tarheel Lutheran

A whig at Vanity Fair

2008-04-21T09:59:00.006-04:00

Christopher Hitchens, with whose writing I have a bit of a love-hate relationship, has offered up a review in Vanity Fair of Peter Ackroyd’s new ‘biography’ of Isaac Newton. I put ‘biography’ in quotes, because Ackroyd does not here aspire to pen anything new – either analytically or synthetically – about the life of Newton. Ackroyd has a little project he has created for himself called ‘Ackroyd’s Brief Lives’ in which he gives his readers nutshell biographies. Ackroyd is a good writer who fancies himself great. Ironically, if he did not fancy himself great, he actually would be. Unfortunately, his constant and all too transparent attempts at crafting a witty turn of phrase undo his efforts. Sometimes, Mr. Ackroyd, less is more.

I am not here going to review Mr. Ackroyd’s passably good book. At the Amazon price, the book is worth the expenditure. However, for the reader who has the will to expend more effort (and a little more money), I rather recommend the combination of two studies of Newton, which together make a complete picture of the man. First is Richard S. Westfall’s Never at Rest, a brilliant and scholarly account of Newton qua natural philosopher. This should be read, however, along with Betty-Jo Teeter Dobbs’s The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton's Thought. Dobbs introduced the world to Newton’s mystical side, an aspect which had been nearly sanitized from accounts of Newton from immediately after his death up until the second half of the twentieth century. Dobbs shows us Newton the biblical exegete, Newton the prophet, and Newton the alchemist. These aspects of Newton, according to Hitchens (if my ‘reading-between-the-lines’ spectacles have not deceived me), would have been better off ignored or lost entirely to the dust of history.

Hitchens's review is, in fact, not a review at all. It is yet another of his diatribes against any and all religious belief. By my count, Hitchens spends only 40% of his allotted word count actually discussing the book. A not-insignificant portion of the remainder of the piece comprises puerile autobiographical ramblings about his boyhood in Cambridge. But for the most part, the rest of the review is spent coloring his readers’ impressions of Newton, by way of that most-wonderful of fallacies: poisoning the well.

The book review, as a literary object, has as its purpose the analysis and estimation of the contents of the book it purports to be reviewing. It is not the job of the reviewer to spew forth opinions about (in this case) the subject of the book, Isaac Newton. Hitchens’s subject is Ackroyd’s book about Newton, not Newton himself. But Hitchens quite ably manages to color Ackroyd’s future reader’s impressions by calling Newton a bigot, a misogynist, and a number of other epithets. Such a manner of seeing Newton belies an attitude towards history which historians themselves have all but done away with, an attitude which Herbert Butterfield (another Cambridge alumnus with whom Hitchens is apparently shamefully unfamiliar) labeled “the whig interpretation of history.”

“Whigishness” in history is that tendency to assume that the only important parts of history worth discussing are those events which led to the situation in which we now live. In the history of science, this led (in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries) historians to ignore such things as alchemy, which had been thrown into the dustbin of history. Newton’s biographies, as I mentioned above, all glossed over or entirely ignored any reference to alchemy or any other “dead end” subjects such as religion. However, since the publication in 1966 of an article titled “Newton and the Pipes of Pan,” historians of science have become far more interested in the more mystical side of Newton (and Robert Boyle, Johannes Kepler, and many, many more such figures). They have come to understand that Newton cannot be understood apart from these aspects.

In Hitchens’s distorted and ahistorical view, Newton was brilliant in spite of his religious, alchemical or mystical tendencies. In reality, Newton likely would not have made his numerous discoveries without those tendencies. We might be able to separate Francis Crick’s boorishness from his science, but Newton’s mysticism cannot be separated from his natural philosophy. Newton's misogyny and anti-Catholic views are nothing unusual for the the time period in question. Newton supported the Glorious Revolution, a decidedly anti-Catholic turn of events. The fact that the Glorious Revolution succeeded suggests that many, many more people supoorted it as well. Newton does not seem so strange given the circumstances. Furthermore, given his abndonment by his mother, and his hatred for her, his views towards women are not so strange either. Someone with a better grasp of history than Hitchens would know these things.

DONE

2007-12-12T10:32:00.000-05:00

On November 29, at 12:47 P.M., I filed my doctoral dissertation. Blogging should resume after the holidays. Congratulations also go out to Kletos at Amor et Labor who defended his dissertation in early November.

65,304 words (excluding footnotes). 299 written pages, + 37 pages of bibliography.

Bad Words

2007-07-31T10:19:00.000-04:00

Via the Little Professor, I learned that the winners in the annual Bulwer-Lytton contest have been announced.

I strongly recommend that you finish your coffee before perusing the winners, as you are likely to spew it all over your monitor!

Personally, the winner in the Children's Literature category is my favorite:

Danny, the little Grizzly cub, frolicked in the tall grass on this sunny Spring morning, his mother keeping a watchful eye as she chewed on a piece of a hiker they had encountered the day before.

Dave McKenzie
Federal Way, WA

Enjoy!

Abusing Ayn Rand in Academia

2007-07-05T10:04:00.000-04:00

Yep, we're back to the old, "If you don't toe the party line, we're gonna axe you!" motif so common in American academia.

Only this time, it's from Christians. Yes, that's right...Christians attempting to limit free speech in an academic setting... Who woulda thunk it?

Here is the post where I discovered the story; here is the text of the article at Conservativenet. (Original article is at the Chronicle of Higher Education, but that requires a subscription).

I generally tend to support the idea that private organizations have the right and freedom to choose who they associate with (e.g., a plumbing company which is privately owned by a Christian is not obligated to hire a gay plumber [insert crass joke here]), but at the same time, the university in question accepted grant funds from the Anthem Foundation. That seems to be a classic case of the university speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

Charitably Stupid

2007-05-23T13:43:00.000-04:00

...or is it Stupidly Charitable?

Great post over at Weedon's Blog on how this interwebby thing allows us to stick our noses where noses often don't rightly belong. The only thing worse than self-righteousness is long-distance, ill-informed self-righteousness. Often times, such self-righteousness is about piddly things which get overblown into all-out brawls.

I think there should be a permanent moratorium on anyone criticizing anyone else for praying with someone within 30 days after a disaster. Charity in the dazed state that people are in after such calamities often stretches limits. People send more to the Salvation Army than they can afford. People want to "give double" at blood drives.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that we can have a world-wide chat on theological issues in the comments section of someone's blog. And I expect and accept that there will be some disagreements in such chats. But when people who do not know the parties in question make assumptions and accusations about said parties, that crosses the line. Happens a lot at LQ.

Military History disappearing?

2007-05-17T08:06:00.000-04:00

I have been vacillating between two candidates of late: Ron Paul and Fred Thompson. (Bill Richardson is also still on my radar screen, but he's out at the edge.) One could argue that neither is truly a Presidential candidate, since Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, and FDT has not officially declared. Of course, even if Paul did have a chance at one point, he officially threw it out the window during Tuesday night's debate, by blaming 9/11 on US policy.

Oops.

One can make (and Paul does make) a legitimate conservative anti-war position. Chuck Hagel makes the same case. One cannot --in any sane way-- blame 9/11 on America.

So FDT is my man, for now. Or, perhaps not. Tolle lege!!

Let me put on my "professional historian's hat" for a moment...

The idea that Military History has "disappeared" from the history curriculum in American academia is simply ludicrous.

FDT uses the work of Victor David Hansen as his support for this assertion. States Hansen:

The hundred years of talking about slavery was not as important as two [sic] days at Gettysburg. The success or failure of Normandy affected Hitler more in an hour than had years of pleading with him in the 1930s.

First of all, these two sentences are not saying the same thing. To speak of relative importance and affect is to speak of two completely different things. So Hansen's logic is dubious at best. (Unless, of course, he was trying to make two different points. I have not seen the context of the passage.)

Hansen's first sentence above is flat wrong. First of all, Dr. Hansen, Gettysburg lasted three days, not two. But I quibble. The three days of Gettysburg might not have happened were it not for the hundred years of talking about slavery. Had no one talked, had no one challenged slavery, who would have fought to defeat it? Furthermore, without the Constitution of the United States of America (written approximately four-score and seven years before Gettysburg) there could not have been a Battle of Gettysburg. Yessiree Bob, that hundred years of talking is/was every bit as important as those "two" days.

Hansen's second sentence may or may not be true (although I am inclined to believe that it is). Unfortunately, it is a statement made only with the benefit of hindsight. If we could know such things ahead of time, then we would know in advance who we could talk down and who we would have to fight. As such, his statement is useless.

Near the end of his commentary, FDT writes the following:

(1)If for no other reason than that we want to avoid war whenever we can, universities should at least offer the option of studying it. (2)We know that students would sign up for the classes, because books on the subject are always reliable sellers. (3)Television programmers have also responded to the sizable hunger for military history. [ed: the numerals in parentheses are mine]

Sentence (1) begs the question: have they stopped offering the option of studying it? The answer is no, they have not. What has happened in past years is that fewer and fewer schools are teaching Military History in a vacuum. What, after all, is the point of teaching about Gustavus Adolfus or Jan Sobieski if you don't teach what they were fighting for? Military History is now generally taught in the broader social context. Which is to say, the reasons for fighting are deemed just as important as the methods of fighting. In some cases, more important.

The people who need to learn strategy and tactics are the students at our military academies. Believe me, there are plenty of excellent historians at those institutions. There are also places for those interested in such things to meet, such as the Society for Military History, and H-War, the H-Net discussion group devoted to Military History.

Here is a sampling of some of my required reading during my Ph.D. coursework:

Niall Fergusson, The Pity of War: a revisionist account of WWI. The book was openly presented as an example of revisionism in the class. Standard texts were also recommended.

Geoffrey Parker, The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500-1800.

Geoffrey Parker, The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, 1567-1659: The Logistics of Spanish Victory and Defeat in the Low Countries' Wars.

Jan Glete, War and the State in Early Modern Europe: Spain, the Dutch Republic and Sweden as Fiscal-military States, 1500-1660.

Ann Hughes, The Causes of the English Civil War.

I'm sure there were more.

Military History is taught in the broader context of national and international histories: the English Civil War is taught in general British history classes. Everyone learns about the Battle of Lepanto: it effectively ended Turkish dominance of the Mediterranean world. But these days, we also learn that the shift in Spanish focus from northern Europe to the eastern Mediterranean allowed for the Dutch revolt and the rise of Protestant Europe.

I picked a major American university at random and looked up their course offerings to give just a quick test to FDT's assertion that Military History has disappeared. The school was Kansas University, and list of recent course offerings is here (.doc file warning!). I count at least a dozen courses which explicitly deal with issues of war. There are at least another dozen which would have to address issues of war in some kind of ancillary way.

As for sentence (2), it also begs a question: are college students one and the same as the consumers who are buying books on Military History? One hardly thinks so. As a former bookstore manager, I can say unequivocally that patrons who buy books on Military History are predominantly older (40+) men. And when I say predominantly, I mean in excess of 90%.

The same holds true for (3) television programming. College kids are watching American Idol, not the ~~Hitler~~ History Channel. The median age of the History Channel's audience is 51 years.

FDT also asserts that:

our schools have stopped offering courses that would help us meet their [the terrorists' or terrorist sponsoring nations'] challenge.

Again, this is incorrect. He's just looking for it in the wrong place. Learning how to stop terrorism isn't done in the History Department. That's done in the Public Policy and Public Health Departments. My wife (an Assistant Research Professor in the Department of Epidemiology at UNC) is on a terrorism task force. If we're looking for strategy and tactics, that's done in the criminal justice department, or at specialized schools for such purposes (like the aforementioned military academies).

Sorry Fred, but this column was a swing-and-a-miss. The article which inspired your piece takes a slightly more measured approach. But even Bell made the same mistake when he said,

Historians of the twentieth century resisted these tendencies [ed: the tendencies of paying attention to things other than war] better than others (not surprisingly, given the cataclysmic impact of the world wars). So did historians of Civil War era America. But, in accounts of most other periods, war lost its formerly commanding position. [ed: emphasis mine]

Again, this is begging the question: should war have ever had a commanding position in history?

I for one (as a historian of science and theology) don't think so.

The Incident of the Earring

2007-05-09T08:22:00.000-04:00

Once upon a time, I was a college brat. I consumed alcohol (yes, underage), stayed up late partying, did not do my homework, and managed to lose a full-ride scholarship with my bad grades. During spring break of my freshman year, I went home to SoCal and brought my girlfriend and roommate with me, so we could all hang out at the beach. Huntington Beach, to be specific; Surf City, USA. Lifeguard Tower 19.

Unbeknownst to my parents, I had gotten my ear pierced while away at college. (This was the mid-80s, so a pierced ear still 'meant' something back then...left ear 'meant' edgy and radical, while right ear 'meant' gay. Mine was in my left ear!) Well, I walked in the front door and my Mom saw it immediately.

She went all hysterical on my butt. Screamin', cryin', hissy-fit hysterical. How could I DO this to her??? Didn't my family mean anything??? Was nothing worth my respect??? What would be next??? A tattoo??? Well, an 18-year-old-brat likes nothing more than to get a rise like that out of his Mom; BULLSEYE!!! While she hardly spoke to me for the rest of the day, I spent the day gloating in secret satisfaction.

At some point, she called my Dad at work and told him. When he came home that afternoon, he greeted me with a hug, and then looked at my ear. His reaction?? He got this look on his face which was a combination of amusement, disappointment ... and pity. Yes, pity... like he felt sorry that his son grew up to be such a dolt that getting a rise out his mom would provide such facile amusement. He shook his head and said simply, "Good grief." And he walked away.

Emotionally, he had sucker punched me. He never said another word about it. He knew he had hit the mark. In fact, in order for his one comment to continue to have effect, it depended on him not saying another word. And of course, my Dad is a smart enough man to know that.

This is something that Fathers know. There is most certainly time for discipline. There is also time for letting a child do what children do. The Father in the parable of the Prodigal Son did not beat his son silly, as his culture would have allowed him to do. He lets his son go and make an ass out of himself.

When kids decide to make asses of their selves, it's best to simply let them. They WANT attention. This is a throwback to very early childhood, when a baby thinks that it is the center of the universe, and everyone exists to satisfy its needs. When kids become young adults, they slowly learn that they are only one of some six-billion souls in the world. The absolute WORST thing that an authority figure can do is to reinforce their leftover infantile mindset by giving them precisely what they crave.

Mothers (being mothers), rarely learn the lesson that less is more. Even when the child has matured and is well beyond that stage, mothers continue to react hysterically. My Mom still does. Fathers know this intuitively.

In the late 80s, a now-defunct rap group called 2 Live Crew put out an album with some rather filthy lyrics. The album did not sell well. At least, not until some boneheaded Christians got involved. The American Family Association managed to convince the Governor of Florida (Mel Martinez) that something should be done about the album. At the instigation of the Governor, the Sheriff of Broward County arrested both members of the group and record store owners for performing and selling (respectively) the record. Controversy arose, and sales for the album skyrocketed. The group had enjoyed extremely limited attention until people started making a fuss about them.

My reasons for writing this post are here. Suffice it to say, I have not watched the video (edit: apparently it has been removed from YouTube.) and I don't intend to. Like my Dad, I'm smart enough to know that attention is exactly what the makers of this video wanted. People who DO give them attention, people who DO react like "MOTHER" ... well, they're the boneheads I was talking about.

A few years after my earring incident, I 'wised up', got my act together, and finished out my last four semesters of college with a near 4.0 GPA. Some people take longer to mature than others. I also went on to get a Master's Degree at Concordia University, Irvine, and I am now finishing my Ph.D. at UCLA. I am a former Fulbright Fellow; I speak two languages and read three more.

My Dad doesn't say, "Good grief!" anymore. He said it once. That was enough.

Missing, but not gone

2007-05-08T16:01:00.000-04:00

Blogging has been non-existent lately, mainly due to the demands of the dissertation. Translating Dutch and Latin for hours on end tends to turn my poor little brain to mush.

On the plus side, during my absence, I have completed another chapter and I am about halfway through the next. The introduction is coming along nicely as well. Most importantly, the adviser is generally pleased. All good.

I see Josh S. has returned, which is also good.

Strange, but I noticed that for some reason, last Tuesday, I had a whole bunch of activity on the blog?! Hmmm. Just one of those random events.

Coleridge the Stud

2007-02-20T10:27:00.000-05:00

He went like one that hath been stunned,
And is of sense forlorn :
A sadder and a wiser man,
He rose the morrow morn.

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner is a very manly poem:

Words: 4839

(NOTE: The genie works best on texts of more than 500 words.)

Female Score: 4877
Male Score: 6493

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

Thank Goodness, I'm a Male!

2007-02-20T09:26:00.000-05:00

At The Little Professor (one of my favorite academic blogs), I found a post about this site, which analyzes a person's writing in order to determine their gender.

I pasted in the following excerpt from the third chapter of my dissertation:

As Archibald Pitcairne traveled to Leiden, he made the acquaintance of a fellow Scot, Charles Oliphant, who had recently departed Leiden to return home. Whether they knew one another prior to this meeting we do not know, but they struck some sort of affinity with one another, for when Pitcairne returned to Edinburgh and the debate over the process of examination ensued, Oliphant supported Pitcairne. By the end of the decade, however, the two had become bitter enemies. In this chapter, we shall take a closer look at the ‘riot in y^e colledge’ (as the tempestuous debate over examinations is commonly called) and at the events which followed. Rather than merely synthesizing the various accounts, however, I will again strive to put the events into the Dutch context. Seen in this light, Pitcairne’s actions will, as in the previous chapter, reveal more than historians have previously identified. Pitcairne indeed imported a Leiden model into Edinburgh medicine, but not the model that has heretofore been recognized.

From Pitcairne’s vantage point, everything that historians see as having been accomplished in 1726 (the formal founding of a medical school in Edinburgh with paid Professorships) had effectively already been done (just without the salaries!). The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh had been established to examine and license M.D.s in the town, and three “professorships” had been established in the town college (as the University was yet known). His activities in the 1690s, therefore, focused not on establishing something, but on improving what had been established already. Pitcairne set about this task of improvement by concentrating on three things: 1) modifying the examination procedure in the RCPE to more closely resemble the Leiden model, 2) asserting the primacy of the physicians over the surgeons, and 3) making adjustments to the teaching curriculum and medical facilities that would take into account his own new theories. As we examine all three of these areas, the Leiden model shall serve as the explanatory key.

In the Early Years of the Royall Colledge of Phisitians of Edinburgh, Robert Peel Ritchie recounted the events surrounding the riot in the college and W. S. Craig, in his History of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, visited them again without significant changes in the story.[1] The practice originally set up by the College in 1681 required that each aspiring physician be examined in three areas. The first exam focused on questions on the Institutes (or theory) of medicine. The second focused on questions taken from Hippocrates’s Aphorisms, where the examinee would have to expound on the selected aphorisms to the satisfaction of the examiners. The third part of the examination comprised the student responding to two practical cases presented to him by the examiners. In each portion of the exam, the College appointed two examiners on an ad hoc basis.

As we touched on in the previous chapter, the College later altered this practice and began appointing examiners on an annual basis instead. The minutes being absent for the period between 1685 and 1694, we do not know precisely when the change took place. Ritchie suspects that the change came late, and I see no reason to disagree. The events show that under (Pitcairne’s father-in-law) Archibald Stevensone’s leadership, the new form had been practiced. But after the college elected one Dr. Trotter as the new President, the rule returned to the old form.[2] At precisely this point, Pitcairne and Stevensone, along with Oliphant, and a few other younger of the Fellows broke ranks with the newly elected officials and attempted to hold their own College meetings with the “re-elected” Dr. Stevensone as the President. The entire affair is difficult to unravel, and the difficulty is only compounded by the absence of the minutes. We must, however, establish the salient points.

[1] Robert Peel Ritchie, The Early Days of the Royall Colledge of Phisitians, Edinburgh (Edinburgh: Johnston, 1899) and W.S. Craig, History of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1976).

[2] Ritchie, Early Days , 107-8, & 164-6.

Thankfully, the gender genie determined that I am a male.

Words: 628

(NOTE: The genie works best on texts of more than 500 words.)

Female Score: 542
Male Score: 975

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

Analysis

Feminine Keywords Masculine Keywords

[with] 5 x 52 = 260 [around] 0 x 42 = 0

[if] 0 x 47 = 0 [what] 1 x 35 = 35

[not] 4 x 27 = 108 [more] 2 x 34 = 68

[where] 1 x 18 = 18 [are] 0 x 28 = 0

[be] 1 x 17 = 17 [as] 10 x 23 = 230

[when] 2 x 17 = 34 [who] 1 x 19 = 19

[your] 0 x 17 = 0 [below] 0 x 8 = 0

[her] 0 x 9 = 0 [is] 3 x 8 = 24

[we] 6 x 8 = 48 [these] 1 x 8 = 8

[should] 0 x 7 = 0 [the] 73 x 7 = 511

[she] 0 x 6 = 0 [a] 5 x 6 = 30

[and] 14 x 4 = 56 [at] 3 x 6 = 18

[me] 0 x 4 = 0 [it] 0 x 6 = 0

[myself] 0 x 4 = 0 [many] 0 x 6 = 0

[hers] 0 x 3 = 0 [said] 0 x 5 = 0

[was] 1 x 1 = 1 [above] 0 x 4 = 0

[to] 16 x 2 = 32

On the other hand, I excerpted the following passage from this post at McCain's blog, and got some interesting results.

In my ongoing conversation with a friend about sanctification, we've come to another issue that is important in this discussion. My friend, again, in a well intentioned desire to speak faithfully about sanctification, has unfortunately set up another straw man. She has opined that "some Lutherans" regard sanctification as "synergistic" while other Lutherans view sanctification in terms of monergism because it is worked in us by God's grace alone by means of Word and Sacrament. Well, of course, no faithful Lutheran that I know of is running about suggesting, much less actually saying, that sanctification is "synergistic." I think where the confusion comes here is, again, a fundamental lack of knowledge of what our Confessions actually teach based on the Scriptures. Our conversation goes back to our discussion of how, or if, Lutherans in their preaching and teaching should spend time talking about the works we are set free in Christ to be doing. Her position is that time spent on talking about good works we can and should be doing is just less time talking about Christ. That's a false alternative though. Her view helps me understand why some Lutheran preaching these days is lacking in any conversation directed to the regenerate about their lives in Christ beyond saying to the regenerate, "You are sinful and fail to keep God's law and here is how you fail to keep it" instead of encouraging them to be what they have become in Christ by drawing them to the cruciform life as an expression of thanks and praise, calling them to continue on in the greatest epic journeys any human being is ever called to take, to take joy in the calling and station of life and to see the privilege of living under Christ in His kingdom and serving Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence and blessedness. Our Confessions wisely note that we need always to keep in mind that there is a difference between the unregenerate and the regenerate. Here is how I responded to her inquiry on this issues, and maybe you might find it interesting, perhaps helpful.

We must never give anyone the impression that conversion is God's work and sanctification is our work. Clearly, that is not true. But the Scriptures do speak of our life of good works as our cooperation with the Holy Spirit, made by possible through grace alone. The way to avoid false understandings is not to avoid talking about works, or saying that we should urge Christians to them, for fear of taking their eyes off Christ. The best way is simply to teach and keep these things clear and distinct. Here is what I told her.

"Susan, when you asked me previously to tell you if sanctification is "synergism" or "monergism" I answered by saying that if you insist on using the term "synergism" in the discussion, not helpful in my view, then one could say that Sanctification is "syneristically monergistic" or "monergistically synergistic."

Our Confessions teach very clearly that in fact Sanctification does involve our doing and willing, precisely because of God's doing and willing in us, because of Christ. In Sanctification we can and should speak this way, but in justification such talk is entirely excluded.

That's why I told you previously that it is not correct for you to say that when you read your Bible you should never say, "I'm going to try to do this in my life, by God's grace and blessing" but only to say, "I can't do this. I'm glad Jesus did." You are regenerated in Christ. In Christ, according to the new man, your will is now freed from sin and death and the power of Satan. You can say, "I will do this, in Christ." St. Paul was very bold to say, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." He said, "I can do..." There is nothing wrong in saying that, but it is always "in Christ." That's the point.Another problem in your comments which do not properly distinguish things is that you do not seem to recognize that conversion does change us. It is not the change in us that justifies us, but we are changed as a result of our regeneration.

Words: 717

(NOTE: The genie works best on texts of more than 500 words.)

Female Score: 853
Male Score: 847

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: female!

Analysis

Feminine Keywords Masculine Keywords

[with] 2 x 52 = 104 [around] 0 x 42 = 0

[if] 3 x 47 = 141 [what] 3 x 35 = 105

[not] 8 x 27 = 216 [more] 0 x 34 = 0

[where] 1 x 18 = 18 [are] 4 x 28 = 112

[be] 3 x 17 = 51 [as] 4 x 23 = 92

[when] 2 x 17 = 34 [who] 1 x 19 = 19

[your] 3 x 17 = 51 [below] 0 x 8 = 0

[her] 4 x 9 = 36 [is] 27 x 8 = 216

[we] 8 x 8 = 64 [these] 2 x 8 = 16

[should] 5 x 7 = 35 [the] 22 x 7 = 154

[she] 1 x 6 = 6 [a] 6 x 6 = 36

[and] 21 x 4 = 84 [at] 0 x 6 = 0

[me] 3 x 4 = 12 [it] 6 x 6 = 36

[myself] 0 x 4 = 0 [many] 0 x 6 = 0

[hers] 0 x 3 = 0 [said] 1 x 5 = 5

[was] 1 x 1 = 1 [above] 0 x 4 = 0

[to] 28 x 2 = 56

Luckily for McCain, the Gender Genie was also wrong about the Little Professor, so I am led to believe that whatever algorithm the Gender Genie uses has some flaws. Otherwise we might have had to conclude that the LCMS had already begun ordaining women. Egad!

I noticed something, however, about the algorithm which I think does reflect differences in male and female speech patterns: the different forms of the verb "to be". The forms most often employed in passive constructions ("be" and "was") are considered female speech, while the more active forms ("is" and "are") are male. Interesting. Of course, we all know that the word "the" is part of male speech!(?!) It has a "y" chromosome after all...right?

My happy kid

2007-02-12T15:55:00.000-05:00

He's just so...happy. All the time. Nothing upsets him.

Lutheran Carny #43

2007-02-12T09:21:00.000-05:00

Lutheran Carnival XLIII is up over at Saint Charles' Place. My previous post didn't make the cut, but then it was really just an extended link. Oh, well. Better luck next time.

Tolle lege!

UPDATE: Hey, I made it after all!

Some Good News, "Without All the Ethical Baggage"

2007-02-09T09:29:00.000-05:00

Those of us believe that embryonic stem cell research is morally questionable (at the least!) should be among the first to celebrate when alternative methods are showing as much signs of hope as the unacceptable methods are only theorized to hold.

Anthony Atala, director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, reported that stem cells in the amniotic fluid that fills the sac surrounding the fetus may be just as versatile as embryonic stem cells. At the same time they maintain all the advantages that have made adult stem cells such a success.
This has caused great consternation on the part of those seeking increased taxpayer embryonic stem cell funds. The reason is that there are currently no practical applications for this type of cell. There hasn't even been a single clinical trial involving them. Researchers admit we won't have approved embryonic stem cell treatments for at least 10 years.
[SNIP]
As stem-cell researcher Malcolm Alison of the University of London told a British newspaper, the amniotic cells "appear to be at least as malleable as embryonic stem cells but without all the ethical baggage."

Don't expect the MSM to hype this, folks. We need to do what we can to spread the word. The author points out the blatant and intentional cover-up (his words!) by the New York Times of the advances made in adult stem cells and in stem cells harvested from amniotic fluid.

It is neither paranoia nor exaggeration to say that the New York Times is engaged in a stem-cell cover-up.

Instapundit has already linked the article, so lots of people are going to see it; but not all people in the Lutheran/Christian blogosphere read Instapundit. And, as always, remember to Read the whole thing™. Or, as I prefer to say...

Tolle lege!

And now this...

2007-02-08T09:52:00.000-05:00

RevFisk has a great post on Neil Postman over at Cross Theology.

Sanctification as "Good works"

2007-02-07T14:06:00.000-05:00

This is a continued thought from a previous post....

For the proponents of Sanctification as "good works" motif, the 'ought' of the Law is incapable of motivating a believer to do anything, except cower in fear of a Holy and Perfect God. It most certainly does not imply the 'can'.

Sanctification as "good works" is learning what we are in Christ. It is most decidedly not about "not doing," but about accepting. (I confess, I was about to use the word "becoming" rather than "accepting," but I realized it would sound too much like Paul Tillich, and that can never be a good thing. Besides, it was the wrong word). I'm pretty sure it was Gerhard Forde who said that sanctification is "getting used to" justification. (Someone correct me if I am mistaken.)

Sanctification as "good works" looks outward, not inward. We don't spend time thinking about ourselves, we spend time thinking about how to help our neighbor -- our neighbor being our spouses, our children and the bald guy across the street who lets his dog poop on our yard.

How does the Law figure into this?

Does it ask the question, "What would Jesus do?" No. That is the ethicist's way of prodding sanctification. Does it put on a slightly meaner countenance and declare, "That's not what Jesus would do!" No, that's the moralist's way of prodding sanctification.

The ethicist and the moralist are just two sides of the same coin. Or, better stated perhaps, the moralist is the ethicist on a bad day.

The fact of the matter is, all that the Law can tell us is this: "You have offended a Just and Holy God, and will receive the penalty of death." The Law accuses, always: lex semper accusat. And, in fact, that is ALL that it does. That is all that it knows how to do, and all that it was designed to do. It is the standard against which we are judged.

But, then...what about good works? Where do they come from?

They come from being in Christ. With the life, death and resurrection of Christ, the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah has come (cf. Jer 31:31 ff & Heb 8). In the New Covenant, the Law was to be written on new hearts of flesh - rather than stone - which God would give us. These he gives us in our baptism. We who have been justified have the law written on our hearts. Our good works will flow freely from the faith God has granted us. As Luther said, "Faith] does [not] ask whether good works are to be done; but before the question is asked, it has wrought them, and is always engaged in doing them." (Intro. Ep. Rom., quoted in SD V)

The Biblical evidence of this is the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, when those who have been judged righteous ask, "But Lord, when did we....?" (Matt 25)

These works, as the Solid Declaration states, are necessary; and yet, as the Solid Declaration states, they are also not coerced:

But in this connection the following distinction must also be noted, namely, that the meaning must be: necessitas ordinis, mandati et voluntatis Christi ac debiti nostri, non autem necessitas coactionis (a necessity of Christ's ordinance, command, and will, and of our obligation, but not a necessity of coercion). That is: When this word necessary is employed, it should be understood not of coercion, but only of the ordinance of the immutable will of God, whose debtors we are... (SD V.12)

Good works are necessary, then, not in the sense that the Law coerces us to do them, but that in Christ, and in faith, we will do them. How could it be otherwise?

What causes this? Does the law have no place in producing good works?

Law ^-C and Law ^+C

Well that depends on which Law you're talking about. In Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, the Law has been fulfilled. All the demands have been met. Before it was merely an outline, a sketch. But in Christ, all the colors, depth and perspective are present. The Law itself has been transfigured. Now, instead of a black cloud hanging over us, it is a burning beacon, drawing us to it. We WANT it. We love it. (Psalm 119:97) We yearn for it, as a "doe longs for running streams." (Psalm 42:1) When Jesus came, when He died and rose again, the Law changed. (cf. Heb 7:12)

The problem, of course, is that we didn't. Yes, we have been declared to be righteous, but we are yet sinners. And with sinners still in this world, the Law^-C still has a function. This is the "Second use of the Law." It works on unbelievers and believers the same. It condemns and terrifies. It drives us back to the Cross.

But the transfigured Law (Law ^+C) , this Law creates the very thing it asks for. (cf. Eph 2:10) It says, "Love!" and in the same moment creates the love; it says, "Follow," and provides energy to our feet. (I'm loosely quoting from David Scaer here, found on pg. 18 of this paper.) The transfigured Law does not command; it invites.

In our present condition, we just can't see it. We have to live by faith. The Law will ALWAYS bite, no matter what, because we are simul iustus et peccator. We will not grow in the love and knowledge of God by being prodded, or by diligently not doing the things we ought not do. Dilgently "not sinning" is rank Pharisaism. We don't go around picking weeds.

We do go around desiring to be what we are told we are. The Apostle says, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind..." (Rom 12:2)

"Do not be conformed": that's the 2nd use of the Law .

"be transformed": that's the transfigured Law speaking (although it, too, can be 2nd use, i.e., "but I know I'm not transformed!"). Like baptism in Acts 2:38, "be transformed" is a passive imperative. You accept it. You "get used to it."

In Him there is no darkness at all,
The Night and the Day are both alike,
The Lamb is the Light of the City of God,
Shine in my heart, Lord Jesus.

"Shine in my heart"... the same heart upon which you have written your Law.

A Fallacious Calumny

2007-02-06T14:52:00.000-05:00

And still, over at Daylight, the debate rages on. The new post is here; tolle lege. Of particular interest is McCain's first reply to the post, which is the sixth comment overall.

He first demonstrates that he misunderstands Rick's post completely. He understands Rick to be saying that

[Rick] do[es] not agree with the Lutheran Confessions nor do[es he] regard [himself] as bound to them.

Where McCain gets the data to draw this conclusion is a mystery; we do know, however, that it did not come from Rick's post. What line, what statement could possibly lead to McCain's conclusion? I don't see it.

The question Rick asks is NOT "are the Confessions correct"; the question he asks is "WHAT are the Confessions doing, and WHY are they doing it?" This is no more an impious question on Rick's part than it is impious in the Small Catechism, when it says, "What does this mean?" Furthermore, Rick leaves the ENTIRE question open. He left the doors WIDE OPEN for an interesting discussion; but McCain, whose nostrils are infected with the pungence of perfidy, senses only malice.

The real kicker however is this gem of a paragraph:

The extent to which you continue to kick against the goads on the issue of the Holy Spirit's use of the Law in your lfie [sic] as a regenerate Christian, to exhort you and to guide you to keep doing good works makes me truly wonder if there is not another issue at work here, and to you I say the same thing I say to Kobra: "I seem to have touched on a very sensitive issue in your life and hit a very raw nerve. Is there some sin you need to confess?" If so, please seek out your pastor for personal confession and absolution.

People need to realize that McCain has NEVER MET Rick Ritchie. Never laid eyes on him; couldn't pick him out in a crowd. But somehow, using his crystal ball and his magic faerie dust (he is Irish after all...), he has discerned that Rick has unconfessed sin in his life. Isn't this how those hucksters on TV operate?

Did McCain not even read in Rick's own comments where Rick says,

You could do 3rd Use without doing Law Gospel Law. I've heard some good sermons that were 3rd Use of the Law-Gospel sermons.

There it is: black on beige. Rick agrees that good sermons can include the Third Use. (I imagine McCain saying, "Oh no! That's not enough! Unless he says that they MUST include the Third Use, he's not REALLY a Lutheran.")

I know Rick Ritchie; I lived with him for five years. Aside from my own Father, I don't know a man with more integrity and honesty than Rick. His friendship and counsel have helped me keep my ship on a steady course for years, and I've had some crises that I very well may not have survived without him. The Blessed Holy Spirit used Rick to keep me in the faith when I was all but gone. I have witnessed him struggle; I have stood next to him in church when we prayed and confessed along with our other Brothers and Sisters in the Faith that we are sinners in need of forgiveness. We have fought and disagreed; he has always forgiven me, and I him.

I have witnessed Rick love his neighbor, because I AM Rick's neighbor.

I am done with this; I will listen to these [8th commandment edit] accusations no more.

God forgive me, a sinner...

A comment on comments

2007-02-05T14:11:00.000-05:00

All "drive-by" comments will be rejected. It is a basic tenet of blogosphere decorum that if you want to comment, you should discuss the subject at hand.

Furthermore, the practice of "seeding" people's comments sections with the same comment posted over and over and over again on several blogs - like a dog humping every available leg in the room - is also condemned.

HERE ENDETH THE LESSON.

Come and get it!

2007-02-05T14:03:00.000-05:00

Your recommended daily allowance of Vitamin D and yet another brilliant post, over at Daylight.

And be sure not to miss Comment #1, where PTM completely misses (or is it "intentionally avoids"??) the point! There is no end to the incoherence.

Sanctification: "not sinning" vs. "good works"

2007-02-04T12:31:00.000-05:00

In this increasingly ridiculous argument that has developed over sanctification, it has become eminently clear to me that there are two broad and overarching ways that people use to imagine what "sanctification" is. One way to envision sanctification is to see the Christian life as one of less and less sin. This is the "not sinning" view of sanctification, and it's the one I am going to talk about in this post. I'll reserve the other view for the next post.

The view that sees sanctification as "not sinning" takes it on faith that when Jesus told the prostitute whom he rescued from death by stoning to "Go and sin no more," his command implies that the deed is possible. After all, why would God in the flesh tell someone to "sin no more" if it were not actually possible? That would make God an arrogant monstrosity, but the testimony of Scripture is that he is not that at all.

We see this vision of sanctification throughout late eighteenth and nineteenth century theology, which actually is no surprise. This view rests on the above mentioned assumption that "if God said do it, it has to be possible." And that view is what we call a categorical imperative. It's most famous and articulate proponent was the German enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant said, "man must judge that he can do what the moral law tells him unconditionally that he ought to do." Stated more succinctly, "the ought implies the can." (You can find the original in The Metaphysics of Morals, part II)

Nineteenth century theology (German, British and American) took this and ran with it. If God said, "Be ye Holy as I am Holy," than by cracky it MUST be possible for us to do just that. By combining Kant with the pietism of the previous century, the Holiness Movement was born.

Now what does this look like?

It means that Biblical injunctions are to be taken as absolute requirements. And further, given the proscription against violating one's own conscience, it further means that anything that could be imagined to be a sin necessarily is a sin.

For example, Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 6, "your body is a temple," were pushed to their ultimate meaning. Anything that polluted or damaged the body was sin. The nineteenth century is rife with examples of how this thinking spread. The Mormon proscription against caffeine and alcohol (a proscription which they likely picked up from Charles Finney), the Seventh-Day Adventist's vegetarianism, the Health & Wellness movement (see the movie The Road to Wellville, if you want to know about this!), and many others.

Then of course there was dancing, riding in horse-drawn coaches (yep, that was considered a sin because of the potential damage done to the spine), living in cities (pollution of both the physical and spiritual kind), and many, many other examples.

Now that I've mentioned "spiritual pollution," let's move on to that.

"Be ye not conformed to this world." (Romans 12:2)

Applying this verse with the categorical imperative as the motivator leads to all sorts of fascinating behaviors. Anything that is "worldly" must (and, of course, can!) be avoided. Let's look at a few:

Anything that has any sexual implication--

can't watch college football games, because of the cheerleaders and their skimpy costumes
can't watch the Super Bowl today, because the beer ads (and many others) contain sexually provocative material
can't go to (most) movies, because, well, they're just filled with sex.
can't go to the mall, because you might pass by a Victoria's Secret window, and we all know that's not good
can't listen to jazz, and a good deal of classical music (well, operas mostly, but who listens to those anyway?)

anything that has any "vulgar" language--

see "movies" above
most Rock and roll music
much television programming

anything that encourages people to defy authority--

punk rock, specifically
sports, again (how many of our "sports heroes" were arrested last year??!!)
encouraging our young students to argue with their liberal college professors. Professors also fall under the rubric of "those whom God has put in authority".
People who blog and/or surf the internet at work are stealing from their employers.
Exceeding the posted speed limits, rolling stops, failing to use a turn signal.

anything that leads to excess--

Scripture specifically enjoins us not to live beyond our needs. When we know that poor and hungry people surround us in society, and yet continue to "supersize" our McValue meals, and exceed our necessary daily caloric intake, we are robbing from the mouths of the poor. Anyone who is more than ~15 pounds overweight (~15 pounds being the bounds of statistical weight distribution for healthy adults) may as well account himself a murderer.

anything which is not strictly necessary for basic survival--

just overall unnecessary consumerism...no one needs more than 1 television in their house. NO ONE.
No one needs more than about a week's worth of clothes, a couple of pars of shoes.
There is no need for a "dress coat" and a "casual coat", one coat will do. WHO are we trying to impress, anyways? (cf. James, chapters 1 & 2)
Let's not mention all the wasteful spending on CDs, DVDs, cable television, magazine subscriptions, overly huge houses which waste natural resources (robbing them from our neighbor) by heating and air conditioning excessive amounts of space. Who actually NEEDS a 3000 sq. foot house?

Even being casually associated with any of these things is, in fact, sinful. We are, after all to "avoid even the appearance of evil."

To fail to do those things which God commands of us will result in damnation. Without fail. To break any portion of the law is to be guilty of violating ALL of it.

Whether someone surfs porn, listens to music with violent lyrics, uses vulgar language, is overweight, steals from his employer, casually misrepresents others' words -- it doesn't matter. All of these belong to the Kingdom of Satan.

I'll probably edit this a bit later, but for now, that should provide an adequate picture of the theology of sanctification by "not sinning."

Untitled (by me)

2007-02-03T18:05:00.000-05:00

You come along-tearing your shirt-yelling about Jesus. I want
to know what the hell you know about Jesus?

Jesus had a way of talking soft, and everybody except a few
bankers and higher-ups among the con men of Jerusalem liked
to have this Jesus around because he never made any fake
passes, and everything he said went and he helped the sick
and gave the people hope.

You come along squirting words at us, shaking your fist and calling
us all dam fools-so fierce the froth of your own spit slobbers
over your lips-always blabbering we're all going to hell
straight off and you know all about it.

I've read Jesus' words. I know what he said. You don't throw any
scare into me. I've got your number. I know how much you
know about Jesus.

He never came near clean people or dirty people but they felt
cleaner because he came along. It was your crowd of bankers
and business men and lawyers that hired the sluggers
and murderers who put Jesus out of the running.

I say it was the same bunch that's backing you that nailed the nails
into the hands of this Jesus of Nazareth. He had lined up against
him the same crooks and strong-arm men, now lined up with
you paying your way.

This Jesus guy was good to look at, smelled good, listened good.
He threw out something fresh and beautiful from the skin of his
body and the touch of his hands wherever he passed along.

You ... put a smut on every human blossom that comes
in reach of your rotten breath belching about hell-fire and
hiccuping about this man who lived a clean life in Galilee.

When are you going to quit making the carpenters build
emergency hospitals for women and girls driven crazy with
wrecked nerves from your goddamn gibberish about Jesus? I put
it to you again: What the hell do you know about Jesus?

Go ahead and bust all the chairs you want to. Smash a wagon load
of furniture at every performance. Turn sixty somersaults and
stand on your nutty head. If it wasn't for the way you scare the
women and kids, I'd feel sorry for you and pass the hat.

I like to watch a good four-flusher work, but not when he starts
people puking and calling for the doctor.

I like a man that's got guts and can pull off a great, original
performance; but you-hell, you're only a bughouse peddler
of second-hand gospel-you're only shoving out a phoney
imitation of the goods this Jesus guy told us ought to be free as
air and sunlight.

Sometimes I wonder what sort of pups born from mongrel bitches
there are in the world less heroic, less typic of historic greatness
than you.

You tell people living in shanties Jesus is going to fix it up all right
with them by giving them mansions in the skies after they're
dead and the worms have eaten 'em.

You tell $6 a week department store girls all they need is Jesus; you
take a steel trust wop, dead without having lived, gray and
shrunken at forty years of age, and you tell him to look at Jesus
on the cross and he'll be all right.

You tell poor people they don't need any more money on pay day,
and even if it's fierce to be out of a job, Jesus'll fix that all right,
all right--all they gotta do is take Jesus the way you say.

I'm telling you this Jesus guy wouldn't stand for the stuff you're
handing out. Jesus played it different. The bankers and
corporation lawyers of Jerusalem got their sluggers and
murderers to go after Jesus lust because Jesus wouldn't play
their game. He didn't sit in with the big thieves.

I don't want a lot of gab from a bunkshooter in my religion.

I won't take my religion from a man who never works except with
his mouth and never cherishes a memory except the face of
the ... dollar.

I ask you to come through and show me where you're pouring out
the blood of your life.

I've been out to this suburb of Jerusalem they call Golgotha, where
they nailed Him, and I know if the story is straight it was real
blood ran from his hands and the nail-holes, and it was real
blood spurted out where the spear of the Roman soldier
rammed in between the ribs of this Jesus of Nazareth.

p.s. This isn't something by me that is untitled. It's the blog post that is untitled. The poem's title is Billy Sunday, by Carl Sandburg.

Smackdown

2007-02-02T20:41:00.000-05:00

Over at Daylight. A classic Fisking.

Tolle lege!

The School of Shame

2007-02-02T09:51:00.000-05:00

So I found this article from Walther posted on a website dedicated to the darker side of Lutheranism. (By "darker side," I mean the kinds of Lutherans who don't believe women should play sports because a) it doesn't teach them anything about being mothers, and b) it invariably leads to lesbianism. No, I'm not kidding, they really do exist.)

Anyways, think twice next you go to the movies, and be sure to ask yourself, "What would Walther do?"

Practical.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lectures against the Theatre.
———
From the German of C. F. W. Walther, D. D., and adapted
for the WITNESS, by R...r...
———
XV. PAPER (Conclusion.)

We proceed to the Fourth argument from Scriptures against the attendance of the theatre. 1 John 2, 15. 16. we read, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of the life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” But the play-houses are most eminently the temple of the world in which it worships its three-headed idol, Lust of the eyes, Lust of the flesh, and Pride of life sacrificing body and soul. Whoever goes to a play-house consequently goes to the church of the world.

But still more. Fifth, God's Word says, Eph. 5, 4: “Filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, let it not be once named among you, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks.” In the plays, however, especially in comedies, “filthiness, foolish talking, and filthy, or, at least, unchaste jesting” constitute the principle part; for the world does not wish to cry over sins, but to laugh at them. You, however, that are Christians, do not say, Oh, we shall be very careful not to laugh then! First, you do not know whether you will not laugh when you see them all laughing, just as Peter, having once stepped into the house of blasphemers of Christ and been seized with fear of them, finally uttered blasphemies himself. And second, Christian reader, are you not ashamed to go to a place where all kinds of shameful words enter your ear and soil your souls? O leave it hurriedly and weep bitterly, with Peter. Whoever goes to the theatre, goes to the school of shame.

Sixth, Scriptures say, “Pray without ceasing.” 1 Thess. 5, 17. Praying, however, is altogether out of the question in the playhouse. True, they sometimes pray there, too, even a miserable prostitute and courtesan will often pray there with her whorish lips. It even happens that Holy Baptism and Holy Eucharist are mocked on the stage. Why, in order to render his piece most interesting, the German poet Schiller, the greatest favorite especially with the youth, found himself induced to mimic the latter. Besides that, the name of God is taken in vain in the theatre, they swear frivolously, and curse by all that's holy. And, Christian reader, you will pay these cursing players for their cursing!? Whoever goes to the theatre, goes to the school of scoffers.

Seventh, Scriptures say, “Be not conformed to this world.”Rom. 12, 2. Theatrical plays are, however, most properly to be counted among the pleasures of the world. For the Church of the New Testament did not get the play from the Church of the Old Covenant, which did not know anything of it, but from heathendom. Whoever, therefore, goes to the theatre, goes to the school of the world, makes it his teacher, becomes a declared apostate, and above that, perhaps without wishing to do so, yea, protesting against such an imputation, thereby actually pronounce publicly, I will not belong to the Christians, but to the world; I do not wish to be a world-denying child of God, but a child of the world.

Eighth, Scriptures say, Sit not in the seat of the scornful.” Psalm 1, 1. But how may one attending the theatre deny his seating himself with the scornful? Where will they sit if they do not sit there? Hence it is out of question, Whoever goes to the theatre, does not merely seat himself aside, but even at the feet of scoffers.

Ninth, Scriptures say, ”Be not partaker of other men's sins.” 1 Tim. 5, 22. It is impossible, however, to go to the theatre without partaking of other men's sins, both of the sins of the players and of the audience, For what are you doing by going there? The fact of your appearance in the theatre calls upon the actor to sin, to do something on account of which he has ever been excommunicated from the true Christian church! The other godless attendants at the theatre, however who come for the purpose of catering to their flesh, you are confirming therein. And still you mean to say, I dare go to the theatre without committing a sin? O, may God keep you from this dangerous delusion! Your own sin draws you into the theatre, and fraught with many of other people's sins you go out again.

Tenth, we read in God's Word, “Teach us to number our days that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.” Psalm 90, 12. Hence, according to Holy Writ, a pious Christian is forever to think of his death. But the actor is bent, above all, on causing people to forget, for some hours at least, that they must die once and appear at the judgment of God. Whoever, therefore, goes to the theatre goes to the school of atheists, whose principal motto is, Let us eat and drink and be merry, for to-marrow, may-haps, we shall be dead and death ends everything.

Now then, dear reader, I would ask you, What will you do? Will you side with Christ or with the world? Will you be an attendant at church or at the theatre? Perhaps you will say, I attend both. Let me, then, point out to you the word of the prophet Elijah, 1 Kings 18, 21: “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him!” Yea, let me draw your attention to the word spoken to us all in the Gospel, by the Lord Himself, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and the mammon.” Matth. 6, 24. You cannot serve Christ and the world. Do not, therefore, divide your heart, but give all your life and soul to Jesus. Do you still hesitate in accepting what Heaven offers you? O turn your eyes wholly to its everlasting treasures and glory. Whoever does not wholly give himself up to Jesus, must endure pain and anguish in this world, and his wages will be Death eternal. May the good God keep us from this for Jesus' sake and grant us admission to yon heavenly exhibition where, after having closed our eyes in death, we will see God face to face in everlasting joy and blessed light of heaven.

From The Lutheran Witness, October 21, 1888

At this moment...

2007-01-05T12:04:00.000-05:00

...the carillon in UNC's Belltower is playing Sibelius's Finlandia. Nice.

And I am reading from Coleridge's Table Talk. That's right, Luther's is not the only Table Talk out there! Coleridge's is easily as entertaining, if only for the marvelous things he says about Luther. (Coleridge liked ML a lot!)

These are the things I do when I am studiously practicing task-avoidance. I also read about task-avoidance. (See previous link.)

I think it might be time to get a coke. I deserve a break.

I've always said...

2006-12-14T13:58:00.000-05:00

...Better to be a French madman, than a Russian madman!

(Russian madmen are so passé!)

You are Charles VI of France, also known as Charles the Mad or Charles the Well-Beloved!

Which Historical Lunatic Are You?
From the fecund loins of Rum and Monkey.

HT: Little Professor

The DA and the DNA

2006-12-14T13:09:00.000-05:00

Mike Nifong won the election, and that is probably all that ever mattered to Mike Nifong.

Who is Mike Nifong, you ask? He is the DA in Durham, NC, who is leading the investigation in the alleged rape of a black ~~stripper~~ escort service worker at a party hosted by the Duke University Men's Lacrosse Team. The case has created rather poignant racial tensions in Durham, a city with a significant black population.

The ~~stripper~~ escort service worker claimed that the men who raped her did not use condoms, so the investigators expected to find DNA evidence from body fluids. And the lab they hired did indeed find DNA evidence implying that the ~~stripper~~ escort service worker had had intercourse (whether forced or not) with as many as five different men.

These DNA tests were done back in April, and the final report was issued by the private lab on May 12. The report (which was issued to the defense) made no mention of the exculpatory findings, but Mike Nifong has known all along what the results were. None of the five specimens matches ANY member of the Duke Lacrosse team, let alone the three teammates who were arrested and indicted.

The DA knew this throughout the entire election season, but only turned the evidence over -- buried in thousands of pages of other material -- in October.

News reports here (Fox) and here (Raleigh News & Observer).

See Durham-in-Wonderland for the complete report.

It's not only time for impeachment, but Nifong should go to jail for this. And the three Duke Lacrosse players should sue his ass to kingdom come.

What I mean by "Prefer"

2006-11-14T11:14:00.000-05:00

Rick responded to this post, saying:

Could you find a better word than "prefer." I know what you mean by it and am not in the least worried. But there are those out there who use the language of preference here in a way that scares me. They speak as if God gave us a grab bag of models and if you don't like this one, try another. (I might not even have a problem with that if they didn't mean, if you don't like this one, insult it, throw it in the garbage heap, and try another.)

Of course, I can clarify, for the sake of those (all 3.4 of my loyal readers!) who might mistake what I meant...

I do not mean prefer as in, at the complete and total expense of the other. Which is to say, I do not hold exclusively to the Christus Victor/Ransom theory of the Atonement (Athanasius) at the expense of the Penal Substitution theory (Anselm). They both have much to tell us.

As much as the "God wouldn't do that to Jesus; that would make God a meany!" crowd wants to complain, we still have to deal with texts like Isa 53:10 which sure make it sound like God played a pretty active role in the death of Jesus. As much as we want to keep God's hands clean in this death of Jesus thing, we can't. Furthermore, saying such a thing makes us do all sorts of mental gymnastics over the Trinity. Any attempt to exonerate God in the death of Christ is sin, for in doing so we attempt to make God in our image.

Furthermore, when we speak of satisfying God's wrath, we need to know what we're talking about. Are we talking about wrath as in Jonathan Edward's God who dangles the sinner over the pit of hell like a spider? Or are we talking about in the sense that -- in our sin -- God does not even know us. A while back, Solarblogger blogged about God's hatred being one of indifference, which (if you think about it) is a hell of a lot scarier than active hatred. I think that thinking applies to God's wrath as well. At least if we are being actively punished, God nevertheless knows that we exist.

Christ "satisfied" that wrath of God by reintroducing us to Him.

I mean prefer as in, I see elements of both models supported by the Scriptures, but the predominant view is one of rescue. Ransom. We do well to remember that in the great messianic passage from Isaiah foretelling the name of Jesus ("His name shall be called..."Isa 9:6), the name "Mighty God" (El Gibbor) is just as well rendered "Heroic God". The God who seeks and finds. The God who sells everything to buy His Pearl. The God who leaves 99 sheep to find one lost one; the God who puts off everything else to find his lost coin. The God who runs to his Son while "he was yet a long way off."

Models are simply that: models. They are not the real thing. They are ways of talking about what happened, constructions invented by fragile human minds to understand just what God did for us on the Cross. As such no model is perfect. In "picking" one to focus on, then , we must recognize that we are privileging an imperfect approximation

Re: Fenton; What if the Tables Were Turned?

2006-11-13T16:15:00.000-05:00

Let us imagine for a moment a pastor from a sectarian congregation: decision theology, believer's-only baptism, dispensational, and works-oriented. Let us imagine that his studies have left him in a position where he no longer appears to believe in the doctrines in which his "home congregation" believes. He has not only been reading Luther, but rigorously studying the Lutheran Confessions and Lutheran theology under the guidance of trained Lutheran Professors and Pastors. He is 99.44% sure that he will eventually leave his current position.

What is he to do?

Let us further imagine this: a long-time visitor expresses a desire to join the Church. The Official Church Position is that one must be Baptized to join the congregation. This aspiring congregant was baptized as an infant, a baptism which the church does not recognize. What ought this pastor do? He is far along enough in his studies to know what the Biblical teachings on baptism are. The aspirant was baptized in the Trinitarian manner, with water, in a church of which Lutherans have always recognized proper Christian Baptism (let's say Presbyterians, for argument's sake).

What is he to do?

Presbyterians are Ablaze!

2006-11-10T16:36:00.000-05:00

Well, if not exactly "ablaze," they're hot...

Tim Blair (the Australian version of Glenn Reynolds) shows us the new tool for evangelism from the Presbyterians.

It's working: see comment #3.

Twenty Books

2006-11-09T13:17:00.000-05:00

My annotated list of the 20 most influential theological books in my life. This is a meme going around (started on some ELCA blogs, I think).

I suspect this list could change tomorrow; note the suspicious absence of Lewis? C.P. Krauth? I'm not sure Walther would ever make the list for me. I had a pretty good grasp on Law and Gospel by the time I got around to reading it, so I'm not sure how much it "influenced" me. No F. F. Bruce? No N.T. Wright? I must be sick! Oh, wait, I am sick.

20) Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, John Gerstner
This is a funny one. Back in my Pentecostal days, I was all about defending the "gifts of the Spirit" as understood within the Pentecostal paradigm. I knew that John MacArthur was (a) a dispensationalist and (b) opposed to the Pentecostal understanding of the Spiritual Gifts. Ergo (ah! naïve reasoning!), Gerstner's book was advocating the Spiritual Gifts. Needless to say, I was in for a shock. Well, since most of my readers are Lutherans, maybe I do need to say. John Gerstner is a gruff, curmudgeonly old Presbyterian. As an "old school" Presby, he is also a cessationist (i.e., believes the Spiritual Gifts ceased after the completion of the Canon of Scripture, or thereabouts). In the end, the book was about people like Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie, who advocate a position of (basically) anti-nomianism, saying that once a person has believed, it matters not what they do for the rest of their lives. Essentially, Gerstner's book is advocating a form of Lordship Salvation (another peculiarity of American Evangelicalism), which says that once you have professed belief (at which point Jesus is your savior) you must also make him your Lord. Sanctification by works. This book was not exactly influential in a good way. But, on the other hand, it really opened me up to a broader world than my little tiny Pentecostal circle. What it amounted to was that neither position felt intuitively right, to me. And so, we have ---

19) Christ the Lord, ed. M.S. Horton
In this book, a group of Reformed scholars and pastors from the Continental tradition and a couple of Lutherans (Solarblogger being one of them, along with Rod Rosenbladt at Concordia University, Irvine) delimit the Biblical path through the controversy which the above book addresses. In other words, Gerstner, MacArthur, et al, are wrong on the one hand, and Hodges and Ryrie are wrong on the other. Some of you may have run into Rosenbladt's article, "Christ Dies for the Sins fo Christians, too!" on the interwebby. That's from this book.

18) Let God be God, Philip S. Watson
Why do Methodists write such great books on Luther? Anyways, it's must reading for all Lutherans. It's been reprinted!

17) The Last Temptation of Christ, N. Kazantzakis
Yes, I was among those (back in my Pentecostal days) who condemned Martin Scorcese's movie based on the book. I did so because I was an ignorant fool. This is a beautiful, wonderful book, and could be read by any Christian. It is a fictional "life of Christ" viewed entirely through the lens of the Garden of Gethsemane. Yeah, there are some weird parts, and it suffers from the continual criticism that his characters are not Jews, but Greeks with Jewish names, but anyone who says that this book insults or is a threat to Christ or Christianity has simply not read the book.

16) The Two Natures in Christ, Martin Chemnitz
If I had not read this book already, then perhaps Kazantzakis's book would not have been as meaningful (or would have been more offensive?).

15) A Case for Amillennialism, Kim Riddelbarger
Not so much the book, but the lecture series which became the book. Destroyed dispensationalism (i.e., Left Behind theology). Particularly important was Riddlebarger's treatment of Daniel 9, and an article he used by Meredith Kline which completely put the kibosh on the "anti-Christ in Daniel 9" gobbledygook. I have a .pdf copy of Kline's article; any one who wants it can email me.

14) Poet and Peasant & Through Peasant Eyes and The Cross and the Prodigal, both by Kenneth E. Bailey
I touched on Bailey's work on the Lucan parables in this post. If you haven't read Bailey, you should. CPH publishes another of his books, Finding the Lost: Cultural Keys to Luke 15. Read them. Read them all. Now.

13) Ein Deutsches Requiem, Johannes Brahms
Oh, wait. That's not a book. How'd that get on here?! Background music while reading?...

12) The Creationists, Ronald L. Numbers
Mark Kalthoff, Professor of History at Hillsdale College, has said of this book (I'm paraphrasing), "No one should be permitted to even TALK about creationism without having read this book." He's right. So-called "Scientific Creationism" is born of less-than-reputable stock.

11) "Because it had not rained," Meredith Kline
HT to Solarblogger, who introduced me to Kline's work. This isn't a book, it's an article. I won't summarize it, but I'll tell you that it's related to #12. Tolle lege!

10) The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, Hans Frei
Oh no. This is one of the books associated with the Seminex debacle. How can a good Lutheran read it??!! Well, first you pick it up, you open the cover, you focus your eyes on the little black marks on the page, and (if you can decipher those little black marks) you read it. That's how.

There is, of course, a certain moment when narrative theology oversteps the bounds, but at its basic, methodological level, there is good prescription here: focus on the story. Isn't this, in actuality, what Lutherans ought to do? Does not the Gospel precede the Bible? That is, we believe the Bible because we first believe the Gospel, n'est pas? There is a point in evangelism where we must get in a person's face and say, "Jesus died for you!" We don't begin evangelism by doing textual analysis. We proclaim Christ crucified. Both of the next books illustrate this point.

9) The Intrusive Word -- Preaching to the Unbpatized, William Willimon
Perhaps the finest preacher in the United States, Willimon is a minister in the United Methodist Church. The only Lutheran whose preaching comes close (and perhaps exceeds on some Sundays, is Cwirla). Sadly, when we moved to the Triangle, Willimon had just left his post at Duke. Dang. Excerpt:

We preachers so want to be heard that we are willing to make the gospel more accessible than it really is, to remove the scandal, the offense of the cross, to deceive people into thinking that it is possible to hear without conversion. This is the great lie behind most of my apologetics, the deceit that it is possible to hear the gospel while we are still trapped in outmoded or culturally conditioned patterns of thought and hearing. How are we extricated from such patterns? Only by being confronted with the gospel. how does the gospel manage to work such power among epistemologically enslaved folk like us? I don't know. It's a miracle.

8) Theology is for Proclamtion, Gerhard Forde
The problem with putting this one on the list is that I know it had a big impact on me, but frankly I can't recall the substance. Too many of my books (95%) are in storage.

7) Real Presences, George Steiner
Well, the title certainly sounds Lutheran, doesn't it? This work is actually a piece of critical literary theory, written against the rise of "reader-response theory" and deconstruction. He argues that language is a God given gift and ought to be respected in the manner that we respect a stranger who enters our house. VERY dense reading, but if you have the courage, very rewarding.

6) The Doctrine of Baptism, Edmund Schlink & Scriptural Baptism, by Uuras Saarnivaara
I usually recommend these two together. Schlink is good but dry. Saarnivaara is an amusing little fictional dialogue between a Baptist and a Lutheran. These, and a personal conversation with R.D. Preus, put me over the top on baptismal regeneration, and infant baptism.

5) The Copernican Revolution, Thomas Kuhn
Kuhn's first book and the one that put him on the map, so to speak. In my master's thesis at Concordia University, Irvine, I took issue with the following statement:

Protestant leaders like Luther, Calvin and Melanchthon led in citing scripture against Copernicus and in urging the repression of Copernicans. Since the Protestants never possessed the police apparatus available to the Catholic Church, their repressive measures were seldom so effective as those taken by the Catholics, and they were more readily abandoned when the evidence for Copernicanism became overwhelming. But Protestants nevertheless provided the first effective institutionalized opposition. (196)

Researching the veracity of this statement (in fact, the statement is wrong) led me all around the theological and scientific world of the 16th century. What fun.

4) The Structure of Lutheranism, Werner Elert
Another one in storage. Two Kingdoms (among other things) came through loud and clear in this one. This was also handy in refuting Kuhn.

3) Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, Werner Elert
The ultimate argument for closed communion.

2) Here We Stand, Herman Sasse
Sola scriptura is not enough to make a Reformation; there must be Sola fide.

1) This is My Body, Herman Sasse
Best book ever on the Sacrament of the Lord's Table.

Short bit of reading

2006-11-08T11:54:00.000-05:00

For those who (like me) tend to prefer the Christus Victor theory of the atonement, here is a great post.

Way off!

2006-11-02T15:28:00.000-05:00

Via Territorial Bloggings comes this quiz. It's way off.

What American accent do you have? Your Result: Philadelphia Your accent is as Philadelphian as a cheesesteak! If you're not from Philadelphia, then you're from someplace near there like south Jersey, Baltimore, or Wilmington. if you've ever journeyed to some far off place where people don't know that Philly has an accent, someone may have thought you talked a little weird even though they didn't have a clue what accent it was they heard.
The Midland
The South
The Northeast
The Inland North
Boston
The West
North Central
What American accent do you have? Take More Quizzes

Wrong. Way, way, way wrong.

I speak "Californian" through and through. Like, totally.

UPDATE: OK, so I took it again, but this time I turned off my "professionaly-trained Opera Singer" diction filter, and came up with these results:

What American accent do you have? Your Result: The Midland "You have a Midland accent" is just another way of saying "you don't have an accent." You probably are from the Midland (Pennsylvania, southern Ohio, southern Indiana, southern Illinois, and Missouri) but then for all we know you could be from Florida or Charleston or one of those big southern cities like Atlanta or Dallas. You have a good voice for TV and radio.
The West
The Inland North
The South
Philadelphia
Boston
North Central
The Northeast
What American accent do you have? Take More Quizzes

Closer, but still incorrect, since I do not believe that the capital of our country is Worshington, D.C., and I do not "worsh" my dirty clothes.

Co.mments

2006-11-01T15:37:00.000-05:00

I have an annoying habit (one of many!) of making a comment on someone's blog, and then either (a) forgetting that I commented, or (b) remembering that I made a comment, but not remembering where I made the comment.

Problem solved. I highly recommend going to co.mments.com and signing up for their service. It's free. It's simple. There is even a widget for displaying the conversations you are currently following on the sidebar of your own blog.

There is also a snippet of code that you can insert in your own blog's template so that if a person wants to, they can just click on the link, and they automatically subscribe to the comments of that particular post. (See the orange button at the bottom of this post!)

It's worth restating, once in a while....

2006-10-26T14:46:00.000-04:00

The Gospel, that is.

The usual metho-bapti-costal misunderstanding of Luke 15 always involves a misunderstanding of vs. 17-20:

When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' So he got up and went to his father.

Always **ALWAYS** these verses are interpreted as an example of the younger son's repentance. In fact, this passage is one of the crucial examples used in "Decision Theology". The younger son "comes to his senses" and decides to return to his Father. It's a clear example of the decision we all must make when "come to the Lord," right? Here, for example:

“He came to himself.” He was not himself before. He wasn’t thinking clearly. This parable doesn’t tell the whole story. Because we know that he did not come to himself by himself! Whenever we see a sinner “come to himself,” we know that God is at work in their hearts!

Though not the main point of this parable, these verses contain an excellent model of genuine repentance. He recognized the desperate situation in which he was (v. 17). His confession of sin acknowledged both his earthly and heavenly fathers. All sin effects both other people and is ultimately against God! This must be acknowledged!

The heart repentance of the son resulted in action. Repentance is a change of mind that brings about a change in action! His father saw him while he was still a long ways off. That means he was looking for him! Elaborate on the love of the father shown in his watching and running. He still smelt like the pig pen, but he had repented and was received!

This is a perfect example of what Solarblogger calls GLAWSPEL (gospel undercut by the admixture of law): the Good Pastor puts a veneer around repentance by saying that, "Whenever we see a sinner “come to himself,” we know that God is at work in their hearts!" But he then undercuts this by the next two paragraphs, with the implication that everyhing hinges on the son's confession: "This [effect of sin] must be acknowledged!" So, which is it? Who gets the credit, here? I'm sure the Good Pastor Weaver would say, "Well, of course, God gets the credit. But the sinner still had to DO something!"

[/LOOP]

Who gets the credit, here? "Well, of course, God gets the credit. But the sinner still had to DO something!"

[/LOOP]

Who gets the credit, here? "Well, of course, God gets the credit. But the sinner still had to DO something!"

[/LOOP]

Who gets the credit, here? "Well, of course, God gets the credit. But the sinner still had to DO something!"

[/LOOP]

You get the idea... So God -- what? -- gives the son a little bit of Grace, and then it's up to the son to act on it...is that it?

"Well, yeah, that sounds about right." [NB - that was a fictional conversation; I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth!]

Good. Thanks. For the record, that's what the Roman Catholic Church calls "infused grace" and the Methodists call "prevenient grace." And the Protestant Reformers rejected it as semi-Pelagianism. But I digress...

Does the younger son really "repent" in Luke 15? Perhaps some Lutherans know where I am going with this (I know Solarblogger does). But it's worth repeating even if most of you do, since this passage is associated with the very heart of the Gospel: Justification by Grace Alone through Faith Alone.

What does the younger son say?

"Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men."

We forget, sometimes, that Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, knows every word of the Scriptures by heart: he should, he wrote them. When Jesus uses words, he is never careless. Likewise his audience: they are not careless about HOW they listen. When they hear something familiar, they know that it is being used for a purpose. So, for example, when Jesus (in Mark 12) tells the parable of the wicked tenants, his listeners know that he is quoting Isaiah 5 and expanding on it. Likewise in Luke 15.

To whom is Jesus alluding when he puts those precise words into the son's mouth?

Pharaoh quickly summoned Moses and Aaron and said, "I have sinned against the LORD your God and against you. Now forgive my sin once more and pray to the LORD your God to take this deadly plague away from me." (Ex 10:16-17)

So, Jesus puts something closely approximating Pharoah's words into the son's mouth. Pharoah was hardly being honest when he said those words. He yet had deceitful machinations in his heart, and this is Jesus's clue to the Pharisees who are listening to Him tell this story. The son is not repenting, he is making plans.

The son has not yet realized that his problems aren't about a lack of money or food. His problem is the broken relationship with his father, and he has no plans to go back and fix that. In fact, he has plans to go back and remain outside of the family: "Make me like one of your servants." He still does not want to be his father's son. He's a conniving, deceitful little prick who just wants food in his belly.

No, folks, this is not repentance. It is anti-repentance: he was "in control" when he left his Father's house, and he plans on being "in control" when he returns.

The moment of repentance is the blank space between verse 21 and verse 22: when he stops talking, stops doing, and passively accepts what his Father does for him.

"Ah! SEE! He stopped talking! So he did DO something."

Wrong. Look closely at the text:

The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.

Notice that the Father completely ignores the carefully prepared speech. The son is talking, but the Father turns around and starts talking to the servants.

Grace will not even allow deceit to finish its sentence. Repentance is not active; it is passive.

Some readers may recognize the exposition here as coming from Kenneth E. Bailey's various works on Luke 15. See here, here, here and here.

Coming up next, Harold Ford eats some Watermelon

2006-10-26T10:34:00.000-04:00

The Republican National Committee ought to be ashamed of itself. Ken Mehlman should resign by the end of the day tomorrow.

First, watch this video of the attack ad on Harold Ford, the Democrat Candidate for senate in Tenessee.

This ad is not suggestively racist. It is not covertly racist. It is outright, overtly, and intentionally racist. Some sceptics (like the Freepers here) doubt that it's racist, and Ken Mehlman says he doesn't see it.

Well, retards, here's the explanation. I'll try to keep it simple for your little brains.

First of all, in the opening sequence, we learn that black women vote for good looking men. Not smart men; not qualified men. Just good looking men. But the key is the blonde bimbo in the ad.

She shows up first in the middle of the ad, saying she had met Harold Ford "at the Playboy Party." This is the setup: it puts the categories "white woman" and "sex" into the viewers' minds. Hold that thought for a minute.

The ad plays on fear, which is nothing new, nearly all political ads do.

The First Fear is the fear of the "good looking" but vapid politician: think Dan Quayle or Robert Wexler.
The Second Fear is the fear of terror. Perhaps this is a legitimate concern about Ford, I don't know.
The Third Fear is the fear of estate taxes. A vastly overstated fear.
The Fourth Fear is gun control. A legitimate concern; so legitimate in fact, that this issue alone deserves its own ad.
The Fifth Fear...oops, here's the bimbo...doing the setup for the ULTIMATE FEAR.

Where were we? Oh, yes...

The Fifth Fear is the marriage tax fear, which blatantly misrepresents Ford's position.
The Sixth Fear is North Korea, which, again, is a legitimate concern and I don't know Ford's position.
The Seventh Fear is tainted money, which given the jack Abramoff fiasco right now, is a case of Republicans in Glass Houses throwing stones.
The Eighth Fear: BLACK MEN ARE STEALING OUR WHITE WOMEN!!!

Yep, folks, it's anti-miscegenation all over again. Roll back your calendars to 1966. (1966? That's not so far back! But that's as far as you need to go until you find anti-miscegenation laws still on the books. Which means, of course, that there are a lot of people still living now who remember the good ol' days.) If you can, roll 'em back even farther! Let's go back to the turn of the (20th) century, when we could discuss this blight openly, shall we?

See the pretty white girls running (well,swimming) away from the black man as fast as they can?

See the sex-crazed white man who is so out of control that he would even go after a "stinking wench"?

I know of another such piece of anti-miscegenation propaganda which depicts a white woman in a swimming pool, the top of her bosom just out of the water, with two black men looking on. One black man says to another, "I just love white meat!" The cartoon is a double-entendre, since it is referring both to the association of black people and the consumption of fried chicken, and then referring to the white woman (whose breasts they are ogling) as "white meat."

Make no mistake, folks, the message of this ad is clear:

If you vote Democrat, we'll have mixin' of the races, and that can't be good.

(NB: for the really, really pea-brained people out there, this post is not intended to be an endorsement of Harold Ford.)

Sex libris

2006-10-19T17:22:00.000-04:00

Heh. That was the alternate title for this post at the nonist.

Personally, I've worked in three of the libraries pictured -- The Rijksmuseum, the Handelingenkamer, and the British Library -- although the picture for the British Library is actually from the old building (now the British Museum), not the new. I've only worked in the new building.

Apart from these, some of my personal favorites are the Wren Library at Trinity College, Cambridge, the Bodleian, at Oxford, and the John Rylands Library - Deansgate, in Manchester.

Incoming bananas!

2006-10-18T16:23:00.000-04:00

My son Eli's first experience with bananas did not go so well...

Incoming!

Damage assessment...

Total catastrophe!

and a couple more for good measure:

Staying the Hand of God?

2006-10-17T16:57:00.000-04:00

When God lays out a punishment, is it a sin to try to avoid the punishment?

Surely, we cannot hide from God: "There is no dark place, no deep shadow, where evildoers can hide." says Job. (34:22) And God declares that He will hunt Israel down for the wrongs she has done:

If they dig into Sheol,
from there shall my hand take them;
if they climb up to heaven,
from there I will bring them down.
If they hide themselves on the top of Carmel,
from there I will search them out and take them;
and if they hide from my sight at the bottom of the sea,
there I will command the serpent, and it shall bite them.
And if they go into captivity before their enemies,
there I will command the sword, and it shall kill them;
and I will fix my eyes upon them
for evil and not for good. Amos 9:2-4

But these passages do not quite answer the question. Of course we can't hide from God, but is it a sin to even attempt it? Bear in mind, I have no misconception regarding sin: we mortals would neverhteless be sinners even if we committed no actual sinful act. As the Solid Declaration states:

we all by disposition and nature inherit from Adam such a heart, feeling, and thought as are, according to their highest powers and the light of reason, naturally inclined and disposed directly contrary to God and His chief commandments, yea, that they are enmity against God, especially as regards divine and spiritual things.

I'm not trying to parse out sin, here. I'm just trying to figure out how far this goes. One is certainly led to think, "Yes, it is a sin."

Ex AGs, Unite!

2006-10-11T16:29:00.000-04:00

Welcoming a fellow ex-Assemblies of God now LCMS blogger The Lonely Way to the blogosphere.

Coffee talk

2006-10-10T15:57:00.000-04:00

Pastor Glen over at Incarnatus Est links to a new offering out of Ft. Wayne called Socratic Stammtisch. The good Pastor wonders, "What is a stammtisch? I am sure it is dreadfully important but I haven't a clue."

Stammtisch is "table talk" in action. Informal conversation amongst friends: coffee talk. It's often used as a way for students learning to speak German to be able to hone their skills.

Speaking of "coffee talk", when I headed over to Socratic Stammitsch, there was an amusing post on the death of Common Sense. One thing that struck me, however, was this line:

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

It's surprising that the mythology around this event (the woman in New Mexico was awarded $3,000,000 in her lawsuit against McDonald's after she spilled the coffee in her lap) lives on. There are indeed cases (like the all too real case where a home invader sues a homeowner when he gets injured "on the job" as it were) where judge and jury had clearly checked their brains at the door. The McDonald's case was not one of them.

The woman in question (Mrs. Liebeck) had purchased a cup of coffee in a drive-through McDonalds, after which she placed it in her lap, and spilled it when she attempted to doctor it up with cream and sugar (which actually was her real mistake!) Hot coffee sloshed all over her inner thighs, genitals and rump.

Now, have you assumed, Gentle Reader, that Mrs. Liebeck was driving the car? I didn't say she was. Yet my paragraph above lets you assume that she was, and in fact, most news accounts of the story were written in similar fashion to how I presented it.

It is very important to note that Mrs. Liebeck was NOT driving the car. She didn't spill it while driving; she wasn't fumbling with the gear shift or the brake, or the steering wheel. And, furthermore, the car was stopped when she spilled the coffee.

Now, for most people, the story ends right there: "What a dolt!," they'll say. Well, dolt or not, Mrs.Liebeck was in pain, so her grandson (who was driving the car) took her to the emergency room. As it turned out, she had 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body, and was hospitalized for eight days.

Here is the interesting part: "hot coffee" does not cause 3rd degree burns. 3rd degree burns can only be caused by really, really f-----g HOT coffee. The difference, as it turns out, between 1st degree and 3rd degree is not two degrees, but 40 degrees.

Our avergae coffee maker at home dispenses our morning joe at F140 degrees. Liquid at that temperature will sure hurt, and will cause 1st degree burns. But to get 3rd degree burns, the coffee has to be at least F180 degrees.

So here is the legal part. This case was not about "common sense" -- in fact, Mrs. Liebeck was the first to admit that putting the coiffe in her lap was dumb. The question is what reasonable expectation do consumers have about food they are served? In this case, "common sense" says that "hot coffee" should be in a restaurant as it is at home, or at least within a reasonble (i.e., non-harmful) range.

If the coffee is not within a reasonable range, the next question is, to what extent (if any) is the restaurant resonsible for it? That depends largely on whether or not the restaurant knew that its coffee was substantially hotter that people's normal coffee, and whether or not the restaurant knew how dangerous that temperature was. As it turned out, McDonalds knew both of these things: 1) that the coffee they served was far hotter (40 to 50 degrees) than people brewed in their own homes, and 2) that coffee at the temperature they served would cause 3rd degree burns if it came into contact with the skin.

McDonalds had had (if memory seves) not one, not two, not three, but six different civil actions filed against it for this very same problem in the state of New Mexico alone. Nationwide, there had been hundreds. And still they served their coffee at 180-190 degrees.

Mrs. Liebeck did not, at first, file suit. She simply wrote to McDonalds an asked them to help with her medical bills. As it turns out she had to have massive skin grafts done on her legs. McDonalds at first did not even do her the courtesy of replying.

To make a long story short, the jury didn't award Mrs. Libeck $3,000,000 in order to account for her pain and suffering, they did it to punish McDonalds for willfully ignoring a dangerous situation. And, in the end, the award was eventually reduced to something in the neighborhood of $250,000, a sum which (after her lawyer's fees and medical bills) amounted to nearly nothing for Mrs. Liebeck.

In the end, when I read something like this:

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

it takes the fun out of the rest of the piece. She "spilled a little in her lap"??? The woman's injuries were so severe that if she had been of "child-bearing years", she likely would have lost that ability. She certainly would have lost the ability to deliver the child normally. The perineum gets massively stretched during delivery, but since burned skin loses its ability to stretch, well...you see.

Now, why am I rehashing something so old as this? Well, because it showed up in the post over at Socratic Stammtisch, that's why...and because I'm stuck on a latin translation and I needed something else to think about for a little while.

I should note that Socrates (Pr. D) did not write this article, and that furthermore, he says he's not sure if he agrees with the article 100%. Good. Let's hope he doesn't agree with that part.

Does anyone know...

2006-10-05T14:02:00.000-04:00

...if this Eric Phillips guy has his own blog out there somewhere?

If he doesn't he should. I'm sure I can find some biblical passage to twist to make it sound like he's sinning of he doesn't blog...

Something along the lines of...If you really "love your neighbor as yourself" then you'll share your fine intellectual thoughts on a blog. If you don't, well...you're missing out on the victorious christian life.

Or something like that.

Oi!

2006-10-03T18:01:00.000-04:00

If "Speaker of the House Nanci Pelosi" aren't the six scariest words in the English language right now, I don't know what are...

The Conception misconception

2006-09-27T13:02:00.000-04:00

Prior to the very late 19th century, the preeminent theory of conception basically asserted that that during coitus the male inserted into the woman a complete but very tiny unformed human being. This theory is referred to by historians of science as “preformation”. This is to be distinguished from emboitement, in which a fully formed but very tiny human was believed to reside in the woman’s generative organs. From Eve’s firstborn all the way down to you, Gentle Reader, every human being was encased in her ovaries. If you don’t get it, think of Russian nesting dolls.

Prior to 1651, the prevailing view on reproduction was that of the two great ancient Physicians, Hippocrates (460-370 B.C.) and Galen (129-200 AD). (The Gospel writer Luke, who was a physician by trade, would have been trained in the teachings of Hippocrates.) The general theory held that the entirety of a babies identity came from the male, while the woman provided the environment in which the baby grew. If the “seed” for the baby came from the right testicle (which contained the “strong” seed), the child would be a boy, but if it came from the left or “weak” testicle, it would be a girl. Alternatively, there was a theory which said that the woman carried the “weak” seed, while the man carried the “strong” seed and that after copulation, the woman “decided” which seed would win. This, however, was a far less popular theory.

In 1651, William Harvey (yeah, the same William Harvey who discovered that blood circulates throughout the body!) published a book called De generatione animalium, in which he asserted that the preformed embryo resided not in the man, but in the woman. Ex ovo omnes (from the egg comes everything) was the famous slogan from the book. (We should note that in publishing this work, Harvey vindicated Henry VIII, who had executed various wives for not “giving” him a male heir.)

Now a debate raged, between the “old guard” who held that the males held the preformed embryo, and the ovists, who argued for the woman.

Spermatick worms (or animalcules) were first observed by Antoni van Leeuwenhoek ca. 1677. Their exact role in conception was not immediately understood, and indeed, for nearly two centuries, a primary school of thought was that tiny creatures were actually parasites. In fact, the very name we now use still bears this stigma: the organisms came to be called “spermatozoa” (singular: spermatozoon) because they were classified as parasites (entozoa, family prothelmintha) by the Anatomist Richard Owen in 1835.

Anyway, the debate raged between the ovists and the animalculists who asserted that it came from the sperm and was merely nurtured by the female. This debate continued for another 200 years. The mammalian oocyte (the ovum) was not actually observed until 1827 (even though Harvey had postulated its existence in 1651). Mammalian fertilization was not observed until 1875!

Amongst the scientific and medical communities, the ovists generally became the dominant faction. But (and this is very important!) amongst the general population (including the theological faculties of the Universities!), the animalculists remained dominant. Thus, it is completely understandable that almost universally in theological circles, contraception was condemned as sinful, because when a man prevented his semen from reaching its goal, he was killing a pre-formed embryo. Not until after 1875 could this opinion have changed, and frankly, not until this idea had fully germinated (pun intended) would the general public even remotely comprehend the idea.

Thus it should be of no surprise at all that it was not until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 that the first Christian church opted to stop calling (some forms of) contraception a sin.

For further reading, I recommend two books, both readily available at your local University library:

E. B. Gasking, Investigations into Generation, 1651-1828, London: Hutchinson, 1968.
C. Wilson, The Invisible World. Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.

Eat your Lima Beans or burn, sinner!

2006-09-26T17:31:00.000-04:00

I will apologize in advance for the acerbic tone that this post will have, but even Paul found that tone to be effective on occasion (cf. Gal 5:12).

God told Adam and Eve they could eat of any of the plants (save the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) that he created. Did this mean they should eat, and eat, and eat and keep on eating? If they had ceased eating, would they have been thwarting the will of God?

God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food." (Gen 1:29) Do I sin against God if I don't like spinach and refuse to eat it? After all, God didn't say, “I give you some seed-bearing plants for food," or, "I give you the stuff that tastes good". God said "every," and "every" means "every."

Well, I figured I would chime in once, and only once, on this contraception issue, because the logic of the arguments has gotten so utterly ridiculous. And I mean that in a literal sense: worthy of ridicule. The latest episode (part 1 and part2) has appeared at Pastor Beisel’s blog… a blog I have enjoyed in the past, and I am sure I will enjoy in the future.

The gist of the argument (found primarily at this site) is thus:

In Genesis 1:28, God said to Adam and Eve, “Be fruitful, and multiply”…etc. The contra-contraception folks take this to be an absolute command to procreate, and anyone who thwarts it by preventing pregnancy through any means (chemical, physical barrier or timing) is sinning in doing so.

The Biblical evidence marshaled for the position is Gen 1:28, Gen 38:9 (the story of Onan), the legal proscriptions against harming a pregnant woman and thus harming her child or causing a miscarriage (cf. Ex. 21:22), and the various passages from Psalms which celebrate a full household (cf. Ps. 127:3-5; 128:3-4).

Furthermore, evidence from Church history is brought to bear, viz, that virtually all commentators prior to the 20^th century condemned contraception.

Let’s examine these…

Do these people have no training in logic? Does it matter whether or not every LCMS Pastor ever in existence agreed with the anti-contraception position or not?

No. That is a logical fallacy called an "appeal to authority". Saying that Luther believed contraception was sinful is meaningless. The question is, was he correct?

If we assume he is correct just because he was Luther, then perhaps we ought to consider taking up his views on the Jews? Hey, Luther said "burn their houses" so let's all get together and burn their houses!

Good grief. No, what matters is what Scripture says.

And with that, we have disposed entirely of the irrelevant opinions of Luther, Walther, Kretzmann, et al. Now, let's consider the Biblical passages, shall we?

Let's begin with the horrendously puerile interpretation of Genesis 38:9 to mean that contraception is forbidden. Here, for example, is Luther:

"This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime to produce semen and excite the woman, and to frustrate her at that very moment." (LW 7.20-21).

Sorry, Martin, but you get an “F” in exegesis on this one. Let’s look more closely, shall we?

Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also. (Gen 38:6-10)

Looking at the passage, we see that Onan was motivated by greed (if Er remained childless, Onan would get the firstborn share of the inheritance!), and that he deceptively and repeatedly pretended to be trying to fulfill his duty. What if Onan had not, in fact, "spilled his seed"? What if he had simply refused to even lay down with his brother's wife, as the law demanded? (cf. Deut. 25:5-6) What if he just went into the tent and chatted her up? Tamar knew what was happening, after all. Would he not have been equally guilty? The obvious answer is yes. Onan's sin, then, has absolutely nothing to do with him "spilling his seed" on the ground; it is entirely and only about deceiving Judah and not fulfilling his filial obligations under the law.

Don't come back at me with, "Well, Luther said..." because I don't give a rat's patooty what Luther said.

Second, as for Genesis 1:28, have they all forgotten entirely about a little thing called Two Kingdom theory? Procreation belongs to the kingdom of the left (aka, the Kingdom of Creation). God's statement to be fruitful and multiply isn't a command so much as it is an invitation. Calling a husband and wife's decision to control for the number of children they have "sin" is as ludicrous as calling my disdain for spinach a sin. And it’s as careless as telling your child that he doesn’t need to wear a helmet when he rides his bike, because if he wears a helmet, he’s not trusting God to protect him.

Lutheran husbands and wives are being plenty fruitful out there; these guys have no place telling them they're sinning by not being fruitful enough. The bottom line is that Scripture says nothing explicit about contraception. The story of Onan is not about contraception. The laws addressing someone who strikes a pregnant woman, harming her unborn child or causing her to miscarry, are not about contraception.

These guys are reading the Bible with a slide-ruler and compass, which is how Calvinists read the Bible, making up laws where no such laws exist. Scripture forbids such practice, and in fact Paul tells us to rebuke them sharply. (Titus 1:13) For shame. I pity any sheep put under such a yoke.

Studio 60 outdoes Benke?

2006-09-26T08:22:00.000-04:00

So, I'm not a big fan of television. Give me a book and a cup of Earl Grey, and I'm usually much happier. But I do have my faves. Law & Order (the original) always tops the list, of course. Reality television is for outright losers. With the sole exception of The Deadliest Catch, which (for some inexplicable reason) my wife and I are hooked on. Oh, and Dirty Jobs, too. Maybe it's a Mike Rowe thing.

Anyways, last week I happened to watch (again, inexplicably) Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.

For those who have not seen it, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is a show about a "show", called (get this!) Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The "show" is a Friday night version of Saturday Night Live, broadcast from Los Angeles (well, Hollywood) rather than New York. (The writers were very careful in the second episode to state that this was not about SNL, by referring to Lorne Michaels and SNL in glowing terms.) What we see is a behind the scenes of all the workings, trappings, and personalities involved in producing and writing the "show". Now, having lived in Los Angeles, I'm pretty blasé about Hollywood culture. I'm not talking about the "Culture Wars" crap, in which I have no interest at all. I'm talking about living amongst these animals. So a show about "The Biz" ought to hold no power over me.

Oops. I think I'm hooked. I was -- if not exactly a fan -- certainly an appreciator of West Wing, and Aaron Sorkin's new show looks to be just as good. A good cast with great writing.

Christianity has, so far, figured in heavily. Not religion -- Christianity. One of the supporting characters is an evengelical Christian. She is also decidedly not a kook. Harriet (played by Sarah Paulson) is (somewhat) attractive, her character makes a positive contribution to the show, she is cast as righteous without being self-righteous, and is eminently "likable". Last night, before the "show" went on the air, the cast is shown getting together for a quick prayer, and it is not the schmarmy, generalized appeal to some Unknown God kind of TV prayer as usually happens (like on Seventh Heaven); her character invokes the name of Christ and specifically identifies Him as the Son of God.

In fact, while certainly not perfect, her prayer last night should make Benke blush. I'm looking for a transcript, and will update if I find it.

UPDATE:

Harriett's prayer--

Blessed are you Lord our God,
Creator of the Universe and Father of us all,
Thank you for giving us one of your greatest gifts, a sense of humor,
and if you have time, please make something heavy fall on Matthew's head.
We say this prayer in the name of your Son, Jesus Christ,
who had to have been funny to get so many people to listen to Him,
Blessed art thou, forever and ever, Amen.

It's not Church material, but it also doesn't equivocate.

On the other hand, for the first two episodes, the "show" is squirming under pressure from Religious Right groups who object to a sketch which the "show" refused to run on the first episode, but had decided to run on the second episode. (in the first episode, one of the "writers" (Matthew Perry's charater) referred to Pat Robertson as a bigot and the "700 Club" as a Klan gathering without the robes.) The sketch, titled "Crazy Christians," is only ever alluded to in the show (so far); we haven't seen the content. I'm willing to bet we never will. And I for one think that's good writing. I think we'll see hints of what some sketches are about (D.L.Hughly has a one-liner in previews in which he says, "Welcome to Pimp My Trike", which actually sounds like it could be an amusing pardoy ofthe MTV show Pimp My Ride), but I seriously doubt that the show will spend much showing the content of the "show".

So the show has created this bifurcation between Christians like Harriet and Christians like the readers of Rapture Magazine (yes, that's the name of the fictional magazine from the show). On the one hand, you have committed Christians like Harriet who seem to understand vocation and have a sense of Two Kingdoms, and on the other hand you have the Hal Lindsey/Tim LaHaye goofball Christians who are one step short of the Taliban.

Seems appropriate, and I for one, applaud the show for doing it.

The show is, of course, getting the expected commentary from the very demographic which it lampoons. See, for exmaple, here and here. These guys display the very obtuseness that Sorkin is lambasting.

The Baptist Confusion

2006-09-25T10:06:00.000-04:00

Over at St. Charles’ Place, there is a lively discussion of Baptism between Charles, Kelly Klages, and a Baptist sectarian. (EDIT: Turns out, the person with whom Charles and Kelly are debating is not a Christian at all, he (she?) is a Christadelphian.) (For those interested, the post is a follow-up to this one.) From the one of the comments of this sectarian, a typical Baptist misunderstanding of various NT events arose that I think needs addressing. The issue is the relationship of John the Baptizer’s administration of Baptism, Jesus’ Baptism, and the Baptism of Christian believers. Here is the comment:

First of all, regarding the thief on the cross, who says he wasn't baptised [sic]? Secondly, who is saved, who wasn't and who isn't, isn't up to mankind. God is the judge, not us. And if grace through faith saves all us non-thieves-on-the-cross, why was Jesus baptized? Why was John baptizing before Christ? If faith is all that's needed, why was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized after a confession of his faith?

Baptists make a very serious mistake of conflating John’s, Jesus’ and believers’ baptisms. In other words, John’s Baptism was a baptism of repentance, and (according to them) ours is also. Jesus’ baptism was an act of obedience, and (according to them) ours is also. Repentance and obedience are the two basic ingredients of baptism, in Baptist thought. Once this mistake is made, it is only logical that (in their system) Baptism must be done subsequent to a confession of faith. We Lutherans often argue this point with Baptists, but the argument seems to go nowhere with them, because we haven’t addressed the critical flaw. And the way we address the critical flaw is thus: Christian baptism has absolutely NOTHING to do with the baptism of the John the Baptizer.

John’s baptism was a Jewish ritual, preached and performed as a prophetic message pointing to the imminent arrival of Israel’s Messiah. It was indeed a message of repentance. But, according to St. Paul, John’s baptism had nothing in common with baptism as practiced by the nascent Church:

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"

"John's baptism," they replied.

Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance.” He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus. On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all. (Acts 19:1-7)

John’s baptism was important for the pre-Christian believers, but subsequent to Christ’s ministry, it was no longer adequate, for in John’s baptism, there were no promises. Paul makes an absolute, total and complete separation bwteen the two baptisms: one has NOTHING to do with the other. The Baptist teaching, therefore, that our baptisms are like John’s baptism, is contrary to the teaching of the Bible.

Second, what about Jesus’ baptism? His was an act of obedience, right? So ours should be, too, right?

Wrong.

Jesus’ baptism was “to fulfill all righteousness”. (Matt 3:15) While there may be a ritualistic cleansing component involved here (cf. Leviticus 1:9, and the washing of sacrifices), St. Luke quotes Isaiah in order to explain what Jesus’ baptism meant, in pointing out the anointing of the Holy Spirit. (cf. Luke 4:18 & Isa 61:1-2) Jesus’ baptism is the beginning of his ministry, when he proclaims the Good News promised by God in Isaiah 61.

So, no, Jesus’ baptism is most decidedly not about obedience. It is about the bestowal of the Holy Sprit, and the beginning of ministry. And just are our Baptisms. Which brings us to the third mistake Baptists mistake: the separation of water baptism from the Holy Spirit.

Ask any Baptist what Paul means in Romans 6, when he says that, “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life,” and you will most likely get the answer that in this passage, Paul is not speaking of water baptism, but of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This separation of the two is among the most blasphemous and heretical positions the Baptists have in their theology. Let’s begin by explaining it.

Here is the Baptist reasoning:

Premise 1: If Romans 6 is talking about water baptism, then the implication is that something actually happens in baptism.

Premise 2: We know that nothing happens in baptism.

Conclusion: Therefore, Romans 6 cannot be speaking of water baptism.

Their cart outrunneth their horse. The fault of course is in premise number 2. Now some Baptists rather foolishly sidestep this issue by saying, “Oh, sure, Romans 6 is talking about water baptism, but it’s only symbolic.”

Only symbolic?! Then we only symbolically die?

No, folks, it’s a real death. It had better be. Jesus didn’t die so that we may not die. Jesus died so that we may live. We are not immortal in our current condition. We DIE. We rise again in Christ. We receive a new nature. Then we live forever.

But we have to DIE, folks. Baptist theology sidesteps this whole thing. There is no death in Baptist theology. Without death, there can be no life. This is why Baptist theology is heresy.

From premise 2 above, we know that Baptists don’t believe baptism is a supernatural act. From the “symbolic” argument, we know Baptists don’t believe that Christians must actually die in order to be “born again.” It’s just a symbolic death.

No, it’s as real as a bloody body on a cross, because it is HIS death that we die. We can’t survive on our own. To be sure, we die; I’m not saying we don’t. But if our death is not enclosed, encapsulated, clothed, wrapped in His death, then it’s permanent. No resurrection.

In a follow-up post, we'll deal with Baptism as a supernatural act.

Moonbats in tinfoil 'ats...

2006-09-10T23:05:00.000-04:00

John over at Confessing Evangelical has a NAAACL post in which he deconstructs a bogus poll about 9/11.

Good work, John. I was in London that day, and the amount of support I recieved from the Brits was amazing. I was stranded in London for a week (I had been scheduled to fly home on 9/12), and when a flight finally came available, I took a cab from Wandsworth (which was the only place I could find an affordable hotel) to Heathrow. The cab fare was in the neighborhood of 30 pounds ($50, at the time). The cabby said the ride was free, but asked me to donate the equivalent amount to the Red Cross when I was back home. Which I did.

I will also never forget the TV image of the Liverpool FC fans singing their trademark club song, Elvis Presley's You'll Never Walk Alone, with American flags waving throughout the stadium.

As soon as I saw them...

2006-08-14T17:20:00.000-04:00

I knew I recognized these pictures. Taxipage is a collection of pictures taken by some random cabbie in Leiden, The Netherlands.

I lived in this town for a year (plus a few weeks the two prior summers, as well) doing research for my Ph.D. So I just had to make note of it. Perhaps if he ever gets to Hooglandse Kerkgracht, he'll take a picture of the Lutheran Church in Leiden.

Actually, I preferred the Lutheran Church in Utrecht, because it was a Geheimekapel: a hidden chapel. In the Golden Age of the Dutch Republic, Catholics, Jews and (yes!) Lutherans were "tolerated" by the Hervormede Kerk (Reformed) as long as the church buildings (or synagogues) were discreet (i.e., nobody knew what they were). The Lutheran Church in Utrecht (on Hambugerstraat) retains this today. From the outside, it looks like three separate houses; but on the inside is a beautiful sanctuary, complete with pipe organ and (miniature) transcept. You can see it here. Unfortunately, this site does not show the outside; but it just looks like three typical Dutch row-houses. The main screen will show a slide show, but if you click on either klein or groot (small or large) panorama, you can get one of those "virtual tour" kind of shots that you can direct any where you want. The pipe organ is to the left of the altar (from the congregation's perspective) up high. Look closely underneath the cenral rank of pipes. What do you see?

If you read German, you can probably figure out that the Church was once a Cloister, but was taken over by the town in 1580. The properrty was passed around a bit, but came into Lutheran hands in 1743, after the restrictions on non-Reformed services eased up.

Anyway, enjoy the pictures of Leiden. After my dissertation is done, I'm toying around with the idea of writing a brief beginners history of Leiden, along the lines of Thomas Cahill's How the Irish Saved Civilization. My working title is The Town that Made America. The connections between Leiden and various topics of American history are pretty numerous, but most Americans have no idea that a town called Leiden even exists. Most of us remember from our elementary school education that before the Pilgrims came to the New World, they went to Holland for eleven years. They lived in Leiden. Our Thanksgiving Day feast actually has its roots in a similar feast that takes place a few weeks earlier (October 3) in Leiden. John Locke lived in Leiden for several years, and most of his major work was done there. Ben Franklin's ideas on electricity came form his reading of Dutch scientists who worked in Leiden (ever heard of a Leyden Jar?)

Thoughts on "Israel"...

2006-08-14T11:35:00.000-04:00

HT to Jeremy at Eating Words for pointing out this post at Pastor Alms's blog.

Lutherans of the uber-conservative stripe (the ones, for example, who support the efforts of groups like the apologits cum junk-science supporters at Answers in Genesis) don't know who they're getting into bed with sometimes when they support other (so-called) conservative groups. More often than not, these groups go hand-in-glove: literal reading of Genesis=literal reading of Daniel=literal reading of Revelation. I suppose I should say "literalistic". Personally, I read Genesis literally, and I have yet to find 6 24-hour days in the first two chapters.

Anyways, yes, as Confessionalists, we have an obligation to oppose this crap.

I have only one nit to pick with Pastor Alms: the church does not replace Israel. It is the same thing as Israel: the congregation of people who have been called to worship the One True God. Remember that when the Jewish scholars at Alexandria translated the OT (the Septuagint), the Greek word they used to describe the congregation standing outside the Temple was "ekklesia".
Using the word replace sells the farm to the Hagee miscreants.

Tolle lege!

UPDATE: Doh! My nit was addressed in the comments section. Tolle lege, indeed!
UPDATE: Have I leanred anything? Apparently not. Alms's follow-up post runs along similar lines to my rant above.

A mild surprise?

2006-08-11T17:06:00.000-04:00

I don't know if it is, or not. I guess it's accurate. I have deleted, however, the portrait of Tom Delay which came with the result, since I think he's dirty and deserves to go to jail for a while....assuming, you know, that he's actually found guilty by a jury of his peers.

But, IMHO, he belongs to that party of politicians (and I'm NOT speaking of any one political party!) who think the rules were only made for the other guy. Well, I am the other guy, and if it's good enough (or bad enough) for me, Tom, then it's bad/good enough for you.

You scored as Pro Business Republican. Pro-business Republicans support supply-side economics. By cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and supporting large corporations, they want to spur innovation and create economic growth that benefits all Americans.

Pro Business Republican

90%

Libertarian

85%

Foreign Policy Hawk

75%

Socially Conservative Republican

60%

Green

55%

New Democrat

55%

Old School Democrat

50%

What's Your Political Philosophy?
created with QuizFarm.com

Another example of a bad quiz. Either whoever wrote it doesn't seem to understand how he (she?) has mixed categories, or has done so deliberately. Partisan hacks on either side are capable of such deliberate confusion. Here is an example:

Question 28: We should support co-ops and public enterprises that distribute resources more democratically.

Well, co-ops are (usually) private enterprises, while "public" enterprises means "run by the government". What if one (like me) agrees with the former, but not the latter? I guess you vote with the middle button (i.e., neither strongly agree nor disagree). But how does this help determine where one is politically?

Where is the "fanatical moderate" result (which is where, like Tom Friedman (whom I loathe/love) I usually find myself)?

The first question really is the best (read: worst), however, and (probably) betrays how historically naive the author of the quiz is.

Question 1: Every family has the right to a decent home, and the right to earn a decent living.

My question is, what are the determing factors of this question? Here's how I could answer the question: AGREE, every family does. The constitution guarantees the RIGHT to life, liberty, and property. (Yeah, that pesky "pursuit of happiness" language is an intentionally all-encompassing euphamism which includes "property" which was John Locke's original word.)

But my guess is that the author of the quiz wants me to choose "agree" because (the author being of the "progressive" persuasion (what was it Lewis said about progess down the wrong road?)) I agree with government entitlements, which I do not.

Anyways, it's not a horrible quiz...but it's not nearly as good as The Political Compass (where I score very closely to my home-boy Tchaikovsky!)

Your political compass (lower right quadrant):

Economic Left/Right: 2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.03

No big surprise here...

2006-08-11T11:22:00.000-04:00

You scored as Luther. You are Martin Luther. You'll stick with the words of Scripture, and defend this with earthy expressions. You believe in an orthodox Christology. You believe that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ, but aren't too sure about where he goes after the meal, and so you don't accept reservation of the Blessed Sacrament or Eucharistic devotions.

Luther

100%

Catholic

25%

Zwingli

Unitarian

Calvin

Eucharistic theology
created with QuizFarm.com

The only thing about these quizzes is that I wish people who write them wouldn't be quite so cheeky about them. I like the ones where the results really expose the crap people believe...

Rick ended up slightly more RC than I did. I wonder why?

UPDATE: Link fixed. (Cat still fertile)

Book meme...(finally!)

2006-07-26T21:41:00.000-04:00

I've been tagged by Rick @ Daylight on a book Meme.

It took awhile to respond, since the day he tagged me, we found out that my Father-in-Law's lung cancer has returned with a vengeance. Not good. Perhaps 6 months. He did, however, get to see the birth three grandsons in the time since his original diagnosis. We (his two daughters and both of their husbands) are taking him back to Chicago one last time in two weeks to see his beloved Cubbies play at Wrigley Field (against the Cards). The trip is (ostensibly) his chance to take his grandsons to their first baseball game, just as his grandfather took him back in the 30s. He actually saw Babe Ruth play at Wrigley (in Ruth's later years).

I will miss him terribly. I have been very blessed in the FIL department. He's a good man, who came to Christ very late in life, I am happy to say (he was baptized at age 71, and three months later got the cancer news...). Anyways, I don't mean to be a killjoy, so here goes:

1. One book that changed your life:

The Phantom Tollbooth, by Norton Juster

I remain convinced that Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure was nothing but a poor rip-off of this brilliant book. At one time in my life (at about age 9 or 10), I think I was Milo.

This book opened me up to history. I'm pretty sure it was my 5th grade teacher (Mrs. Miller) who pointed out th similarities between this book and Gulliver's Travels. Gulliver, in turn, has repeatedly blossomed as a deeper and more meanigful book to me. Swift's ideas, as it turns out, have played fairly deeply into my dissertation... All because of Milo.

2. One book that you've read more than once:

A Canticle for Liebowitz, by Walter M. Miller, Jr.

I asked (in my youthful naïveté) my junior English teacher if there were such a thing as “Science Fiction” in the Middle Ages. The obvious answer was “No”…”But,” he said, “Now that you ask, that does make me think of one book in particular…” Turns out Canticle was one of my parents’ favorite books (along with Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert Heinlein).

3. One book you'd want on a desert island:

The Collected Poems of William Wordsworth

He is the master. (No matter what Thom at Endlessly Rocking says!)

4. One book that made you laugh:

Porterhouse Blue, by Tom Sharpe

A hilarious look at British academe…Made me laugh out loud on the plane ride home from Scotland. I felt like an idiot.

5. One book that made you cry:

Where the Red Fern Grows, by Wilson Rawls

Every guy out there knows what I’m talkin’ about!

6. One book that you wish had been written:

The Lutheran Doctrine of Scripture (and why the word “inerrant” is not a part of it)

7. One book that you wish had never been written:

The Story of Civilization (12 vols. ?), by Will and Ariel Durant

So many people read this collection as if it were authoritative history. It’s CRAP, people! If you have a copy, throw it away!

8. One book you're currently reading:

The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, by Hans Frei

More on this in a post to arrive shortly…and yes, it relates to #6.

9. One book you've been meaning to read:

Albion's Seed, by David Hackett Fischer

I own it; I pick it up every now and then…but then I remember I am writing a dissertation, and I grudgingly put it back on the shelf. Happily, my Dad is reading it right now…perhaps it will cure him of that “Christian America” nonsense.

Now, passing it on...

I am tagging the following people:

~~Maria at Musical Ramblings~~ dang! Already tagged!
~~Thom at Endlessly Rocking~~ dang, again! Already tagged!
John Z at jzuhone
Charles at St. Charles Place
Glen at Territorial Bloggings
Jason at TheologyGeekBlog
~~Dan at ProtoEvangel~~ triple dang!
Kelly at Kelly's Blog

Now I have to figure out how to notify them....

Who is it?

2006-07-18T11:55:00.000-04:00

Anybody know who is behind the blog Endlessly Rocking? It's a darn fine blog, but I can't quite tell what flavor it is...renegade ECUSA? renegade ELCA? LCMS? Orthodox? I think the last, but I am not sure.

Anyone know? One of the smartest out there (aside from Daylight, natch!), but I don't know who or what "it" is...

Bohemian Pilsner

2006-07-16T14:41:00.000-04:00

Upon starting this blog, I had promised the occasional post on home-brewing and/or sharing recipes. At long last, I am doing that now. Making a pilsner requires that you can dedicate a spare refrigerator to the task (something not all of us have). You also need an external thermostat, like this one. Here goes ---

Category: lager/pilsner, extract

Comments: Final product begins with a mild fruit flavor of apricots and nectarines, but finishes dry and mildly bitter. An excellent warm-weather beer!

------------------------------

Ingredients:

8 oz Pilsen Malt (Wyermann 2-row)
88 oz. (5 ½ #) British Extra Light DME
2.0 oz. Saaz plugs (60 minutes-bittering)
1.0 oz. Saaz plugs (30 minutes-flavor)
1.0 oz. Saaz plugs (2 minutes-aroma)
1/2 oz Saaz plugs (dry hop)
Wyeast Bohemian Yeast directly from the pack (no starter)

Procedure:

Steep the Pilsen Malt in 3 quarts of water at 150 degrees for 30 minutes. Sparge with another 3 quarts hot water (~190 degrees). Put all six quarts of steeped and sparged water in a large kettle, and add another one gallon of fresh water. Bring to ~190 degrees, remove from heat, and add DME, strring constantly. Bring up to the boil.

Boil the wort and follow the hop schedule as indicated, starting with the sixty-minutes hops as soon as the wort reaches the boil. Once the boil is complete, cool the wort quickly, either in an ice-bath or by adding chilled water (bring to a total volume of 5 gallons). When the temperature reaches 65 degrees, pitch the yeast.

Let it remain at ~65 degrees for one day, and then place into a 'fridge to begin lagering. I started at 50 degrees (I have an external thermostat for a spare 'fridge in my garage) and brought it down to 36 degrees over 14 days. At 14 days, rack to a glass carboy, add the dry hop, and continue the secondary ferment at 36 degrees for eight weeks. Bottle with 1 ¼ cups of corn sugar in 2 cups of boiling water.

Specifics:

O.G.: .1044
F.G.: .1008
ABV: 4.9%

Another fave...

2006-07-14T13:05:00.000-04:00

If you don't read Tacitus (another of my favorite NAAACL sites), you should!

IN THE MAIL --

2006-07-03T11:15:00.000-04:00

From Last Week:
The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences, by Quentin Skinner

The Enlightenment Bible: Translation, Scholarship & Culture, by James Sheehan

From This Week:
Science in Europe, 1500-1800: A Primary Sources Reader, by Malcolm Oster

Science in Europe, 1500-1800: A Secondary Sources Reader, by Malcolm Oster

I might have an opportunity for some adjunct teaching next spring, so it's time to start preparing a syllabus. The class will be an undergarduate lecture seminar on the Scientific Revolution (if there actualy was such a thing!)

Yep, I thought so...

2006-06-24T11:34:00.000-04:00

I confess, I am trying to finish up a dissertation chapter today, but I just had to stop and go read the Confessions for a while, to remind myself of just what exactly they say viz. this adiaphora thingy. And I'm convinced that I remembered them correctly.

First, adiaphora gets put on the back burner if the Church is under presecution. That is, if we were in a situation where some Roman bishop was making a bunch of noise about how Lutherans aren't Christians because they DON'T have statues of Mary, then for that moment, we are obliged to rid ourselves of any statues of Mary.

As an immediately relevant example, take the recent Southern Baptist Convention which took place up the road in Greensboro last week. At the convention, the Baptists passed a Resolution which states:

[SNIP]

WHEREAS, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of “our freedom in Christ”; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further

[SNIP]

RESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.

The SBC has declared that the "Biblical Perspective" on alcohol is that (in essence) it is a sin to drink and as another blogger pointed out (read the whole thing, BTW) --

Attend any event, including by not limited to the following locations: a St. Louis Cardinal’s game at BUSCH stadium, a Colorado Rockies game at COORS Field, or a Milwakee Brewers game at MILLER Park.

I propose that we are now Confessionally obliged to promote the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, precisely because a heretical sectarian organization masquerading as a represenative Christian body* has made a false claim which undermines the very Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is not as modest of a proposal as somemight think.

We as Confessional Lutherans maintain that the consumption of various foods (including alcohol) is a matter of Christian liberty (provided one follows the laws governing such things, see Romans 13). This SBC resolution attacks that liberty, which (to my mind) constitutes persecution. (Bear in mind, one part of the resolution calls for SBC members to support legislation curbing alcohol use!) When under persecution, the Church is obliged not to behave in the way in which the persecutors prescribe:

26] 1. Therefore we reject and condemn as wrong when the ordinances of men in themselves are regarded as a service or part of the service of God.

27] 2. We reject and condemn also as wrong when these ordinances are by coercion forced upon the congregation of God as necessary.

28] 3. We reject and condemn also as wrong the opinion of those who hold (what tends to the detriment of the truth) that at a time of persecution we may comply with the enemies of the holy Gospel in [restoring] such adiaphora, or come to an agreement with them.

29] 4. We likewise regard it as a sin that deserves to be rebuked when in time of persecution anything is done either in indifferent matters or in doctrine, and in what otherwise pertains to religion, for the sake of the enemies of the Gospel, in word and act, contrary and opposed to the Christian confession.
[SDFC, of adiaphora]

Here's a thought: I suggest that we sell naming rights for new churches to breweries. My current congregation is in the process of "spinning off" a new Church; here's how I think it could work.

After we call the new vicar, we'll ask him what his beer of choice is. (On the other hand, we're Lutherans, so I guess we'd have to put it to a committee...) Let's say for arguments sake that it's Sam Adams**. So we would simply call it--

Sam Adams' Lutheran Church of the Ascension (LCMS)

In exchange for naming rights, the Sam Adams company would help to cover the costs of contruction of the kitchen and dining facilities, and provide the beer at all the potlucks for the first five years.

[ZIIIIIIIP]

Now, back to the point...

As per things Marian, the Lutheran Church is decidedly not under persecution (or is it? Perhaps I am wrong). So what then are we to do with Pastor McCain's unease about her statue*** in an unnamed (of course, we all know where it is) congregation? At what point does adiaphora cease to be adiaphora because one congregation does not like what another is doing?

Arguments about pentecostal style worship are a red herring. Enthusiaism and fanaticism are already condemned in the Confessions (as is the invocation of saints). The liturgy isn't adiaphora (see Ap. XXIV). When he compares them, he confuses his categories, but worse than that, he sells the farm to the anti-Liturgy movement.

Let's look at the section that follows the part I cited up above, shall we?

30] 5. We reject and condemn also [the madness] when these adiaphora are abrogated in such a manner as though it were not free to the congregation [church] of God at any time and place to employ one or more in Christian liberty, according to its circumstances, as may be most useful to the Church.

31] Thus [According to this doctrine] the churches will not condemn one another because of dissimilarity of ceremonies when, in Christian liberty, one has less or more of them, provided they are otherwise agreed with one another in the doctrine and all its articles, also in the right use of the holy Sacraments, according to the well-known saying: Dissonantia ieiunii non dissolvit consonantiam fidei; "Disagreement in fasting does not destroy agreement in the faith."

Pastor McCain wants to have his cake and eat it too, on this point. He argued (in the comments section of his post) that "congregation" should be read as "gemein" here, implying that it's speaking of an enitre body, not of just one parish within in a larger body. This, however, ignores the historical context of the passage: indivdual congregations (all within the Church of the Augsburg Confession) were calling down fire and brimstone on one another for various and sundry things. Think of Osiander and Melanchthon. So, sorry, Pastor McCain, but this is a perfect parallel to the current situation. Oh, the madness!

Thanks for playing; better luck next time.

And the silly argument that "it's not the statue by itself that's wrong, it's when you add the votive candles and the kneeler"... Bloody poppycock. Just because there happened to be a medieval theory about how candles helped prayers get to God doesn't mean that we throw the candles out with the stupid theory. Dump the tripe, yes; keep the candles if you want to. It doesn't matter. That's WHAT adiaphora means, FCOL: it's indifferent.

We don't get to move something out of the "indifferent" column just because it might be confused for Romanism. That's not enough.

Look at the arguments of the SBC on alcohol: because it has led to abuse in the past, and because it could lead to abuse now, we ought not have anything to do with it.

How are the arguments against that statue any different than this SBC nonsense?

*Apologies for that to my Baptist readers (and I know who you are!). If you know Lutherans, you know we have a habit of calling things by their formal names, even though we would most certainly express brotherly love in an informal setting. For example, in our Confessions, we consistently refer to that German guy with the funny hat as "the antichrist". Now, I'm sure Herr Ratzinger is a nice guy, and I'd love to sit down and have a beer with him (don't you wish YOU could??!!). I own several of his books, and I personally think he's a pretty smart guy. Nevertheless...he believes and teaches something contrary to the Gospel, and I am compelled to call a spade a spade.

**Sam Adams has not paid me to endorse their product. I do so of my own free will (SDFC, III.74) and at my own expense (usually about $6.99 for a sixer).

*** Of course, there is the other argument that the statue is not of her, it is of the Infant Christ who just happens to be in her arms (and yes, your present author agrees with this latter position!)

What a woman...

2006-06-22T17:08:00.000-04:00

I suppose it's the literary in me, but I have found The Little Professor to be one my favorite NAAACL websites. I found her via Library Thing, as she is the user with whom I currently share the most titles. That may not change, either, since I have a pretty broad collection of Romantic and post-Romantic literature. She's witty, intelligent, and now I am completely jealous of her.

Why?

She's currently in one of my most favorite places: The British Library. But she's just a bit angry over things.

Eliot & Lewis were right...

2006-06-21T23:35:00.000-04:00

But aside from that, there's this basic question:

If it's adiaphora, why do we have to "go about it" together??? That is, if we all have to come together and agree on what's adiaphora and what's not (apart from the definition gievn in the Confessions) and how we "go about it"...well, doesn't that mean that it's not adiaphora?

Somebody help me. ***scratches his head***

Confused? Go here.

UPDATE: It's gets bizarrer and bizarrer. (yeah, I know...) The commenter "Skillman" seems to "get it" tho'....

My Dad is My Hero

2006-06-20T23:19:00.000-04:00

The Terrible Swede's post about his Dad inspired Rick over at Old Solar to write about his Dad. Inspired by Rick's post , I decided to put this memory down to ... silicon. Xrysostom is also in on the action.

OK, so this has morphed into an ad hoc carnival for Dads. So be it. Mutti over at Beckfest has a short but sweet homage to her hubby. (We hubbies like these!) Jon Ledetroit reminds us that forgiveness is a Fatherly trait. Des Moines 360's Dad is a cowboy. Jeremy is celebrating teeth. Favorite Apron photoblogged the Dads in her life; so did Caroline at Our Little House, and also Lutheran Lucy... Tim May gives us a good Father's Day sermon on the faith of our fathers. Matt at Lutheran Loser compares talks with his father with talking with his Heavenly Father.

When I was about 8 years old, a school chum and I were walking home from school. It was some kind of minor holiday, because it was only a half-day, and I was looking forward to going home, since I knew my Dad had the day off.

We took a short cut through a debris-ridden field, which just happened to have some kind of sewer access hole in the middle of it. The kind that's made out of poured cement, about 10 feet in diameter and 15 feet deep, with a big iron grate on top, secured with the mother of all padlocks. Some older boys had managed to pry the padlock off the cover and were milling around, as older boys are wont to do, wondering what to do with this new found treasure of a big pit. Along come two 8 year olds, and Voila! Instant tormenting satisfaction. Yes, they decided that putting my friend Shawn and I in the hole would be great fun.

Of course, we resisted. They tried to corral us towards the hole, but we kept evading. Shawn took advantage of a gap in between two of the three boys and made a break for it. As he ran towards the corner (our houses were still out of view) I yelled after him to get my Dad. The boys threw rocks at him as he ran. My description makes the boys sound inept (and they were, to be sure) but they made up for that in meanness. They managed to swipe my jacket (my prized Dallas Cowboys Team Jacket from Sears Roebuck & Co.!) and throw it in the hole.

A couple of minutes later, my Dad came charging around the corner, full speed. For that moment, he was the Cavalry, a locomotive, and Superman all rolled into one. Needless to say, the older boys took off, and my Dad retrieved my jacket from the bottom of the hole.

I reminded him of this this past Christmas; funny, but he has no memory of it. Me, I will never forget it.

A lesson in gentleness

2006-06-16T11:48:00.000-04:00

Pastor Snyder demonstrates how to be...erm...pastoral...when discussing the issue of rebaptism.

Ask the Pastor: Changing Towns, Changing Churches?

He pulls no punches and yet leaves his reader unbruised.

D.J. E.J.

2006-06-13T07:21:00.000-04:00

Fun with ~~Photoshop~~™. Er, rather, fun with The GIMP.

Frost at Midnight

2006-06-09T18:27:00.000-04:00

The Frost performs its secret ministry,
Unhelped by any wind. The owlet's cry
Came loud--and hark, again ! loud as before.
The inmates of my cottage, all at rest,
Have left me to that solitude, which suits
Abstruser musings : save that at my side
My cradled infant slumbers peacefully.

'Tis calm indeed ! so calm, that it disturbs
And vexes meditation with its strange
And extreme silentness. Sea, hill, and wood,
This populous village ! Sea, and hill, and wood,
With all the numberless goings-on of life,
Inaudible as dreams ! the thin blue flame
Lies on my low-burnt fire, and quivers not ;
Only that film, which fluttered on the grate,
Still flutters there, the sole unquiet thing.
Methinks, its motion in this hush of nature
Gives it dim sympathies with me who live,
Making it a companionable form,
Whose puny flaps and freaks the idling Spirit
By its own moods interprets, every where
Echo or mirror seeking of itself,
And makes a toy of Thought.
But O ! how oft,
How oft, at school, with most believing mind,
Presageful, have I gazed upon the bars,
To watch that fluttering stranger ! and as oft
With unclosed lids, already had I dreamt
Of my sweet birth-place, and the old church-tower,
Whose bells, the poor man's only music, rang
From morn to evening, all the hot Fair-day,
So sweetly, that they stirred and haunted me
With a wild pleasure, falling on mine ear
Most like articulate sounds of things to come !
So gazed I, till the soothing things, I dreamt,
Lulled me to sleep, and sleep prolonged my dreams !
And so I brooded all the following morn,
Awed by the stern preceptor's face, mine eye
Fixed with mock study on my swimming book :
Save if the door half opened, and I snatched
A hasty glance, and still my heart leaped up,
For still I hoped to see the stranger's face,
Townsman, or aunt, or sister more beloved,
My play-mate when we both were clothed alike !

Dear Babe, that sleepest cradled by my side,
Whose gentle breathings, heard in this deep calm,
Fill up the intersperséd vacancies
And momentary pauses of the thought !
My babe so beautiful ! it thrills my heart
With tender gladness, thus to look at thee,
And think that thou shalt learn far other lore,
And in far other scenes ! For I was reared
In the great city, pent 'mid cloisters dim,
And saw nought lovely but the sky and stars.
But thou, my babe ! shalt wander like a breeze
By lakes and sandy shores, beneath the crags
Of ancient mountain, and beneath the clouds,
Which image in their bulk both lakes and shores
And mountain crags : so shalt thou see and hear
The lovely shapes and sounds intelligible
Of that eternal language, which thy God
Utters, who from eternity doth teach
Himself in all, and all things in himself.
Great universal Teacher ! he shall mould
Thy spirit, and by giving make it ask.
Therefore all seasons shall be sweet to thee,
Whether the summer clothe the general earth
With greenness, or the redbreast sit and sing
Betwixt the tufts of snow on the bare branch
Of mossy apple-tree, while the nigh thatch
Smokes in the sun-thaw ; whether the eave-drops fall
Heard only in the trances of the blast,
Or if the secret ministry of frost
Shall hang them up in silent icicles,
Quietly shining to the quiet Moon.

---S. T. Coleridge

I hope that my son shares his father's love (and his grandfather's love, and his great-grandfather's love) for poetry.

Having grown up in a fairly legalistic pentecostal denomination, enjoying something "worldly" (you have to say it with with a slightly curled lip and faintest tone of derision) like the poetry of Wordsworth and Coleridge was mostly frowned upon. "You could be spending that time reading the Bible instead of reading those pagans," or something like that.

Thankfully, the Lutheran idea of the Two Kingdoms not only allows us to enjoy Coleridge, Wordsworth and other things, but actually encourages it. "The Earth is the Lord's, and everything in it!"

I will teach my son to love the Lord God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength, and his neighbor as himself. I will also teach him (I hope) to love Coleridge.

Welcome to the World

2006-06-04T19:08:00.000-04:00

My Son, Eli Jack, was born last Tuesday, May 30. Mom is doing great, Eli is wonderful.

Dad, OTOH, is a snivelling basket-case.

Can someone please explain why I just want to stare at him all day long?

7 pounds, 3 ozs; 20 inches.

My mother overheard from the nurse that we are not having him circumcised, and she flipped.

Aside from the fact that it's none of her business, I happen to know (I am after all wiriting a dissertation in medical history) the history of circumcision in the west. By and large, it was completely unknown for nearly 2000 years (you know, ever since Paul told the Galatians they'd be better off cutting their John Thomases off! cf. Gal 5:12) until about 1870 when some British doctor reintroduced it. It caught on in the U.S.A. about 5 years later, as part of the whole "health and wellness movement".

Anyways, my mother had a brief explosion and then (mysteriously) it was never mentioned again. I have a feeling my Dad told her to shut it. I'm glad. It gave me more time to stare at my son.

There's some scene from a movie with John Cusack where he has this staring match with a baby...that's what I feel like when my son looks at me in the eyes.

I lose any perception of the world around me.

Book Recommendation

2006-05-19T09:52:00.000-04:00

For anyone interested in the history of private auricular confession in the early days of Lutheranism, I highly recommend the book The Reformation of the Keys: Confession, Conscience and Authority in Sixteenth-Century Germany, by Ronald K. Rittgers.

I wrote a review of this book for Comitatus (Vol. 36), but copyright prohibits me from just pasting the whole review here. I think it will be okay if I just paste the first and last paragraphs, however...

In the historiography of the early Reformation, various theological loci have been treated exhaustively. Justification has always received the most attention, with the sacraments and ministry following close behind. Confession and absolution have, however, received scant attention, except insofar as they relate to justification. In The Reformation of the Keys, Ronald Rittgers seeks to fill this void. Using a pleasant prose style unencumbered by some of the jargon associated with too much work on social discipline, Rittgers details the transformation of confession and absolution from its medieval penitential forms into a new evangelical tool for the consolation of the sinner’s conscience. His particular focus is on the imperial city of Nürnberg, where the adoption of the new evangelical form of absolution followed a different path than that of other cities that adopted the Reformation early on.

[SNIP]

While Rittgers does steer clear of messy jargon, the reader will need to know the various theological categories of Lutheranism to get the full meaning of Rittgers’ work. He does not stop to define terms such as “Two Kingdoms” or “Law and Gospel,” which are heavily loaded terms in Lutheran theology. This however is not a short-coming of the book; only a warning to the casual reader to come prepared to a well-documented and thoroughly grounded discussion of a key moment in the development of Lutheran theology.

Rittgers, FWIW, was a student of Steven Ozment at Harvard, who is among the best and brightest of Reformation historians today. Rittgers' book promises that he will follow in his doktorvater's footsteps.

How cool is THIS?!

2006-05-03T16:46:00.000-04:00

I found this literature map by accident. Too freakin' fun!

Put the name of your favorite author in the upper right square, and see where it leads.

I started with Thomas Hardy, and was mesmerized for about 20 minutes...

O frabjous day!

2006-05-01T18:19:00.000-04:00

Two items in the mail today: the new issue of Logia, and the new issue of Marklin Insider (a model railroading magazine).

Can anyone say, "GEEK!"?

My Library

2006-04-28T16:28:00.000-04:00

On the advice (from long ago) of my pal Rick, I added the "My Library" feature on the sidebar.

Small popcorn, please. No butter.

2006-04-28T14:11:00.000-04:00

Great post over at John ZuHone's blog.

Evidentiary Apologetics (Part 1)

2006-04-28T14:06:00.000-04:00

What is it for? As Lutherans, we believe that salvation is wholly an act of God, from the moment of conversion to the first resurrection (which is baptism) to the second resurrection in Glory (the Second Coming). To use the $20 word: we are monergists. We bear some similarities to Calvinists, in that we insist that salvation is not the result of any action on part. That is, never in all of history has there ever been a person who "made a decision for Jesus." Never happened. Never will. In the Person and work of Christ, God made a decision for us, and for us. That is, God is both the decision maker, and the bestower of Grace. No prayer, no Hail Mary, no decision, no walk down the aisle to endless repititions of "Just as I am" has done ONE. SINGLE. THING.

EVER.

So, if God makes all the decisions, why doesn't everyone go to heaven? Contra the Calvinists, the Lutherans agree with Scripture which places the blame squarely on the shoulders of humanity. Some will rightly observe that this creates a conundrum: why are some saved and not others? Lutherans do not answer that question, because the Scriptures do not answer that question. If you start trying to answer that question, you'll end up and Arminian or a Calvinist.

But also, some ask, if God makes all the decisions, why bother evangelizing? What use is apologetics?

Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that we're told to evangelize.

Lutherans believe that God delivers His promises to us through means, i.e., through physical things. His Spirit comes to us in our Baptisms, and we are made one body through partaking in the Lord's Supper, where we receive Christ's True body and blood. God has a long history of working "through" physical things to accomplish his purposes. He brought water forth from a rock, he healed people through a snake on a stick, spoke through a burning bush, resided in a big golden box…

And just so, Lutherans believe that dead souls are converted and brought to new life in Christ by the preaching of the Word. They are not converted by responding to the Word. They are converted by the Holy Spirit through the Word.

Well, that solves the “why evangelize?” question: the Good News doesn’t travel through a vacuum. But what about apologetics? Clearly, the Lutheran position rules out any part that human reason may play in conversion, right?

So, should we or shouldn’t we?

Evidentiary Apologetics (Prelude)

2006-04-27T16:44:00.000-04:00

You scored as Evidentialist.

You are an evidentialist! Apologetics primarily consists in showing the good reasons one has to believe the claims of Christianity. You consistently confound unbelievers with your knowledge of history, science, and Bayesian computation that you learned from John Warwick Montgomery, Gary Habermas, and Richard Swinburne.

70% -- Evidentialist
57% -- Fideist
53% -- Reformed/Presuppositional Apologist
40% -- Classical Apologist
7% --- Atheist

I suspect that the quiz found here has already made its way around, but I just found it. I am surprised to discover that I am 7% atheist. I guess we all have our doubts...Spirit willing, flesh weak and all that.

But...should Lutherans be advocates of "evidentiary apologetics"? More to follow...

Comments

2006-04-21T13:32:00.000-04:00

So, having witnessed all the "comment wars" on other blogs, I have decided to mediate comments. Not that I'm expecting all that many...but better to play it safe. People who leave comments may notice a delay before it gets posted, but have no worries. Sean's comment, for instance, finallt showed up today, even though he left it yesterday. I'll try to be quicker, and I'm probably going to establis an email account for just for the blog comments, which means I won't have to sift through all the offers for the latest hot stock, p-n-s enlargement pill, etc., and potentially miss someone's otherwise brilliant comment.

Bear with me; I still have no idea what I'm doing.

UPDATE: Comments modding temporarily off. If things get dicey, maybe then I'll use it.

JUMPING OFF THE PLANK

2006-04-20T14:10:00.000-04:00

This is an inital post, just to get the blog going...sort of "priming the pump" so to speak. Things that might come up on this blog are (in no particular order!):

Brewing Beer
Science and Faith
Crypto-Baptists in the Lutheran Church
Classical Music or Punk Rock, depending on my mood.
Historical issues

Under "Brewing Beer", I might post an occasional recipe, especially if it's good. I also might solicit advice from other brewers.

Under "science and faith", I am sure that I will be taking issue with people who uncritically ascribe to the strange and novel ideas put forth by such groups as Answers in Genesis.

Under "crypto-Baptists"...well, for the most part, see above.

Under "music"...as soon as I figure it out, I will try to get one of those side-bar thingies that says something like, "What I'm listening to today". Until then...

Given some time, I will also develop a "blogroll".

I will warn anyone reading this that I am terrible typist, but I will always correct errors as I see them.

Analysis
Feminine Keywords						Masculine Keywords
[with]	5	x	52	=	260	[around]	0	x	42	=	0
[if]	0	x	47	=	0	[what]	1	x	35	=	35
[not]	4	x	27	=	108	[more]	2	x	34	=	68
[where]	1	x	18	=	18	[are]	0	x	28	=	0
[be]	1	x	17	=	17	[as]	10	x	23	=	230
[when]	2	x	17	=	34	[who]	1	x	19	=	19
[your]	0	x	17	=	0	[below]	0	x	8	=	0
[her]	0	x	9	=	0	[is]	3	x	8	=	24
[we]	6	x	8	=	48	[these]	1	x	8	=	8
[should]	0	x	7	=	0	[the]	73	x	7	=	511
[she]	0	x	6	=	0	[a]	5	x	6	=	30
[and]	14	x	4	=	56	[at]	3	x	6	=	18
[me]	0	x	4	=	0	[it]	0	x	6	=	0
[myself]	0	x	4	=	0	[many]	0	x	6	=	0
[hers]	0	x	3	=	0	[said]	0	x	5	=	0
[was]	1	x	1	=	1	[above]	0	x	4	=	0
						[to]	16	x	2	=	32