textbook of Western Civilization to be near my face. Yes, very appropriate, but they were the books I had on hand.

Now Guiness and stein are held up near my mouth by my own hand.

Because this blog can never say enough good regarding Against Christianity No comments yet

I just finished reading Against Christianity by Peter Leithart. In this book, Dr. Leithart contrasts compares and contrasts “Christianity” and “Christendom.” Christianity is defined as “a set of doctrines or a system of ideas.” Unfortunately, as the good doctor points out, “The Bible gives no hint that a Christian ‘belief system’ might be isolated from the life of the Church, subjected to a scientific or logical analysis, and have its truth compared with competing ‘belief systems.’” Jesus didn’t come to propose a new philosophy, but rather to establish a new society, the Church. And the Church is not only a new society, but a new humanity, the beginning of the eschatological state of the human race. As Leithart writes, “…the Church presented herself not as another ’sect’ or cult that existed under the umbrella of the polis; she was an alternative governing body for the city and the beginning of a new city.”

Read the rest at: The Flying Inn: Against Christianity.

Ideology really is almost entirely beside the point 4 comments

The time to tell a person that dogs can make great pets, are man’s best friend, and need not always be hated merely because the Bible regards them on the level of rats, is not while his face is being chewed off by a [insert name of hated breed here, I don't want to contribute to prejudice against Pit Bulls or Dobermans, etc].

So I’m really really unimpressed by Christian commentors who feel the need to assure us that anti-government sentiment is unwise and that we must learn the Bible provides a “role” for the civil government.

I think the Bible provide for rule by sheiks, ad hoc tribal leadership, kings, and emperors.  I think that the Mediterranean can provide for much more prosperity if it is under the power of a single pirate army (Alexander the Great) rather than being infested with a dozen independent pirate crews.

But I don’t think that Christian missionaries were under any obligation to tell the Medieval Icelanders that they had to repent and establish a “state”–a tax-supported office with a monopoly on whatever one tends to stuff into the duties of a civil magistrate.  The certainly prospered better under that system, than they have done recently under parliamentary democracy and it’s inevitable end, financially corrupt oligarchy.

Paul tells Christians to submit to the authorities.  I know a missionary for whom this means he, within the bounds of conscience, must stay on good terms with the local crime lord.  I’m sure there is more than one pastor in Chicago who must follow a similar strategy.

But he doesn’t say that Christians must find rationalizations for political systems that are nothing more than slow methods of mass suicide (just to revisit parliamentary democracy).  As far as I’m concerned, a Christian man or woman is even free to run for office in such systems (insert shout out to Ron Paul here).  Christians are free to judge their situations and decide, rightly or wrongly based on the accuracy of their knowledge of their situation, that a society might be better off if every Federal, State, and Local political office holder were suddenly Raptured.

Genesis 1.1 v. Horatio Alger No comments yet

In the pagan cosmogonies, the gods exemplify a “rags to riches” story where they arise from the chaos and tame it.  In the Biblical account of creation, God never has to accomplish or acheive any such dominion.  He starts with power and authority and then proceeds to be generous and share it with others.

God did not give up His Son in order to snarl at you 1 comment

If a misguided father, in the interests of preventing pride from taking root in his children, offered criticism after criticism, the results would not be what he anticipated. Instead of rearing humble children, he would bring up neurotic and jumpy children. “What is it now?” would be their constant internal question. But another father who praised, honored, accepted, delighted in, and rejoiced over his children would be bringing up secure children, children who are able to forget themselves in the interests of others.

via BLOG and MABLOG: Quiet Your Fears.

I think I know people who get this way because of the way they interpret how providence has dealt with them.  For most people, Job doesn’t need three friends.  They are already in his head.

So how do you tell these people to deal?  How do you tell them to heal?

One solution is worship accompanied by the kind of excellent exhortation that Doug gives.  But I think I need to think about more ways and means.

Does the English translation “make disciples” hinder our understanding of the Great Commission? 3 comments

First the ESV:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Now, with a change:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

I suggest this change because I can’t figure out why this passage is so connected in the minds of so many so exclusively with evangelism and conversion.  But there is nothing in this passage with that emphasis.  The Great Commission does include the idea of winning converts.  It envisions nations that have not been discipled and are recruited to be discipled.  It include baptism which is a ritual of entry into discipleship.

But it doesn’t stop there or even emphasize that part of discipleship.  It moves on: “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”  Which of these activities is included in the Great Commission:

• You share your faith with an unbeliever and he trusts in Christ for the first time.
• You lead a Bible study with people who have been Christians since childhood.
• You teach your children about Christian doctrine.
• You read the Bible in the morning and learn something new.

Answer: All of these things are included in the Great Commission.  Anything from the point that one is baptized, that involves learning to observe what Jesus has commanded, is part of the Great Commission.

I’m doing it by blogging right now.

I suspect that the (mis?)translation “make disciples” leads people to think that Jesus is referring exclusively to winning converts–”Make people into disciples who are not now disciples.”  But if we understand it simply commands us to disciple people, then we will not restrict the commission beyond what God intended.

The Reformed lead, sadly No comments yet

One of my major premises in the writing I’m doing these days is that evangelicals have become a movement actually destroying itself.

At no point does that seem more obvious than in the recent evolution of worship within evangelicalism.

Does anyone- I mean, really, seriously- have any idea what is actually happening within the worship culture of evangelicals?

We have, within a matter of 50 years, completely changed the entire concept of what is a worship service. We’ve adopted an approach that demands ridiculous levels of musical, technical and financial commitment and resources.

We have tied ourselves to the Christian music industry and its endless appetite for change and profit. We have accepted that all of our worship leaders are going to be very, very young people. Traditional worship - a la Tenth Presbyterian in Philly- is on the verge of becoming a museum piece.

The reformed- of all people- have led the way in this revolution. I attended a seminar last week where a room full of reformed were instructed in why the optimum worship leadership option was “the band.” Not the choir, the worship team, etc. But “the band.” Does anyone realize what that means for public worship?

Read the rest: internetmonk.com » Blog Archive » The Big Worship Goof.

Yet another story about the police protecting and serving. No comments yet

YouTube video.

Are we a state sponsor of terrorism? No comments yet

In public, when it comes to the Iranian question, President Obama is all sweet reason and kissy-face. His recent video message to the Iranian people was just what the doctor ordered. However, this public performance is severely undercut by an ongoing covert program aimed at regime-change in Tehran – or, at least, at undermining the Iranian regime to such an extent that it must respond in some way.

Read the rest: War With Iran: Has It Already Begun? by Justin Raimondo — Antiwar.com.

I’m looking into the links.  Need to search for someone claiming that none of this is true.

Some things I loved about the movie Fireproof No comments yet

I have two “deep” criticisms of fireproof that I want to make on this blog at some point.  So first I thought I would say how much I liked it.  Before anything else, if you haven’t read Doug’s post, you should.

My own thoughts:

First off, I thought the tie between boats and pornography was amazingly insightful (I’m not making a general association here; if you saw the movie you know what I mean and if you haven’t then nothing is spoiled for you).  And the vivid way the husband repented was great too.  While self-control is essential, finding satisfaction in what one has so that one isn’t as restless is incredibly important as well.  I was really impressed with the way the movie portrayed this.

Secondly (and more importantly, so these are not really in any order), I understand the movie was made in Albany by a church there.  Well, I have some small but reliable knowledge of what Albany was like during the sixties, and that means that the race relations portrayed exemplified in that movie, and I assume present among the actors and film crew, are more of a miracle than the marital reconciliation portrayed in the movie.  The Obama Administration (assuming for the sake of argument it even aims to go in the same direction) has nothing on the churches of Albany, Georgia.

Third, the excitement and peril was quite riveting.  Nothing surprising but it genuinely had me on the edge of my seat (I was there literally too, if you must know).

Fourth, I thought the way the group participated in saving the person in the car was an amazing rebuke to the husband’s arrogance that he could take care of himself.  But I don’t know if that was intentional or not.

Fifth (and sixth) portrayals of stupid blind husband and grudge-holding, idiot wife were both painfully perfect.

Seventh, the comedy was outstanding.  No grim moralists here.

OK, lovefest over.  Next post(s) on this topic will be scathing attack.  So at least you can be assured that I am really the one writing this stuff.

My Anarchism v. Constitutionalists’ Anarchism 2 comments

In my opinion, getting it through one’s head that states are simply big criminal monopolies is actually a source of relaxation and peace.  If someone holds you at gunpoint in order to take your money, it is a traumatic experience.  But at least you don’t feel guilty for submitting.

But when the government is involved, all sorts of American mythology about standing up for one’s rights, and “liberty or death” confuses one’s thinking.  One has some sort of duty to stand up against tyranny.

No, you have a duty to survive it as best you can.

Patrick Henry is not inspired (and never meant “Liberty or Death” as some sort of eternal principle anyway), but Solomon was.  And he said, “he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion“–which exposes grand stands of the Alamo kind as really exercises in mass suicide.

And it frees you from illusions of legitimacy.  Does anyone think that Paul would have modified Romans 13 if someone had said that a ruler had not been “lawfully” appointed by some legal tradition?  Do you think you get to avoid paying income tax because the amendment wasn’t properly passed or doesn’t really specify income?

Why bring trouble on yourself?

Most regimes in human history have come to power by coercion (actually, all of them have).  A legally predictable and consistent regime would be a great blessing, but it is not a reasonable expectation in most times and places and it is never an excuse for rebellion or even non-submission.

Joseph was kidnapped and enslaved through nothing but criminal activity.  When Potiphar’s wife asked him to “lie with” her, he replied,

Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge. He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?

Get that?  Joseph doesn’t even mention that adultery is a sin against God. He only spoke of how greatly his master had blessed him and how it would be a sin to be untrustworthy and ungrateful.  Joseph restricted his reasoning to a reply that would work just as well if a fellow slave told him to stop laboring so hard when his master wasn’t looking.  He, a kidnapped victim, regarded himself as obligated to his master.

I’ve written a fair amount about how we’ve been enslaved since the Paulson coup in September 2008.  Don’t confuse what I write about our increasing and illegal (i.e. unconstitutional) slavery with some hasty course of action.  In the American movie version of Joseph’s story, he would have escaped Potiphar’s house with gunfire (and probably slept with his wife too, come to think of it).

But he would never have inherited the world.

The Law is an Evangelist: Galatians is not about the “covenant of works” No comments yet

I haven’t had time to continue my response to Thomas Boston, but I would like to offer some additional thoughts on my points about Galatians in that post.

I wrote in part:

Paul contrasts Sinai to Abraham but where is the evidence that plugs this into the Covenant of Works?  His argument assumes that all reference to “bondage” means a system of demanding perfect perpetual obedience as a condition of eternal life.  But the Apostle Paul explains what he means by bondage and it is not what Boston presupposes:

I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

So, for Paul’s argument, the bondage is that of limitations due to immaturity.  The point is that now that the new has come we must leave behind the old.  Nothing is said about going all the way back to man’s state of innocence to where Adam, as a public person, was given a Covenant that demanded his perfect obedience to secure his own future and that of his posterity.

The quotation from Scripture above is from Galatians 4.1ff.  I should point out that it fits with the immediate verses preceding it:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came [NASB: "our tutor to lead us to Christ], in order that we might be justified by faith.  But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Notice here that “faith” is virtually a synonym for Christ or the new covenant.  It does not mean personal belief in most instances because such faith existed both before and during the time of the Mosaic Law.  Nor does the Law “drive” us to Christ by showing us that we can’t live up to it’s demands.  Nothing is said about that. Rather, the law is an evangelist.  It leads us to Christ. it was our guadian.  It protected us in our minority when Jew and Gentile were separate offsprings.

And while that “imprisoned” language may sound dire, as I have already pointed out, Paul says in 4.1ff that it is simply about childhood.

The fact is that reading one’s prejudices into Galatians has become a sacred tradition in recent Protestantism.  We are told that the problem with the law is that it is the covenant of works which demands perfect obedience and condemns any and all disobedience, when Paul actually says that it condemns apostasy from the Law just as the Gospel condemns apostasy from the Gospel (Galatians 3.12, quoting from Leviticus 18.1-5).  We are told Christ died to save everyone who believes from the consequences of their disobedience at any point, when Paul actually says that Christ died to redeem Israel in order to bring blessing to the Gentiles so that then Israel could receive the Spirit (Galatians 3.13, 14).  We are told that the promise refers to an unconditional gift as opposed to a reward for works, whereas Paul says the promise is that there would be one and only one offspring rather than many different offsprings such as Jew and Gentile (Galatians 3.16-20).

Time and again all the details of the text are bulldozed and flattened to the shape of a simple story that we have decided must be what Paul is saying.  Worse, in Reformed circles, the details are buried under the hypothesis of a “works covenant” that is in some mysterious way “republished.”

American Vision defends the “drunken uncle” from such libels No comments yet

Here’s a great series of fifteen minute audio presentations defending John Murray from some mean and misleading attacks.  Pretty amazing.

http://twurl.nl/c4y71d

http://twurl.nl/2tqr30

http://twurl.nl/ipkamz

Off-the-cuff thoughts after reading comments on a Doug Wilson post on the Tiller murder 3 comments

I’m in the middle of writing this response when I remember there is a character-count restriction… So I’ll just do it here:

A few observations:

• A random murder of someone who makes a living killing children is not defense or protection unless that stops or at least has a chance of stopping the killing (leaving aside whether such an act is allowable). This wasn’t defense of anything; it was vengeance.
• Romans doesn’t really have any chapter or verse breaks so:
  

  Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.  If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

  So if defense and protection are not motives, then we are left with vengeance, which is addressed here by God.

• In a war, one allows others to die all the time.  The enemy attacks your people somewhere and you have to decide whether this is where you should take a stand.  One never sends out soldiers to find bad guys wherever they want and shoot at them.  There is nothing about the “culture war” that makes what happened right.  It was insane.
• A random killing of someone who ought to be executed does nothing to change (either as in improve or replace) the government that protects him and rules you.  So whether or not it is lawful to use force to do those things is a distraction.  This was just murder.  The American War for Independence is in a different catagory.
• In many societies aspects of justice are/have been more of a private sector phenomenon.  But they always involved the cooperation or even participation of the wider society.  Has any society been changed for the better by a random act of violence?  Does society just fall into line with the lone gunman’s value system when he decides to innovate in the private sector?  If such an attempt is not covered in Romans 12-13 above, then what is?
• Reading about colonial America leading up to the Revolutionary War, one finds a system where the able-bodied men who constituted the police force would protect the community by unified action, involving property damage and somewhat brutal tarring and feathering.  These actions were remarkably non-lethal.  They don’t seem anything like a rogue killer who decides to pick one guy because he happens to be notorious.
• The entire legal culture of past resistance and pressure for independence is entirely missing: no unified culture, no identifiable geography, no established government systems that could independently govern.  There will never be any struggle for independence like before.  So not only is there no reason to bring such history up when discussing a vigilante killing, there is never any reason for anyone in North America to bring up such history for any strategic reason at all.  Won’t happen because it can’t happen.  Like you can’t wave your arms and fly to the moon.  The only thing to do will be to watch the system self-destruct and pray and work to survive the destruction.
• As things get worse, there will be riots and other forms of civil disobedience.  Those things should come from the fringe.  They should never come from the Church.  We are the ones who should be patient and wait.

OK, these were random thoughts, most of them having little to do with what anyone actually said.  My mind spun off in all sorts of directions.

I completely agree with pastor Wilson.  Lawless people tend to fight and kill one another. Tiller chose to live by the sword and he showed that it can lead to dying by the sword.  This was one zealot attacking another.

Since Tiller was one among many who will continue to commit abortions against babies, there’s really no purpose at all served by his death besides providing fodder for the pro-life movement’s enemies.  We’d be better off if he were alive and practicing.  To the extent that this can be used to further marginalize pro-life efforts, it could easily lead to more dead babies rather than fewer.

Cheney admits no evidence of 9/11-Iraq link 2 comments

Nearly eight years after the fact, former Vice President Dick Cheney finally admitted that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. He did however defend the invasion and the subsequent war, saying Hussein had “without question” provided sanctuary to other terrorist groups.

Repeatedly during his two terms as vice president, Cheney claimed there was overwhelming evidence linking the former Iraqi president to the al-Qaeda attack, and publicly condemned the 9/11 commission for claiming that there was “no credible evidence” linking the two.

The issue was brought back to the public’s attention in April, when the Obama Administration released memos relating to the abuse of detainees in US custody. Officials pointed to Cheney (among others), saying he had pressed for the harsh tactics to produce proof of the link between Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Though no such evidence was ever found, and indeed Cheney finally concedes it never existed, the United States invaded Iraq in early 2003, sparking a bloodly war in which well over 100,000 American soldiers remain mired to this day.

from AntiWar.com

How to protect murder: The Tiller Playbook No comments yet

First, obviously, legalize it (i.e. Abortion).

Second, wait to some lone nutcase or fringe group goes off and kills someone in the name of vengeance.

Third, attack everyone who thinks murder should be illegal for being to blame for the nutcase simply for calling murder by the name of murder.

Just for the record, Jesus opposed the zealots and it was an act of idolatry that the mob decided that Barabbas should be release from crucifixion rather than him.  God is the one ultimately who is allowing this killfest regime to rule the US since 1973.  Christians are supposed to be patient under adversity.  Anyone who reads the advice that Paul gives to slaves should know this.

Famous entrepreneurs like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar No comments yet

I just listened to an interview with Roderick Long (haven’t read the article yet), but I wasn’t super impressed.  He argues that if the state does not produce law and order that this provides an incentive for entrepreneurs in the private sector to find ways to produce these things.  Well, duh, they do.  They invent the state.  In a word, tyrants gain control.

Which is what we should expect.  We all know that businessmen try to gain monopolies by government power all the time.  So why wouldn’t someone who started a “law and order” business not try to gain exactly that kind of monopoly?

If it were so simple, then we would never have seen the rise of states in the first place.

I can’t help but like Long, and he had better moments than the one I’m commenting on, but Libertarian intellectuals need to stop living in an obvious fantasy.  Medieval Iceland didn’t get “law and order” from an entrepreneur.  That is like getting language from a business startup.  Icelandic society and customs produced law and order cooperatively, without any “entrepreneur.”  (And, by the way, the Althing was not a legislature. Otherwise, it would not qualify as an anarchist precedent.)