War Between the States Pt. 1

Introduction and Review

The War Between the States and all that led to it was the first major breach of trust and unity among the American states. Having fought side by side in the War for Independence, the War of 1812, and the Spanish-American War, to turn and face each other with the same vehemence and passion that had formerly been pointed at other countries was no light matter in any estimation. What must be understood from the outset is that the Civil War was fought over the nature of the United States government. It was over which direction American culture and society would take.

Related to the vision for what America ought to be, was the question of ‘rights’. What are ‘rights’? And where do you get them? In the Christian way of thinking and speaking, there is strictly, no such thing as ‘rights’. There is nothing in this world that we are entitled to simply because we exist. We live in the world that God made which means that everything is a gift. Gifts are not deserved or earned. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness those basic values that the framers of the constitution sought to protect are not rights. No one deserves or is entitled to those things apart from them being given by God. But even once they are given we are not allowed to assume that we are now entitled to them. We must use the gifts that are given according to the guidelines that are given to us. To take life for an example, no one has a right to life. God’s Word gives instructions regarding the protection of life. However, God also gives instructions for when it is right and proper for life to be taken. Life is not a right; it is gift for the duration of God’s pleasure.

The American Civil War erupted in the height of the romantic period. As we have seen, one of the tendencies of the romantics was the care for the less fortunate and a passion for living well and whole heartily. Depending on the goals and the means, this desire was at times both praiseworthy and utterly wicked. The French Revolution was no sunny day.

Differences: North and South
Throughout the beginning of the 19th century, things were changing dramatically in the North. Factories began appearing in cities, the railroad became a normal and expected reality, and a large influx of immigrants changed the landscape throughout the northeast. Factories produced textiles, shoes, woolens, milled flour, and worked metals. By the 1850s, Isaac Singer sewing machines and John Deere plows were multiplying and making production and agriculture easier and more efficient. But in the big picture, while southern farmers prospered greatly, particularly through the cotton plantations, it was the North that was booming industrially. The diversity of productions, agriculture, and technology was not only impacting the overall culture of the North, it was setting the northern states up for greater stability in the long run.

In addition to these economic and industrial developments, a greater and deeper divide had already begun to show its face. While the faith of Americans was Puritan and Calvinistic from its colonization, the influence of the Enlightenment had made its imprint in America no less than Europe. While we cannot know all the hows and whys of this transition, the North gradually, from the time of American independence onward, had embraced a less doctrinally sound form of Christianity. In some places this took the form of an orthodox faith watered down with a great amount of sentimentalism, likely related to the Romanticism of the day. In other places, it was the Unitarian faith that prevailed. Ultimately denying the doctrine of the Trinity, the Unitarian Church was also heavily motivated by social concerns at the expense of truth and orthodoxy. On the other hand, the South was by and large a stronghold of the orthodox faith handed down from the reformation: Calvinists, Presbyterian, and Episcopal (by faith or family). While there were also many faithful in the North, the population of the North was also over double of the South, most of its surplus found in immigrants from northern and central Europe.

Why War?
But given even these differences, even conceding the fact that southern people talk funny, why did it come to war? It is important to point out here that the issue of slavery was not the central concern of the war. While it was a tangible issue related to the conflict, it was not ultimately the reason southern states seceded from the Union or why the Union fought so hard to retain them. Abraham Lincoln, the president of the Union who ordered the United States Army to overrule the secession of the Confederate States stated plainly that his reason for going to war was not in order to free any slaves. It was not until 1863, two years into the war that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves of the South. This was a thoroughly political move that was intended to further jeopardize any stability that the South may have had as well as give a pretense that would rally many of the abolitionists of the North to his aid. Lincoln, simply put, needed a boost from the North and anything he could do to disrupt the South was worth the effort. It was a brilliant move, and it succeeded perhaps far beyond what Lincoln and his advisors had hoped. It should be added also that there were slaves in the North and the South, and the Emancipation Proclamation freed only some slaves in the South and none of the slaves in the North.

At any rate, disputes began between the North and the South over the matter of the rights of a state. You’ll remember that the framing of the Constitution was itself a compromise of epic proportions between the Federalists and those who favored more decentralized rule (i.e. the Democrats). The radical change in wording from the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution (We the States… vs. We the people…) was being put to the test as the United States expanded its territories. Each new state being formed (e.g. Texas, Missouri, California, etc.) was required to enter the union as either a “free” or “slave” state. The titles are somewhat misleading because it was not as simple a difference as that.

The North was an industrial society seeking to export its products throughout the world. The South was an agricultural society seeking to sell to the highest bidder. Furthermore, the southern states developed trade agreements with Great Britain which some believed threatened the success of the North. Great Britain was producing textiles and other products at a rate untouchable by any other country in the world. While the South imported some products from the North, much was a result of trade with Britain. The northern states, seeing this, began clamoring for trade restrictions and tariffs (trade taxes). The big business men of the North in turn demanded that the federal government step in and protect the North’s growing industrial concerns. However, the South contended that it was none of the federal government’s business how each state traded and with whom they traded. Trade and business were to be free and uninhibited by the federal government. It was only the duty of individual states to oversee trade and business. Otherwise, free trade was to run the day.

Put to this tangle, when new states entered the Union, it was not merely a question of whether slavery was to be legal or not, it was a question of who would get to move in and develop the new land. If slavery was outlawed, big plantation owners would be prohibited from moving in to begin growing cotton because without slaves they could not keep up with the demand. In their place, northern businesses and factories might move in securing growth for the North. Thus in 1820, when this had come to the fore, it was the Missouri Compromise that calmed everyone down for a little while. The Missouri Compromise established that states would only be allowed to enter the union in pairs, one ‘slave’ and one ‘free’ state together at one time. While this was an attempt at keeping some sort of balance, it did not lessen the tensions between the North and the South in the following years. The South grew increasingly concerned that the agenda of the federal government was more and more favoring the North. Meanwhile, the North grew increasingly concerned that the South be made to cooperate with its booming industry.

Abolition & Secession
Throughout the United States, north and south, racism was a prolific reality. The belief whether explicit or implicit that the country of one’s heritage or the color of one’s skin is adequate information for considering them of lesser value or aptitude is and was a terrible sin afflicting the entire country. Many people in the North and South alike recognized this and were involved in various means to correct the confusion. However, even some of those who detested the practice of slavery were thorough going racists. Such was the situation and it is difficult to draw any fine lines or make any nice distinctions as much as modern intoleristas would like us to believe the contrary.

While there were some large plantations in the South with many slaves, the majority of southerners did not own slaves. It should also be remembered that some northerners also had slaves, the major difference being that where in the North and South alike a gentleman might have one or two slaves, there were some plantations in the South with hundreds. This fact means that slave treatment varied considerably. Where some masters were certainly cruel and wicked men, others cared for and loved their slaves. While it was not the universally origin of every slave, the practice of kidnapping Africans, bringing them to America, breaking up families, and selling stolen people was a hideous and disgusting practice, and many people in the South recognized this. But where the North and South fundamentally disagreed was over how to change. Extremists in the North who had both money and influence were adamant that slavery be abolished immediately without compromise. But the vast majority of people (North and South) favored a gradual phasing out of slavery in order to responsibly deal with all of the necessary changes. Again central to these concerns was over who had the authority to make these decisions and enforce them. It was the South’s firm conviction that states retained these rights.

However, when Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the United States in 1860, knowing the general direction of his policies, which blatantly favored the industrial North, one by one the southern states held conventions and one by one they seceded from the Union. Within months a new union had been created by the southern states known as the Confederate States of America. Viewing this as a catastrophe on economic, political, and romantic ideals, Lincoln ordered the United States Army to invade the South and enforce unity between the states.

Conclusion
As with most conflicts, this was a tangled mess of rights, wrongs, and misunderstandings. However, when sides were drawn up, men everywhere hurried to enlist. In many ways, this was the first modern war. While battle tactics were not much different than previous wars, the improved technology of weaponry, the ability to mass transport soldiers, and enhanced intelligence options made the war far more horrific than many could have imagined.

Read More...

Summary only...

Shame

There is no shame in confessing sin. No matter the heinous nature of the fault. The only shame, and it is great, is that sin which is not confessed. That which the impudent clutch with all their might close to their chests refusing to be relieved of their poison. That is a great shame. For there is nothing noble about the proud.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obedience of a Christian Man

First published in 1528, this treatise is one of the lesser known accomplishments of William Tyndale (1494-1536).

Tyndale's aim is to simply lay out the structure of a Christian society and free the common layman to be obedient in his place. His style is very polemic. A rightoues indignation pervades most of the book, as Tyndale cites, bewails, and rebukes the abuses and scandals of the established Papal church. Tyndale pleads that the Scriptures be made available to all men. He traces both Scripture and history showing the necessity of simple knowledge of the gospel and basic morality which have been fantastically ignored, disguised, and hidden from the view of common Christian.

The causes of abuse are plentiful. Tyndale mocks the absurdities that pile up demanded by the four fold interpretation of the medieval period. "Of what text thou provest hell, will another prove purgatory, another limbo, and another shall prove of the same text that an ape hath a tail." He pleads that the Scriptures be read and preached in the common tongue. Tyndale then labors to show all of the basic obediences that are owed: wives and husbands, servants and masters, children and parents, subjects and rulers. Spending more time on the civil rulers, he insists that the Pope is not a temporal ruler over the kings and princes of the land. Rather, that he too must submit to the civil authorities even as Christ did.

At the heart of obedience, Tyndale recognizes love as the chief motive. Recognizing that out of the salvation won in Christ flow all of the virtues of Christian living. And this is justification. He says, "Faith that loveth God's commands justifieth a man." Tyndale is chest deep in the trenchs of a battle that is somewhat peculiar to his day. From his vantage he sees somethings better and somethings worse. The Pope is the anti-Christ, the job of bishops is only to preach, Judas was the first pope, a pastor cannot proclaim forgiveness, and cloisters are from hell. He, like everyone, was a man of his time.

But Tyndale is still catholic, recognizing the efficacy and potency of the two sacraments. He explains that the others, in one way or another, can be subsumed under the two. Penance, confirmation, confession, and even some of the other rites that had grown up can all be found in the realities of baptism. Baptism works in much the same way "[a]s a child receive the full soul at the first day, yet groweth daily in the operations and works thereof." And the effects of baptism continue until the believer is "full baptized at the last minute of death." He says in another place, "For though that the washing of baptism be past, yet the power thereof, that is to say, the word of God which baptism preacheth, lasteth ever and saveth forever."

Tyndale is fervent and irenic, but he is also humorous. I posted his reference to bishops' testicles earlier this week, and there is more where that came from. Tyndale calls the monks and friars the "belly brotherhood". Saying, "cloister love is belly love, cloister prayer is belly prayer..." He goes on to say that if you want anything from them you have to "offer unto their bellies and then they pray bitterly for thee." While dismantling the doctrine of absolution, he comments on Purgatory: "[The Pope] taketh authority also to bind and loose in Purgatory. That permit I unto him for it is a creation of his own making. He also bindeth the angels. For we read of popes that have commanded the angels to set divers out of Purgatory. Howbeit I am not yet certified whether they obeyed or no."

Perhaps the biggest piece missing is the duty to Mother Church. But this omission is hardly surprising given the climate Tyndale finds himself in. The Church has betrayed him and her people. Friars, monks, priests, and bishops are basking in their filthy riches and vile fornications while the commoners tremble to lift a finger fearing for their very souls. This betrayal broke that trust and gentle balance that must exist for true authority and true submission to take place in the Church. For all that I disdain of the splinters in the modern Church, for all the pettiness and divisiveness of Christians on all sides, the reality of the gross debauchery of the Papal regime during this era is foul and smells like hell. For as Tyndale says, "Christ said to Peter, the last chapter of John, feed my sheep, not sheer thy flock."

For this Tyndale lived and died. For after completing the first ever translation of the Holy Scriptures into English, he was condemned as a heretic, devested of his preisthood, and finally publically strangled and burned on October 6, 1536.

Read More...

Summary only...

Exercita Latina Una

Quid est hoc? Hoc est capitulum primum ut tempto in lingua latina scribere. Hodie, in schola incipio docere quomodo usare infinituvus. Unus modus ut objectivus est. Per exempla: Si magister dicit: "Marcus est disciplus stultus." Et unus discipulus (qui 'Quintus' appellatur) mala aures habet. Is interrogat ad alium discipulum, "Quid dicit magister?" Aliusque dicit, "Magister Marcum discipulum stultum esse dicit." Intelligatisne? Ecce: Si quidam dicit quem alium dicere, illa verba in caso accusativus ponentur. Verbumque in infinitivo ponitur. Scio hoc facile esse sed in scripto hoc scriptum, melior intelligo.

Read More...

Summary only...

From Napoleon to Bismarck

Periodically, I would like to post my history discussion notes here. Here's the first of (hopefully) many.

Waterloo
While Napoleon was exiled to the Island of Elba down in the Mediterranean, the world powers set out to reformulate France and bring some semblance of order to Europe. While the Bourbon family was once again in power via Louis XVIII (and he was at first welcomed) the émigrés who rushed in at the first signs of peace had many other ideas for the future of France. Napoleon gave the French a year and allowed the Quadruple Alliance (Russia, England, Austria, and Prussia) to busy themselves with the Congress of Vienna which was tasked with the object of putting Europe back together. Boundary disputes, as well as trying to figure out which countries should or should not exist and who ought to be their rightful rulers kept things moving fairly slowly.

Meanwhile, Napoleon escaped from his exile in Elba and landed in France on March 1, 1815. Many French joined Napoleon’s forces, and he marched north towards Belgium. The allied forces united once again, and under the command of the Duke of Wellington, Napoleon was soundly defeated at Waterloo. Here another peace treaty was signed with France, albeit where the first treaty had been a mere slap on the hand this new treaty actually punished the people of France for their uprising. This time, Napoleon was exiled to a British colony named St. Helena, a remote island in the South Atlantic. You can find it on a map near 15° south of the equator between Brazil, South America and Angola, Africa. This was finally enough for Napoleon to make an end of his political career.

Romanticism
Romanticism is a term that refers to a number of different ideas or movements from the French Revolution until around the middle of the nineteenth century. A ‘Romantic’ in this sense is not necessarily someone who is ‘in love’. But there is some connection. A ‘Romantic’ in this historical sense was someone who sought to live with his/her heart and mind. Many of this period believed that prior to this time, there had been too much emphasis on the intellect (just the mind). We considered this in our discussions about the Enlightenment (circa 1650ish-1750ish). Romantics wanted to be realistic and thoughtful, but they also wanted to be human, giving value to emotions and feelings. We have seen through studying the French Revolution that this is not always a good thing. The French were in many ways a very ‘Romantic’ people in this sense. They had passion for the eradication of the old medieval ways of life and the Christian foundations of their government.

The term ‘Romantic’ comes originally from the name Rome. The Roman language of Latin changed and grew up into several different languages: Spanish, Italian, and French. These languages were originally simply called ‘Roman’ but eventually became known as the ‘romance’ languages. Again this didn’t mean that you spoke these languages when you loved someone. It just referred to the fact that they had originated from Rome and the Roman Empire.

Romanticism expressed itself in many ways. Poetry and art experienced a renaissance particularly showing great interest in nature and history. Again, sometimes this was for the better, truly seeing Creation as the work of God, but other times it became a sort of Pantheistic worship (i.e. seeing God in everything and in no way independent of His creation). The study of history was good for some encouraging many to revert to the faith of their fathers and thus Christianity enjoyed somewhat of a rejuvenation. But for others, studying history was an opportunity to exalt the paganism of the ancients or to idolize particular portions of history, glossing over the failures and weaknesses of some men.

But Romanticism also valued the protection and care of the less fortunate. In England, John Howard started prison reforms in the 1780s seeking to make prisons livable. The Earl of Shaftesbury pushed legislation to protect women and children from being over worked. Church organizations were formed to protect orphans and widows. Clara Barton founded the Red Cross during this era. Missions exploded into many far reaching lands bringing with it not only the gospel but medical aid and education. The education of women and children came to have higher value. In America one Mr. Audubon sailed down the Mississippi looking for birds to paint or draw. His 435 depictions in 1838 were the beginning of the fabulous Audubon Guide series that is available today surveying many aspects of creation.

The Romantics loved a Hero. Sir Walter Scott is a fine example of a Romantic giving us historical tales full of color, action, love, and the Hero (e.g. Ivanhoe). The hero had no need of being perfect or flawless, the hero was merely a man or woman who could inspire imagination. Proof that this is the case is that Waterloo, the scene of Napoleon’s defeat, is a term always describing defeat. It is never used to describe victory even though it was the victory for the Quadruple Alliance. But the Romantics, though disposed not to have Napoleon as their leader, nevertheless loved him as their hero, a man full of vigor and life and wit.

Industrial Growth
Related to Romanticism was growth in industry and technology. The imagination and spirit of the ‘Romantics’ prevailed even in the sciences and technology, joining art to engineering. Furniture, carpet, doors, pillars, tombstones all became more common and expected. Biology was the science of the day, with Evolution catching the imaginations of many young naturalists. Electricity was also in the works. Napoleon said this in 1802: “I wish to award the sum of six thousand francs as encouragement to the person who will advance our knowledge of electricity. It is my aim to urge physicists to concentrate on that branch of physics, which in my opinion is the road to great discoveries.”

Other important advances were the use of levers and pulleys. Before around 1800 all work was done by hand or simple hand tools. But levers and pulleys made moving large objects or large quantities easier. The use of water and wind to manipulate objects and also began around this time. This large scale shift from using hand tools to various kinds of powered machinery had a great influence on life and culture during this period, particularly in England. For example, in the early 1700s, John Kay invented a ‘fly shuttle’ which allowed only one person to operate a loom rather than two. With this upsurge in yarn production, by the late 1700s, the ‘spinning jenny’ was invented that could weave multiple strands of yarn or threads together. Finally with the huge demand for cotton, it was difficult for farmers to keep up, but the ‘cotton gin’ was invented by the American Eli Whitney which made the removal of seeds from cotton much faster. The businessmen who ran the production of various kinds of cloth quickly realized that it was most efficient to have all of the production taking place in one place. These large buildings became known as ‘mills’ in England and ‘factories’ in America. The machinery on the farms tended to decrease the need for farm hands and the factories and mills (even with their new machines) tended to increase the need for workers. Thus many people moved from the country into cities looking for work and many ended up working in factories creating cloth, fabric, leathers, and other crafted items.

Nationalism and the Beginning of Germany
You should remember that there hasn’t always been a country named Germany. For a long time there were lots of different peoples that lived in that land that we now call Germany. The most prominent government that was ever there was the Holy Roman Empire, but that was still not what we would think of as a country. It had more to do with loyalties to an emperor. And even then, during and after the Protestant Reformation especially, the princes or barons of various counties and districts often had a kind of independence from the empire. It was not until Napoleon Bonaparte that the modern picture of Germany began to appear. Napoleon, after marching through Europe realized that the only way he would be able to rule it all was to organize it. Thus even though the Germanic peoples had never considered themselves one country, Napoleon saw that uniting them would make his job of governing them easier. He organized them into the Confederation of the Rhine.

Even after Napoleon, the Quadruple Alliance had continued to consider the Confederation in some ways as a single unit, and for various reasons the Germans themselves began to have inklings of the same idea. This growing sense of loyalty and identity with one’s country is what is known as Nationalism, and while it had been a growing reality in many other countries before now, it became a reality under the organization of Napoleon. It began merely as a loose confederation called the German Confederation recognized in 1815, after the removal of Napoleon. This confederation was made up of 39 states, the largest of which were Austria and Prussia down to a number of small kingdoms and a few free cities. This loose confederation was not much, but it was the beginning. In 1848, a series of revolutions echoed throughout Europe, sort of the last hurrahs of the French Revolution. These revolutions were small and scattered and were put down. The revolution that occurred in Germany was an attempt by a few to unite Germany into one common government. The attempt failed, but the movement was still on.

In 1862, the king of Prussia appointed a new chief minister, Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck was a ‘Junker’(pronounced "yoonker"), meaning that he had grown up in the ranks of the professional Prussian military. Bismarck was a Protestant Christian, and he was not a revolutionary. He favored the old hierarchies, but he was also a prudent and wise man and sought to bring peace and stability to his own Prussian people. Beginning in 1867, Bismarck began making huge steps towards uniting Germany. In that year, he united all of the kingdoms north of Prussia under a new Northern German Confederation. And by 1871, apart from Austria, a number of other kingdoms had been added. This unification was far strong than the first confederation and made the king of Prussia its head. This confederation or German Empire (as it is sometimes referred to) was largely the land and peoples that we know today as Germany. In fact Germany remained the same until 1918 after World War I. Bismarck accomplished this great feat of unification by eliminating the political leaders in his way and establishing a government that pleased the people.

Conclusion
Nationalism is perhaps one of the greatest rivals to Christendom. While simple loyalties and honor are always due to one's nation and leaders they ought not to ever become the center. As more and more people looked to their respective states with hope for a brighter tomorrow, they were simultaneously turning from the Church (many times unintentionally), the Mother who bore them. Of course this didn't begin with simple rebellion, it began with the utter failure and ruin of the Church. The utter debauchery of her leaders, divisiveness and rifts within the body of Christ, and growing disallusionment the earthy loyalty of faith all served to remove every semblance of glory.

Read More...

Summary only...

Charles Williams

"Love you? I am you."

-cited by C.S. Lewis in The Four Loves

Read More...

Summary only...

Communion of the Saints Part 2

The communion of saints is diachronic. Not only do we commune with the saints in China and England and South America, but commune with them through time. The same Spirit that unites peoples of different places, unites peoples of different eras. This is manifestly true by virtue of time zones, but the writer of Hebrews goes further, “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect” (12:22-23). Our communion with the saints is with the saints who are presently alive and with those saints who have died in the faith. In fact this reality is the grounds for the exhortation at the beginning of the chapter to “lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us”. Why are we to run this race with patience? Because “we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses”. Who are those witnesses? They are all of the saints that have died in the faith, many of whom are mentioned by name or deed in Chapter 11.

For this reason, following the historic church, it is proper for the deeds and saints of the past to be remembered in stories, songs, and pictures. In these ways, particularly as they appear in the Church building, we are reminded constantly of that cloud of witnesses of which we are a part. Furthermore, remembering particular saints on particular days through songs, prayers, and other traditions is also a fitting reminder of the communion we have with all of the saints of God.

Read More...

Summary only...

Moses Was A Mountain Climber

Moses was a mountain climber. He climbed the Arabian height and made his way back down holding large pieces of engraved stone. He climbed a number of times, perhaps trying different routes. Out of breath, out of sight, he was there for days. For days alone on a crag splitting heaven open wide, its glories spilling out onto the lone climber. He returned on one occasion with a glory soaked face.

Everything is a mountain to my son, everything an ascent. He’s lying down reaching, rolling, drooling. Arms flail, fingers flayed, he tips a red, plastic object at the horizon of his vision. It’s gone. He turns, he groans. Where’s the next hold? He arches his back and twists. His arms and legs go taught. I pull him up by his arms and encourage him. He’s doing very well. Trust your legs, I say. His head wobbles. He’s getting tired. He reaches for my face. He smiles briefly, and his knees give way.

There’s a girl behind the counter. She sells equipment. In a clearing by the keyboard there’s a book on Mt. Rainier. Are you thinking of climbing, we ask her. She nods vigorously and says she’s longed to do the climb alone. My friend encourages her to have someone go along with her. He’s climbed Rainier. She insists that she prefers the solitude and enjoys the personal competition it inspires.

Jesus was a mountain climber and trained his disciples in the skill. The devil drove him to a great height and showed him the kingdoms of the world. Sometimes he climbed mountains to be alone, to rid himself of the multitudes who hounded him. Sometimes he climbed to teach: a couple times he fed the crowds. After having climbed and praying for most of a night, he was betrayed by a friend and arrested on the mountain top. Once he climbed to die.

I’ve never been outside. I’ve never climbed in the wild. All my climbs have been prepackaged inside a large building. I am my son on the floor. A climbing wall is designed to simulate, but its face is layered with many options, many routes. There are huge ‘bomber’ hold routes were the wall all but pulls you to the top. There are tiny squares of block bolted down with pointy edges made for finger tips of steel. Far up, my legs shake; my fingers scream. They refuse to work; they refuse to hold. I throw my arms like grappling hooks against the wall, praying that they’ll find some edge to hold. Gasping, shaking, my eyes peer over the top.

My son bounces. It’s a cross between energy and lack of strength. He has enough energy to climb anything, but he hasn’t smoothed out communication yet with his legs. They do his bidding maybe half the time. So he bounces. He bounces holding to the top of the chest. He stretches, pushing with his feet. His hand flings out lightly, groping for a hold. It finds a suitable edge. He makes it look easy. He bounces, tilting, looking up at me. Then his head veers down to his hold. His gums gnaw the edge of the chest, and he eyes me casually, assuring me that this is part of the plan. This is the route he has chosen.

Moses and Aaron died on mountain tops. They climbed their last ascents with sweat in their eyes. Aaron gave his priestly garments to his son on Mount Hor and there he died, in thin air, watching the world below. From the peak of Pisgah, Moses saw the promised land stretching out and meeting heaven. But where he’s buried no one knows, hid in a valley. When he wakes up there’ll be climbing to do.

The Church is a mountain called Zion. We were a rock made without hands. But we were flung into a statue and grew up. There was another mountain, but it fell into the sea. We are mountains climbing mountains. We are an entire range. We go piggyback on the ones who came before, and others will come after us. We are alone and together. We’re grasping at the peak; we’re rolling on the floor. We are hanging by a finger tip; our roots are beneath the sea. Everything’s a mountain to us. We’re bouncing, and we’re holding on. And heaven spills out onto our faces.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ivan Eve

I wrote this at Christmas and meant to post it sooner, but well... here it is.

It’s 6,758 miles from here to Jerusalem. It’s Christmas Eve, and I’m listening to Dido while my 6-month-old son cries in the monitor on the counter. The tree next to me is gawking; it sits in the corner spilling out into the rest of the room like an adolescent with outgrown clothes, lanky arms and legs, knobby knees and elbows thrust out. It was cut down in central Washington by the owners of this house. Many children live here. They decorated it with paper and shiny balls and colored lights.

That there are other people—billions of other people—astounds me. I am a toddler on the living room floor. I am the sun in my universe. You revolve around me. But the stories are going simultaneously, millions of stories and one story: millions of suns and one sun. My story is a boy in an intensive care unit miles from here. He’s coming home soon, maybe for Christmas. My son has fallen asleep. The dogs are on the floor laying sideways, legs out, snoring. It’s freezing outside. The cows, there are two of them, only want to be fed. And there is more, much more, and in addition, there are many more than mine. How can God be one of us, a boy in a cave, wrapped in rags years from here?

St. Ivan of Suchava was born in the thirteenth century near the Black Sea, in modern day Ukraine. Ivan was charged with conspiring against the Sultan Oman and the Islamic faith in general. He was summonsed to a trial, convicted, and sentenced to torture and execution. He was offered mercy if he was willing to renounce the Christian faith. Being unwilling, Ivan was dragged to his death by racing horses through the streets of Ackerman, a city located on the Delta of the Danube River on June 2, 1278. He was buried in a nearby churchyard, and in 1402 his body was removed and buried in a church in Suchava, the capitol of Bukovyna.

It’s Christmas morning. The sun still slumbers. The cows are looking for breakfast. Ivan is coming home. There’s a baby for Christmas. We open stockings and unwrap gifts; we stuff garbage bags full of our holiday litter. America celebrates a high Sabbath; no one works today, there’s nothing open except maybe a gas station. I read about brothers walking around the world, the first known circumambulation of the earth. One was shot and killed in Afghanistan. The other was wounded, but a third brother flew in and helped him finish the tour. This was in the late seventies because Ronald Reagan was governor of California and gave them commendations.

And regardless of what the song may say, the cattle are not lowing. I wonder what kind of cows low. Maybe cattle low but regular old Angus beef cows just eat and sleep. I haven’t heard a sound out of them for the last several days.

But here's to you Ivan, may the world be your sidewalk, may race horses be your friends, and may you continue to imitate the Christ, even as you have today.

Read More...

Summary only...

Communion of the Saints Part 1

What do we mean when we confess that we believe in ‘the communion of saints’?

We believe that the communion of saints means that the Church is truly catholic or universal. The communion of saints occurs through the action of the Spirit which is present with all who gather in the name of the Triune God. This reality is tied particularly to the Lord’s Day and the Lord’s Supper or Holy Eucharist. The term ‘Lord’s Day’ is only used once in the New Testament in Revelation 1:10. St. John was “in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day”. However, the word for ‘Lord’s’ is used one other time in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 11:20. There Paul says that the Corinthians do not come together to eat the ‘Lord’s’ Supper because of their bickering and infighting. Thus the meal of the Lord’s Supper is connected to the Lord's Day lexically by the word ‘Kuraikos’. (Incidentally, 'Kuraikos' is the Greek word from whence we get the old English word Kirk. Which, in turn, gave us the word Church.) The fact of the Lord's Supper which takes place on the Lord's Day is the means and proof that we are in communion even if we go to different churches. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread."

Therefore the Spirit is not only how we worship or the means by which we worship, He is also the location where we worship. This is how millions of Christians worship together communing with one another, giving glory to God. Though miles and continents apart we, by the working of the Holy Spirit, gather together in one place as one body, partaking of one loaf and one cup, feeding upon Christ.

Read More...

Summary only...

Tyndale

The following quote comes from William Tyndale, English reformer, the first to put the entire Bible into English. Even if he's overstating his point, it kind of makes you glad to be on this side of the Reformation.

"The bishops therefore ought to bless us in preaching Christ and not to deceive us and bring the curse of God upon us with wagging their hands over us. To preach is their duty only and not to offer their feet to be kissed or testicles or stones to be groped." (P. 138)

The footnote mentions a popular story of the time of the legendary Pope Joan. She apparently tried to get by as a man. After that it was believed that all incumbent popes were tested for maleness. But of course Tyndale is not just referring to the Pope, he's talking about bishops in general.

Read More...

Summary only...

Tsunami

A tsunami is reported to have killed thousands in southeast Asia. MSNBC reports that the death toll is at around 22,000 and climbing. A 9.0 magnitude earthquake several miles below the ocean surface, caused (apparently) by the shifting one of the earth's plates, sent tidal waves speeding across the Indian Ocean in a number of different directions. At least nine countries have reported deaths, but Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and India report deaths in the thousands.

This seems like something out of history, out of an old book, the Bible perhaps, from a long time ago at any rate. Don't we have scientists that study these things and warn us when they're about to happen? Don't we have 'teams of experts'? Mass graves of children, bodies-bloated and floating through the streets, and muslim men trying to find dry ground to bury their loved ones all contend otherwise. If a calamity befalls a city is it not the Lord who has done it?

The earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. We seldom realize what a violent proposition that could be for some. How do the waters cover the sea? Sometimes tsunamis send tens of thousands to their grave, mass baptisms, mini floods destroying all the sacred cows.

Read More...

Summary only...

Deacon Ivan James

At around 8:15 this morning I became an uncle again. My nephew, Ivan, weighed in at around 8lbs 4oz. He, being male, was a bit sluggish upon exiting the womb and thus procured for himself a ride in an airplane at a mere 7 hours old. He's crafty like his dad, I say. At any rate, please rejoice with us at Ivan's birth, but do pray that Christmas would be on time. That is, pray that mom and baby would be vigorous enough to be released from the hospital soon.

Read More...

Summary only...

Blood of the Covenant

The Old Covenant proceded through generations by blood. Fathers bore sons, sons bore grandsons, and the blood of Abraham ran in their veins. There were the commands, yes. There was the law. There was circumcision. There were the sacrifices. But we know that ultimately it was faith in the promises of God to Abraham and to his seed, his offspring born, he was explicitly told, from his own loins. The blood of Abraham was in an important sense the blood of the Old Covenant. Covenant succession was through this blood. Having lineage and descent from the patriarchs was God's pledge and promise to fulfill his covenant to every Israelite.

But in Christ an important change took place. The blood of the Old Covenant was spilled. Christ, being a descendent of Abraham, had within himself the blood of the Old Covenant. But that blood has been shed for all men. The blood of the New Covenant is the cup of blessing in the Eucharist. Thus the lineage and descent of the New Covenant is no less by blood. We are all blood relatives in the lineage of Christ as we drink in faith. The procession of the New Covenant is no less bloody, but it has been exported. No longer bound to one human body, it has been spilled, and it is now the Church that is the body with the blood of the covenant coursing through its veins. Covenant succession is through this blood, the blood of the new covenant, shed for many. Therefore, all of you, drink of it.

Read More...

Summary only...

Luke's Genealogy of Christ

Luke begins his record in chapter 3 with Jesus and works backwards all the way to “Adam, the son of God”. Luke’s record gives us 77 names beginning with Jesus and ending with the ‘first father’ God himself. The number is of course significant indicating the fullness or completeness of Jesus twice over. Jesus is Son of God and Son of Man. The placement of the genealogy indicates this further. Luke records the lineage of Jesus right after Jesus’ baptism and right before his temptation in the wilderness. God declares of Jesus at his baptism, “You are my beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.” Then, to show how this is true also by physical descent, Luke traces his family back to God through Adam. Finally, it is also important to note that chapter 3 ends with ‘Adam, the son of God’ and chapter 4 begins with the temptation in the wilderness by the devil. Jesus is the new Adam being tempted by the devil.

Also, the movement from Trinity at the baptism backwards through history back to Adam in the garden and finally picking up again with Christ being tempted in the desert is spectacular. Luke puts the Trinity (in Christ) in the garden that has become a desert to be tempted. God does battle with the devil on our behalf and on behalf of all those generations that were between.

Read More...

Summary only...

Falling

Falling with form through the air
curled—back out, toes pointed,
glimmering—I’m inside, peering out.
The world is coming so fast.
An elevator unleashed.
And I, I lean back from the glass.
Steam rising from my cup,
aroma in flight, riding in a rain drop.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Brother for Adam

Genesis 3 and 4 serve as an introduction to the book of Genesis as well as the rest of Scripture. Throughout the book of Genesis we read stories where the antithesis between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman plays itself out. This is the story of Cain and Abel. There is certainly much to be gleaned from this story, but one important principle is the antithesis that already shows up in Adam’s family. Sin brings enmity, and Cain kills Abel. But how will the seed continue? Will God’s promise become void? Abel seemed so faithful. But God is faithful and he gives Seth to Eve, giving her a younger son who will be blessed and will carry on the blessing of God instead of the older. Interestingly, this theme does not end here. The theme of struggle between older and younger brothers continues. Cain, Abel, and Seth; Shem, Ham, and Japheth; Ishmael and Isaac; Esau and Jacob; Joseph and his eleven brothers; Ephraim and Manasseh are all stories of the triumph and blessing of the younger brother. The antithesis is between offspring. There is enmity in the family line, but God continues to prove his promise sure by raising up younger brothers. There is story after story of the victory of the younger over the older and salvation from the younger brother. What does this mean?

If we think back on the fall, having outlined the rest of the book of Genesis as a complex collection of stories about the need for a faithful descendent and the struggle between younger and older brothers, we realize that there is something missing. God gave Seth to carry on the blessing when Cain murdered Abel. God raised up Jacob when it was clear that Esau would not be the bearer of God’s covenant blessing and promise. God gave Joseph to Jacob’s house when there was a famine, raising him to the highest place in the kingdom of Egypt. Having read all these stories (and the others) we ought to reach the end of the book of Genesis and realize that Adam needs a younger brother. These other younger brothers are small pictures, but there needs to be younger brother to Adam, a man who can stand in our place, like Adam, a man who could keep the covenant that Adam broke. But alas, Adam has no siblings. If we read the rest of the Genesis we see salvation coming from younger brothers and our immediate thought should be: If only Adam had a younger brother! And we would have to realize that this younger brother would have to be like Adam, having God for a father, because a physical father would carry Adam’s curse. But the man couldn’t be simply made from the ground again, because it too is cursed. Therefore, keeping his promise, God determined to bring forth Adam’s younger brother from the womb of a virgin. The Holy Spirit "overshadows" Mary, as He has once done in the beginnning, and brings forth a new man. Adam’s younger brother is the Lord Jesus Christ who was conceived like Adam without a natural father. In the mystery of God, the seed of the Woman is Adam’s little brother. Mary, in a glorious way, is the new ground from which the new Adam was formed. This is the glory of God and the wonder of Christmas that God not only created a new man, a brother for Adam, but that God himself became this man for us, God gave himself to be Adam’s younger brother, the seed of the woman who would bruise the head of the serpent.

Read More...

Summary only...

Genesis 3

Notice in Genesis 3 that the serpent is ‘Aroom’ which means crafty or prudent. After Adam and Eve eat of the tree they know they are ‘Aroomim’ which means naked. Surely this is a pun. The serpent said they would become like God, but they have actually become like the serpent.

Also, God is walking in the garden 'in the cool of the day' or (woodenly) ‘to the spirit in the day’. The word ‘spirit’ is often translated ‘cool’ or ‘breeze’ because it is ‘ruach’ meaning spirit or wind. However, in the context, the only other use of the word is in 1:2 where the ‘ruach’ of God hovers over the waters. It seems strange to have this referring to a time of day. Rather, like its first use, it is referring to a quality in God, or more specifically, the person of God that prepares to create. Now God is commencing a new creation, even as his creatures have fallen and sinned.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Incredibles

Perhaps the most incredible thing about the Incredibles is that fact that Disney allowed its name on the latest Pixar production. Not because the film was once again quite a bit better than anything Disney has produced in a while, although that is true. But the incredible thing is what the movie was all about.

Though not a laugh out loud comedy, The Incredibles was a genuinely enjoyable movie that tried to tell an interesting story. And perhaps the most interesting bit was the attempt at saying something somewhat unique. "If everyone is special no one is special". Coming out of the jaws of the egalitarian shrine of Disney that's pretty impressive. The good guys are trying to preserve inequality and the bad guy is an ungrateful kid who tried to be more than he was. His goal is now to level everyone so that no one can be special. But the super heroes win. Inequality reigns.

The moral of the story: be the very best you can be where ever you have been placed. If you're normal be the best normal person you can be. If you're super be the best super you can be. And even more important: be thankful. Be thankful that you are where you are and that other people are different. And some of them are even better than you at some things. That's true, and that's decent stuff.

Read More...

Summary only...

Creation

It seems like the doctrine of Creation does a lot more than we give it credit for.

If God created everything and out of nothing, then we didn't. And if we didn't everything is grace. Everything comes to us a gift, undeserved favor in every nook and cranny. But this also means that salvation is necessarily a gift also. Not that we don't think that already. But we often put a lot of our effort into showing that we are unable to save ourselves (total depravity, irrisistable grace...) all that stuff. I'm of course in basic agreement with the point of it all. But it seems like Creation already affirms that nothing is ours to take credit for ultimately.

In the story of history we do things, we have things, we use things, and in so far as Creation is real, we really act, do, have, and use things. No problem. But in so far as God created it all, it's all from Him and for Him. We're not gnostics: faith has a body. But the body was created. So when it comes to salvation of course we're saved by grace and that not of ourselves: it was a gift. "Not of works so that no man can boast" seems like another way of saying... you didn't make yourself, silly.

Pelagianism and anyone else wanting to give some credit to man must be at their foundations creational heresies. A denial of sola gratia is an attempt at retelling the creation story. So also with every form of ingratitude. We'd have made it better, we grumble to ourselves.

This is why salvation is rightly described as re-creation.

Read More...

Summary only...

Drama in the Lab

I'm teaching high school Chemistry this year, something for which I am utterly unqualified. I took Chemistry in high school. That's one credential. I remember some of it. That's the other. But I'm thankful for the opportunity. I'm thankful for Chemistry and Chemists, and scientific endeavors in general.

It's the way God made the world to see life out of our head. He gave us certain eyes through which we see everything. And everything we see has a way of bleeding into everything else we see. And this applies to the rest of our bodies. There's a sense in which we are always leaving vestiges of ourselves everywhere we go, and at the same time, there's a sense in which we are dragging our past with us into the future. But I was talking about Chemistry.

That is to say, I'm an actor. Or more truly, I've occasionally had the opportunity to take part in some drama. But everyone acts. But that's not my point. It's the Chemists that I'm actually thinking about and the computer programmers and the all the other scientists out there. Yeah, you. You are acting. You pretend the world is perfect. You, geometricians and engineers, you act as though the world contains circles and straight lines. You pantomime the world with equalities and perfect symmetries. And that's fine. I love suspension bridges; we're grateful for our cars.

I just wanted to point out that every science has to isolate whatever it studies for just a moment. It's impossible to study something without imagining it by itself. But of course nothing ever occurs in absolute isolation. Science is dramatic art. It puts its object of study on a stage, places certain props around it, and tells a story through it. If the scientist tells a good story, his findings will benefit the real world. But the scientist must always remember that he's pretending in the lab. In real life, chemical equations and reactions are never balanced and circles do not exist.

Read More...

Summary only...

War: Catholic and Schismatic

War divides. It cuts nations and people apart; it tears and rips like a terrible machine devouring families and churches and faces. War stings. It burns fissures through communities and cultures. It rumbles below in the deeps and swallows brothers and fathers and mothers. War separates friends. It severs loyalties; it bursts old wine skins. It dislocates limbs. War divides.

War unites. Where men refused to look in one anothers' eyes; they unblinkly charge eachother to the death. War brings nations crashing against eachother like opposing tides: rushing, roaring together to mingle and mix. War brings brothers together; it puts them face to face, hand to hand. It makes them bleed for eachother. War is reunion. It reunites friends, families, and communities. Where life could not help, death provides the calm. The field is the table where all are one.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fall

Fall is dripping out of the sky this morning, making the streets shiny and pristine.

Read More...

Summary only...

the high post

I'm a little slow on the uptake, but the fellows over at the high post look as through they're having a swell time. Friends of mine, I commend their thoughts, and yes, their words to you. One of these days someone needs to make a complete list of all the possible meanings of their title. Or perhaps it's already been done.

Read More...

Summary only...

Strong by Use

In the eleventh canto of Book II of Spenser's Faerie Queene, Prince Arthur defends Alma's castle from hoardes assaulting its five major forts. This castle represents the human body, and there are a number of allegorical points that Spenser makes from this. But what is particularly interesting is that the five major defenses of the "body" are the five senses. We are often taught to distrust our senses, but Spenser shows them as particular points of protection from the attacks of evil. Of course these defenses are in need of a savior, Prince Arthur in this case, but they are our defenses none the less. Our task then in "mortifying the flesh" and "casting aside everything that entangles" is not ignoring, or worse, fleeing from our senses. Rather as believers, who have been raised to new life by faith in Christ through baptism (Rom. 6), our duty is to fortify and use our senses as they were designed to be used, seeking out what is truly good. And this fortification does not come about through strenous mental excersize. It comes about through lawful enjoyment and celebration of the tastes and smells of food, listening to symphonies and jam sessions, touching friends and lovers, and watching waterfalls, trees, and tornadoes. And this is what the writer of Hebrews says: "Solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

Read More...

Summary only...

Why didn't you lie?

In Genesis 20 Abraham lies concerning Sarah, his wife, when they travel through Gerar to live in the land of King Abimelech. In Genesis 26, Isaac, when confronted with a famine in the land, goes down to dwell in Gerar, and he, like his father, lies to King Abimelech concerning Rebeccah, his wife, likewise saying that she is his sister.

So when Jacob sends his sons down to Egypt when there is a famine in the land of Canaan, and they return with the news that the ruler of the land (Joseph) has accused them of being spies and are required to bring their youngest brother to him. It should not come as too great of a surprise that part of Jacob's response is the question: "Why did you deal so wrongfully with me as to tell the man whether you had still another brother?" That is, 'Why didn't you lie?' Why were you so free with information about your family? The family custom seems to have been protection of family through deception. Of course these deceptions were always found out, but they always resulted in great blessing for Abraham and Isaac.

The concern of Abraham and Isaac had been for their wives, that the ruler of the land (Abimelech) would take them. Now the ruler of Egypt has demanded that the youngest son of Jacob be brought to him to prove their innocence. The tables have been turned. Perhaps Joseph knew these customs of his family and for this reason asked very pointed questions, as the brothers relate that he did (Gen. 43:7). Notice now, it is Joseph who is doing the deceiving. He is the righteous deceiver, but his family well receive great blessing nevertheless.

Read More...

Summary only...

Comments Back

So Blogger has been revamping their s

yst

em and I don't know how it works.

1. But I have comments now
1. (again).
   

The Saracen

I saw his fiercesome face
beleaguered by a daily-hourly bending
sun, the flash and grin of his dreadful blade
borne aloft and gripped with concrete fingers.

His eyes like daggers mocking with heat,
sped storied curses through the victim’s throat,
and I saw them turn and latching hold,
defy his arms’ attempts to lift aught
with which to defend from the flying foe.

The quiet paces sent up swirling spits of dust
like Edenic mists, a slice of space
unheeding the rush and roar, and headless
stood the curse-bound corpse, a mast-less
bark—toyed by torque, then bidden sink.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Ten Spies

It cannot be a coincidence that in Genesis 42 and Numbers 13 both tell stories of ten spies. In Genesis 42, the ten sons of Jacob are accused by Joseph (in disguise) as being spies of the land of Egypt. In Numbers 13, the ten spies return from the promise land, decide that it is inaccessible (based on the stature of its inhabitants), and begin making plans to return to Egypt. Of course in Gen. 42, the ten men are not really spies, they are merely looking for food in the wake of a famine. In Num. 13, the men are spies, but the fact that they find plenty of food, does not secure their interest in the land.

--there are ten ‘spies’ in both stories
--there are two ‘others’ in both: (Joseph/Benjamin) and (Joshua/Caleb)
--Joseph is the vice-ruler of over all of Egypt/Joshua is the vice-ruler over all of Israel
--In Gen. 42, the ten end up in Egypt via Joseph. In Num 13, the ten make plans to return to Egypt, but die by a plague before the Lord.
--In Gen. 42, the famine is in Canaan. In Num 13, Israel is in the barren wilderness.
--In Gen 42, Egypt is the land with plenty to eat. In Num 13, Canaan is flowing with milk and honey. Both lands have good things flowing out of them.
--Both groups of ‘spies’ return with bundles/clusters: money bundles/grape clusters

What does this all mean? The story of Joseph and his brothers is clearly a story of Joseph testing his brothers. Joseph is testing his brothers to see if they have learned to give themselves up for others, rather than sacrificing others for themselves. And this theme of service is connected with the greater story of Egypt. God placed Joseph at the head of Egypt in order to preserve life (Gen. 45:5), using his influence and power as an instrument of salvation to the nations. Without Egypt (& Joseph), the famine would have swallowed up the nations surrounding Egypt. But Egypt is, in this story, a type of the Canaan to come. It is also, in light of the book of Genesis a picture of a transfigured Eden. It is a garden in the midst of a wilderness. Rivers flow out of this land giving life to the nations. Joseph is a new Adam ruling and tending the land in righteousness. The story of Joseph and Egypt is a story of patience and the reality that greatness is found in giving up one’s life, laying down one’s life for another. This story closes Genesis, placing it as the bookend opposite the Garden of Eden at the beginning. This is a shadowy picture of what that garden should have become, but for Adam’s sin. Egypt pictures the good life.

Joseph finds through testing his brothers, that they too have learned this lesson. Judah, in particular, the brother who had organized the selling of Joseph into slavery, is willing to stand in Benjamin’s place if he cannot return to his father. They are willing to give up their own lives for others.

This is the larger context of Numbers 13-14. Now, God himself is testing his people to see if they have learned this lesson. What is the lesson? Israel is now a corporate “Joseph”. They, like Joseph were sold into slavery and made to labor for the Egyptians. As Joseph was delivered from the dungeons through miracles and wonders (interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams), God delivered Israel from Egypt by performing signs and wonders in the land of Egypt. God has destroyed the greatest civilization in the world, leveling its military, its economy, and slaying all of its first born sons. Because Egypt had forgotten the God of Joseph and Pharaoh did not know the Lord, God cast that nation down. That great nation had been the source of life to the world, but now God has chosen Israel to be his chosen nation. Israel is to be a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:5-6). And God is testing them. Will Israel be a priestly nation, giving life to the nations around her, being an Eden in the midst of wilderness and famine? Will Israel now be what Egypt had been? God tests the children of Israel, and they fail miserably. Instead of seeing Canaan as a rich and good land capable of giving life, they see the land as a ‘devouring’ land. Instead of seeing the promise land as an opportunity to give and to serve, they see the land as overbearing and they complain. Instead of being willing to give themselves up for their wives and children, they want to return to slavery.

Therefore they will not be given the land. They will not be placed like Joseph as head over the nations. They are selfish, conceited, and fearful, and God will wait until they are ready to give themselves up as living sacrifices. He will send them back down into the dungeon of the wilderness. God will wait until there are Josephs who will rule the land with wisdom. He will wait until there are Judahs willing and ready to give themselves up for their brothers. He will wait until Israel is prepared to be a priestly nation, a nation that serves the nations of the world, teaching and instructing them to fear and serve the true God. Then God will lead them into the land and give them victory. He will make them to be salvation for the world, the life of the world.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Icon of God

What is the difference between man and animal? Genesis seems to answer the question as 'the image of God'. We are given a stamp and a seal of the Triune God, and more than that, we are that stamp and seal for the world. The imago dei means that we are supposed to be imitators of God. We are to be artisans and scientists and poets, creators of worlds, workers, and people who take rest after work is completed.

Rationality is often listed as one of the first characteristics that separate man and animals. The ability to think is said to be one of our defining characteristics. But we do not see this in the Scriptures. Genesis in particular shows a God who speaks, creates, evaluates, divides, names, blesses, organizes, delegates, and finally rests. These are the things that make us image bearers. The image of God is, for the most part, something visible and tangible. It can be seen and evaluated. And as God created a son (Adam) to pass responsibilities on to, so we too are given the opportunity to be fruitful even as God was fruitful. Thus even the commands that God gave to our first parents were the means by which we show and effect God's image on the world. Being an image bearer means being an image bestower. As we rule, fill, and adorn the earth we emboss it more and more with the Creator's image.

That is the difference between man and animal. We do certain things. We act in certain ways. We perform specific tasks in specific ways, putting our image which is the Triune image, on our acts. I have a dog and I believe that at this point, he is far more sentient than my son. But my son is nevertheless an image bearer. He acts in ways that imitate his Maker. And this means that he, at 4wks., is not only an image bearer but an image bestower. We are the image of God in and on the world. We are the icons of God, impressing His life on the world.

Read More...

Summary only...

Shot of Spenser

Wrath, jealousy, grief, love do thus expel:
Wrath is a fire, and jealousy a weed,
Grief is a flood, and love a monster fell;
The fire of sparks, the weed of little seed,
The flood of drops, the monster filth did breed:
But sparks, seed, drops, and filth do thus delay;
The sparks soon quench, the springing seed outweed,
The drops dry up, and filth wipe clean away:
So shall wrath, jealousy, grief, love die and decay

-Faerie Queene Book II, Canto IV, Stanza 35

Read More...

Summary only...

Baptized

River was baptized this last Sunday. Below I've posted the prayers and exhortation from the rite.

(Before the Baptism)
Almighty and eternal God, who through the flood, according to your righteous judgment, condemned the unfaithful world, and according to your great mercy, saved faithful Noah, even eight persons, and has drowned hard-hearted Pharaoh with all his army in the Red Sea, and has led your people Israel dry through it, thereby prefiguring this bath of your holy baptism, and through the baptism of your dear child, our Lord Jesus Christ, has sanctified and set apart the Jordan and all water for a saving flood, and an ample washing away of sins: we pray that through your same infinite mercy you would graciously look down upon this your child, and bless him with a right faith in the spirit, so that through this saving flood all that was born in him from Adam and all which he has added thereto might be drowned and submerged; and that he may be separated from the unfaithful, and preserved in the holy ark of Christendom dry and safe, and may be ever fervent in spirit and joyful in hope to serve your name, so that he with all the faithful may be worthy to inherit your promise of eternal life, through Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.

In this morning's sermon, we considered the continuities and discontinuities between the Old and New Covenant with regard to liturgy. Contrary to some Protestant traditions, Jesus did not teach that the New Covenant would dispense with rites, signs, material substances, and physical actions in worship. That is not what Jesus meant when He spoke of "Spiritual" worship. And one great sign of that, as I suggested, is that we do perform rites using material substances and physical actions - the rites of baptism and the Supper. Every time we baptize, we are declaring our continuity with Israel of the Old Testament.
Paedobaptism says even more, and says it more emphatically. Baptizing babies says that the boundaries of the church are in the same place as the boundaries of ancient Israel, the people of Abraham. We are saying that we are still the same people, and the same kind of people, as Israel was.
But baptism also declares our differences from the Old Covenant. In the Old Covenant, the mark of inclusion was a cut in the flesh - the foreskin of the child was cut off. The rite of entry into Israel was a rite of severing, and this not only pointed to the threat of being "cut off" for covenant unfaithfulness, but also pointed to the fact that Israel was herself "severed" from the rest of the world, distinguished by clothing, food, and other customs from the Gentiles. Further, circumcision was a kind of sacrificial rite, in which a body was cut into two pieces and blood was shed. That was fulfilled in Jesus, and we no longer perform a rite of separation, a rite of cutting, a rite of severing, a sacrificial entry into the church. We instead perform a rite that symbolizes the inclusion of Jew, Gentile, slave, free, man, woman, white, black, Hispanic, and whoever in one body in Christ. A child entered Israel through shedding blood; blood is a sign of life, but pouring out blood is a sign of death. But in the NC, we no longer live under the ministry of condemnation and death; we live in the covenant of life, symbolized by the living and life-giving water of baptism.
For you, Toby and Jenny, this means that River's baptism should be a constant reminder that you live under the New Covenant, not the Old. The Old Covenant came with great promises, the promise that Yahweh would dwell among His people and be the God of His people. But Hebrews tells us that the second covenant comes with better promises. The second covenant declares that the Son has come to tabernacle among us in human flesh. The second covenant announces that the Father is seeking worshipers to worship Him in Spirit and truth. And the second covenant comes with the promise of the Spirit, as Peter said at Pentecost: the promise is for you and for your children, and to all who are far off. Toby and Jenny, remind yourselves often of the meaning of baptism as God's pledge to you and to River; and teach him to trust this promise of God, the promise of the new covenant, the better covenant, the covenant of water not the covenant of blood.

(After the Baptism)
Almighty God, heavenly Father, we give you eternal praise and thanks, that you have granted and bestowed upon this child your fellowship, that he has been engrafted into the new life of the church through your holy baptism, that he has now been incorporated into your beloved Son, our only Savior, and is now your child and heir. Grant, most loving and faithful Father, that Toby and Jenny might prove our thankfulness for your great grace, faithfully bringing up this your child through all the situations of life and that we with this child as well, might more and more die to the world and be joined to the life of your Son, our Lord Jesus, and daily grow in grace, that we might ever praise you and be a blessing to our neighbor. Through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and with the Holy Spirit, one God, age after age. Amen.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ninja Creature

I look at my son. He flings his arms up and down with a knotted brow. I look at him and wonder who I am. He’s a ninja. He needs not see the world to sense the enemies at hand. I poke him in the gut, and he flashes flayed hands, ready to strike. I don’t know what to do so I just keeping poking and watching.

I know he is another person, but I somehow feel that I am looking down into an enchanted pool staring at my reflection. Who am I? I did not know three weeks ago, that I was a father of a son. I did not know this about myself. I did not know my son was named for the veins of the earth. I did not know my son was a ninja, or that his eyebrows furrowed like sand dunes. And now as a result, I feel as though I know myself even less, having learned these bits. Who knows what I might find out next? Who knows but I might do something terrible. If I might be the father of a tiny creature like this, what sorts of other powers might I have?

I stop poking him because I don’t know what I might do. I just stare, silently wondering if I might bore holes into face and make his eye brows slide across his face and sink into oblivion. I wonder who he is because I wonder who I am. I am what my son is and will be. He is who I am and will be. Do I know and live with a mountain climber? Do I change the diapers of an orator? Do the fingers of an artist grip my thumb? He arches his back and looks with wild eyes at me. Don’t you know who I am? He seems to ask. You did this, how can you not know? I can only shake my head.

All I know is that you are some part of me that I did not know existed. I try to explain this in as simple of terms as possible. But he’s looking away. He’s looking at the wall. Of course there is some sense in which everyone I know makes up who I am. But this new person lives with me. His arrival seems more dramatic than even my wife’s. Maybe that’s because I knew my wife for six years before we were married. River only gave me nine months notice. I was changing as fast as he came. I was becoming him as quickly as he was becoming me. I poke him again.

He kicks and flails. His head rolls back and forth on a universal joint. His mouth is open. I try to guess, You’re a bird! He keeps moving. He didn’t even seem to notice my guess. I’m not the father of a bird. I almost feel relieved. He threatens me again with his ninja stance. His eyebrows burry his eyes and his cheeks turn pink. There’s a moment of silence and still, broken immediately by his crackling voice.

I am the father of a crying baby. That’s who I am. I made a helpless ninja creature, who cries when I tell him he’s me.

Read More...

Summary only...

Apolotics

I generally enjoy reading World Magazine, the weekly cultural and political standard from a Biblical and conservative point of view. But the boring small mindedness of their political endorsements is regularly annoying. Admittedly, it fits hand and glove with the timid defeatism of American voters in general. I also cringe at the sputtering, red faced invocations to vote. One Southern Baptist writer wrings his hands pleading with his fellow churchmen to register to vote. Less than half of the denomination are apparently registered. He pleads with the masses. He pleads. But I hum loudly and stop my ears. Not that I don't think people should vote. Go ahead, do the deed. In fact, I think a Christian ought to. But I will not plead with you. I will not wring my hands. I will not stammer or beg. As a good friend once said, voting is like taking out the trash: it certainly needs to be done, but there are more important things to do. But this handwringing is not a little unlike someone being really concerned about a tree with poisonous apples. If we all pitch in, he says, and pick an apple, they'll all be gone and the tree will be safe. Someone ought to explain to the man how trees and fruit work. And likewise politics. Civil and familial governement are two of the trees that grow out of the soil of the Church. Economics, arts, and entertainment are other such trees. These trees ought to grow, but certain kinds of soil produce certain kinds of trees with certain kinds of fruit. And until this baptist brother and all our friends realize that the fruit is inevitable unless the soil is changed, the tree will go on producing lethal products. No amount of voting, legislating, or campaigning will change the fact that the American Church is the problem. We are the cause, we are the infection, we are the target that God is aiming at. If the Secularists were really on their toes, they'd start deporting Christians. We are the Jonahs that are causing this storm. We have run from God by offering our children to the idols of our nation often killing them in their mothers' wombs. We have bought and sold forgiveness like a comodity, we have stolen the tithe, and dishonored His day. We have not only put up with immorality, but we have condoned it by ordaining bishops and clergymen who share pasttimes with such infamous characters as Michael Jackson.

And another thing: Why do we insist on playing the media's stupid games. Why do we buy their two party system? Why do we even play by their rules? Why don't we just stop paying attention to their little gimmicks and not settle for anything less than good. We operate, as Christians, in an entirely compromised way. We are so sure of defeat, that our sole motivation is based on 'the lesser of two evils'. We do our politics on the basis of who we don't want in office. And this is usually based entirely on selfish motivations. If I have a choice between someone hitting me with a two by four and mace, which do I chose? But politics just isn't like that. We are first responsible for our vote before God. He sees our hearts, our intentions, and our faith. If we vote out of fear, worry, bitterness, or simple cowardice then we are not voting in faith. But if God is our God, then we cannot be shaken. We must vote for who we believe would actually rule in righteousness. Righteousness. Not half-hearted, plastic smiling righteousness. Real God-fearing, greed-hating righteousness. We as country do not deserve such a leader. We deserve the sadistic triumverate of Stalin, Hitler, and Nero turned lose and ticked off, nukes at their disposal. That's what we deserve, but we ought to vote in faith, praying for mercy. And if there is no worthy candidate, it's still legal to write a name in.

But for all this I've written, I assure you that I'm smiling. We are ants. We are gnats. We are warring tribes of bees buzzing in a passioned frenzy. And I smile. I smile and play frizbee. I go bowling, and I sip kool-aid with my pinky in the air. I occasionally pass the time with a good popsicle. I really like grape. We must see our sin, and we must confess and forsake it. But forgiveness is real, and the huff and puff of the World is an ice cube on the sidewalk.

Read More...

Summary only...

Summer Reading List

While the sun is shining bright and the evenings are for sweatshirts, I hope to dive from that large, overhanging branch called Spring and find myself submerged beneath the following pages. And I will do this amazing bit of acrobatics with a cherry popsicle in my hand and red smears on my cheeks.

I'm in the middle of Light From Old Times by the Bishop JC Ryle as well as Holiness by the same. I've also started, but have neglected to finish Law and Liberty by Mr. Rushdoony. The Everlasting Man of Chesterton is bent half way, but I've not yet seen the other side. Although I cannot place the entire blame on a sometimes reading group, Barth's Doctrine of the Word of God 1.1 is patiently waiting for the resuming of said reading group. I've also been picking my way through The Letters of Tolkien, an enjoyable exercise to say the least. There are of course other books that have not been finished, but my integrity as a reader requires discretion at some point.

I also hope to read some if not all of the following: From Dawn to Decadence by a fellow named Barzuk, a history of western civilization in a more consciously journalistic vein than most histories. Undaunted Courage, a story of the Lewis and Clark expedition and exploration of the northwest is also at the top of my list. And if I have my way, several titles on the War Between the States will find their way to my desk, one somewhat related, The Real Lincoln, I have already been encouraged to read.

In the fiction department, I hope to take in a bit more of the Wodehouse, although truth be told, my wife and I are still plucking our way through Right Ho, Jeeves. But no worries, the summer is fat for the picking. I will overcome, I will conquer, or I will survive at any rate. Walker Percy has long been awaiting my perusal, The Last Gentleman and The Moviegoer are mocking me from my shelf. I also continue work on the second book of the Faerie Queene by Edmund Spenser, although it is difficult to construe that as 'reading'. Summer time is also the perfect setting for several Flannery O'Connor short stories. It is my goal to read a good bit of Mr. Billy Collins, a poet who from all heartell deserves my time. I read several bits of him this morning, in fact, from one of his more recent collections.

The Atlas Humanities class works through a three year cycle, and this Fall, as you may have gathered, we will be studying modern history from the Reformation to the present. Probably the toughest part of this class will be condensing the possibilities of study into the actual amount of time that we have. Not only are there innumerable books to read, but battles and philosophies and discoveries seem like a firehose and I'm the teacher who's expected to fill a Dixie cup and share a little with my students. Alas!

Read More...

Summary only...

Noble Liturgy

Modern Christian men are the recipients of two great evils here at the beginning of the 21st century. We live in a nation that is full of effeminate churches and watered down beer. And the two are not unrelated. A friend has pin pointed the World Wars and the subsequent increase of women in the workplace as the cause of the diluted beers, and while it may have certainly contributed to the problem, the roots are a bit deeper than that. Sentimentalism and sappy piety are our plague. Scrawny pastors with broken, mournful grimaces pouring over their congregants like luke warm syrup Sunday after Sunday are the cause of our plight. When salvation became a teary-eyed, emotional roller coaster, masculinity began its exodus to Sunday football and fanatical lawn care. Obviously these alternatives have their perversions as well, but for the man, they at least have the pretense of being masculine, while Church services unabashedly demanded their men to act like craven women, sharing their feelings and pouring out their hearts, a weekly castration for any conscientious male.
Of course sin has its roots in Adam and apart from Christ is hid deep in the recesses of the human heart. But this malady like every sin finds its genesis in a perversion of worship. This emotionalism and sentimentalism were carried in parasitic fashion on the back of liturgical deformation. Revivalism swept through many churches bringing with it the free for all, spirit-lead-ism that still engorges the Church today. The bold joy of the high liturgies: confession of sin, sung creeds, chanted psalms, prescribed prayers, and Scripture lessons centered around the eucharistic meal were eclipsed by sappy choruses and chaos on the one hand and in supposed reaction: stuffy, lecture halls on the other. But the high liturgies of the Church attack both tendencies which are the same at heart: seeing true religion as a feeling or a thought (internalized in either case) instead of incarnate gratitude. Of course these emotion driven services are not true femininity any more than they are true masculinity. But the nobility of high worship is part of the answer to both deficiencies. May God be please to give us repentant hearts, courageous leaders, and thick, dark beers.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Son To Me

Well there's no doubt about it. River is the coolest kid I know. He's not real big on conversation yet. But he lets his hopes and dreams be known. His coordination is still a little flimsy, particularly in the neck and head region. He's kind of dangerous with that thing. But he's trying. He really digs the swing. He can swing for hours. And then, he can swing some more. I've given him several tours of the house, a short geography lesson on the continents and major oceans, and I introduced him to the titles that live on the top of the first book shelf. That leaves thirteen shelves to go before I've covered each one. Like every boy, he's taking to eating and sleeping with a general merriment. He even gets along with Porter, who apart from the occasional slobberfest is quite pleased with the new addition to our home. He's already concerned for the well being of River and whines whenever River is unhappy.

What about the name? Ah yes... a river is one of God's central pictures for showing his strength and might, his joy and peace, and life and salvation. Isaiah 66, Ezekiel 47, and Revelation 22 are good starts. A river is quite literally 'living water'. It is living life. It flows and whirls, sings and dances, and rushes along with wild joy and exuberance. River is our exuberance.

Read More...

Summary only...

Devoted

Paul’s explanation of our bodies as temples as related to sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 6 fits nicely with the Hebrew picture of such immorality in the Old Testament and with sodomy in particular. In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul lists a number of kinds of sinners who are “unrighteous” and will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Among the list are adulterers, effeminate, and sodomites. He goes on to explain that while some of the Corinthians had been these very kinds of people, Christ had died and rose again so that they might be free from those very deeds (v. 14). But Paul goes further and explains that the chief reason for the inconsistency is that their bodies are members of Christ and temples of the Holy Spirit. The word for sodomite in Hebrew is QODESH which literally means ‘holy’ or ‘devoted’. It is the same word used hundreds of times to describe the people of Israel, their tabernacle, and their God, Yahweh. But this word describes the necessarily religious status of homosexuals. Not that there is any human status that is truly ‘unreligious’. But this word’s particular usage makes it all the more pointy, particularly with Paul’s explanation in 1 Corinthians. While we today do not have pagan temples built with wood or stone in our lands any longer, our bodies, as Paul taught in 1 Corinthians are temples. They are necessarily temples filled with the Holy Spirit or temples filled with demons. This is of course not simply a statement about heterosexuals vs. homosexuals. This is a statement about believers and unbelievers, the faithful and the ungodly. Our bodies are holy. We are devoted. And the sodomite, the atheist, the adulterer, the thief, and the liar have devoted their bodies to the service of demons. But we were bought with a price.

Read More...

Summary only...

All Ryled Up

I've been reading Ryle's Light from Old Times. It's always enjoyable to read history from a pastor. The book's subtitle is Protestant Facts and Men. And the book is just that. He outlines the history of the English Reformation, the major principles, the major players, and the consequent reign of Bloody Mary which sought to undo its progress. While, Ryle is never bitter, he is unceasingly brutal to the Roman Church, holding it responsible for the judicial murder of those executed during those turbulent years. He, writing in the nineteenth century, can imagine no greater atrocity than for the English church to give any ground back to the Papists.

A couple of brief thoughts:

First, Ryle pin points the center of the English Reformation in the doctrine of the Eucharist. Ryle maintains that heart of the Roman doctrine sought to put Christ (in any way) in the bread and wine (he calls this the doctrine of the real presence), while the reformers, he contends, held that Christ was only present in His people. He calls those in the English church who he believes to be secret papists 'extreme ritualists'. He particularly condemns the 'ritualists' of his day for attempting to undo the very things that the early English reformers died for. Ryle is not willing to go anywhere near this real presence doctrine as he sees it as the heart of ritualism and ultimately the papist church. He goes so far as to condemn those who make a distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' presence or carnal vs. spiritual. Christ is only in the Eucharist in so far as Christ is in His people. It should be noted that this is what Ryle says concerning the early Reformers, though based upon some quotations he supplies, I'm not sure it's quite as cut and dried.

Second, nevertheless, I'm stirred by the courage and fortitude exhibited by those men who were burned at the stake for what many now consider trifles. And while I may well differ in some particulars, I am challenged. These faithful men prayed and sang psalms while flames scorched their legs and arms. Some were partially burned, when wind or rain subdued the flames, and they waited patiently for new fires to be ignited. These men stood firm while evil men did their very worst, and they blessed their executioners and forgave their enemies. That noble band of martyrs, who scorned the grave and mocked the flames, did not spill their blood in vain. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church, and we are the direct descendents of the English Reformation, here in America.

Read More...

Summary only...

River Edmond

Our first descendent was born this last Friday evening, June 4 at 8:22pm. He weighed 8lbs and was 21 3/8in long. Mom and son are doing very well. God has been very kind.

Read More...

Summary only...

Run

Would that I could run. You know: run. I mean really run. Run everywhere. Air in my face. Sweat on the sleeve. Run into the sun. Run for the hills, run under trees, run in front of cars and behind them and beside them. Run. I would, you know. I would run. I've been practicing. I run from the car to my house. Then I run from the car into the bakery. I don't run because I'm in a hurry. I run because I can. My legs moving, toothpicks in wrappers. But you can't see. I'm running. I like to gasp. I suck air. Some people might say its because I'm out of shape. I say it's because I like air. I love it. I can't get enough. So I run.

And when I'm not running. I'm usually reading. I'm reading the third book of the Faerie Queene. The heroine of the story is Britomart, lady knight of chastity. She's facing off with lesbians and cowards. She's an extremist, pursuing love with militance. I'm reading Ezekiel too. He's shaving his head and burning piles of hair in the middle of the city. He's eating scrolls and laying on his side laying siege to a lego castle. He's cooking dinner over cow dung.

And it's Good Friday, day of our Lord's crucifixion. How extreme. How sharp. How offensive. How daring. But I pretend to be. I imagine the fierceness of true love, the ferocity and wildness of chastity. I picture Ezekiel, that holy freak. And Jesus wears a crown of thorns. Would that I could run. Would that I would really run. Run everywhere. Run with air in my face, aching side, and sucking air. I would run. Really run. And I will. I'm practicing. I run from the car to the house and from the car to work, and I keep running.

Read More...

Summary only...

Moved

We made it. The move is over, we're back in town, and all is right with the world. There are still a few boxes hither and thither, but for all that we're nearly settled in.

Read More...

Summary only...

leithart.com

Check it out.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Private Conversation

I've seen the stars every night for the last 9 months. I've watched the hunter sink and rise, and beckon to his comrades in the blackness. I've also learned the moon. I know her phases, guess her path, and miss her when she hides. I also met the fog, his blanket of wet unraveled along my path, a snug companion on many of my drives.

One morning last spring, I was on my way to school before the days of baking bread. It was the hour of the changing of the guard, the ominous nod of night in the direction of the day. I knew the moon was full, but I had not see her pearl face since leaving home and arched my neck and bent my eyes through every hill, hoping she had not yet sunk below the covers of the world. I saw the glow of her face through the trees and suspected her presence right along the edge of the earth. I knew the only chance I had of seeing her was over the first ridge, after which there would not be another clearing for several miles, and even that was doubtful. I sped up the northern face of the ridge, though fog began to mar my course in pockets every fifteen yards or so. Nearing the summit, I plunged into a foamy thickness losing sight of all but a couple of feet in front of each headlight. I was forced to slow down, and I expected the worst: I had entered a fog that I was unlikely to exit until coming down the last hill into Moscow. This was not an uncommon experience. One minute brilliant blue skies, the next buried in cloud. And while I had realized long ago that there was something incredible about driving my car through the clouds, this realization was not as exciting as I was hoping to see the face of the moon. However, seconds later, my car found the world, though I did not know then if it really was the world I had been in only moments before. There below me, stretching into the distance was a world of white, hills and plains enveloped in cloud. It was a shimmering robe and bright with pink weaving throughout. To my right I looked into the full and sorrowful face of the moon, but to the left, the piercing gaze of the sun burned across the plains.

I do not imagine that I will ever be able to forget those few moments as I drove through that enchanted land. It was as though I had come in during a private conversation between a man and his wife. I felt uncomfortable and glad all in an instant. It was then if not soon after that I began to more fully realize the fantasy of Creation. Chesterton and MacDonald were right.

After a refreshing 16 months in Potlatch, we are on our way back into Moscow. It has been a glorious time living in this community. We will miss our neighbors, the quiet streets, and yes, even the drives into town.

Read More...

Summary only...

Taunting the Enemy

If you own the Cantus Christi and you are in any way musically inclined, I would urge you to look at the chant for Psalm 94. And if you're not musically inclined find someone who is and make them teach it to you. It's really worth it. The text was translated by Jim Jordan, and is an excellent rendition of the Hebrew as would be expected. But the music (which is by someone I don't remember at the moment) fits the text wonderfully. I've only learned 3 or 4 chants so far, but this one easily tops the charts. It is very nearly what I imagine Jordan means when he praises and encourages 'vigorous chanting'. The text and tune are bold and militant, and for a few awful moments the University Inn conference room is transfigured into a battlefield, as we sing our King's praises, taunting the enemy forces.

Read More...

Summary only...

Laughing and Loving

Remy posted on love scenes and laughter the other day. As it turns out his Hebrew reflexes are quite good and nearing the level of Jedi Master.

In Hebrew there are a number of kinds of verbs. One such variety is called the Piel. The Piel is usually used to intensify the meaning of a verb. So the regular form of a verb could mean "break apart" and in the Piel it might mean "shatter". Other instances of this actually change the meaning to some extent, usually revealing some hebraic understanding of the world. This is the case with the verb LAMAD which means "he learned". In the Piel, the verb becomes "he taught". A teacher then, would be the intense learner. The one who learns to the utmost, teaches by defalt.

But to the point. In Genesis 26:8, Abimelek has been entertaining Isaac, Rebeccah, and the whole patriarchal kit-n-kiboodle. Of course, being the godly patriarch that he is, Isaac and his wife lie to the pagan king telling him they are just brother and sister in order to protect themselves and set themselves up to plunder the Philistines. At any rate, Abimelek looks out his window one day and sees Isaac making melody to his wife. 'Melody' is of course the Middle English term for making love, having sex. Well the verb used to describe the action that Isaac is performing is the verb TSAKHAQ, which usually means "he laughed". In fact that's where Isaac's name came from (Isaac=YITSKHAQ). However, in this case it is the Piel Participle translated "sporting" in the KJV, "fondling", and "caressing" elsewhere. The context should guide the translation in any case. But the range of meaning is anything from caressing to making melody. Thus laughter in its most intense form is in fact in bed with one's wife.

And so I leave you with a blessing on this Lord's Day, the Sixth Sunday of Epiphany: May our Triune God manifest his playfulness in your marriage bed as it is filled with much laughter.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Pirates of DC

I just read Wilson's new children's book Blackthorn Winter published by Veritas Press. It's a fun read and served, in its own small way, to remind me of the current tyranny of the American government. The book isn't about our government; it's about pirates and a courageous boy's adventure with them. But it doesn't take but a couple of well worded sentences, especially in tax season, to remind the most submissive among us that someone not too long ago decided that pirates would do a lot better if they dressed well, showered and shaved, and traded their pointy pieces of steel for a pile of papers and a bureaucrat's smile.

Read More...

Summary only...

Living Water

Leviticus 14 records the ritual for cleansing a leper and the cleansing of a house with leprosy. A couple observations after translating the passage this week particularly connected to the term "running water" or MAYEEM KHAYEEM, which literally means "living water".

First, the obvious connection to John 4, Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman. Jesus' claim to be able to give "living water" is still enigmatic, but at least on the surface it seems that the literal meaning of his claim would be that he could make Jacob's well work as a fountain. There is of course a mine of meaning in this whole area, but perhaps this offers at least one direction to head in. At least one point may be that the role of Israel is changing from that of a well (refreshment which must be sought out by the nations) to a spring or river (refreshment which seeks the nations). The symbolism is prevalent in the Old Testament particularly in the ministry of the patriarchs. Another example would be Solomon's reign which was that of a glorious well, where the nations sought wisdom and came to enjoy his glory. But the new Well of Jacob, the new Israel is a spring, a geyser that erupts and pours out into the world, an Eden transfigured.

Secondly, the ritual for cleansing a house with leprosy has been connected with Jesus' cleansing of the Temple. I haven't read Jordan on this, but I'm told that he harmonizes the gospel accounts (synoptics vs. John) with at least some reference to this ritual in Leviticus 14. The priest in the ritual, must visit the house that is unclean (or suspected to be) twice. The house is emptied on the first visit, and if upon the second visit (seven days later) the plague has spread, the house is to be broken down. I am told that Jordan posits the difference in accounts due to two cleansings by Christ. The first was an inspection, where the furniture was over turned and the house was declared unclean. The second visit, at the end of his ministry (the end of his week) was to reevaluate the house. The house was found infected again, and the pronouncement was again made concerning its uncleanness. At at this point he declares that he will destroy the house and rebuild it again in three days. This was of course the duty of the priest, to see to it that the infected house was torn down and a new one was erected in its place.

The cleansing of a house (after it had been rebuilt) required two birds: one was killed in a vessel with "living water". The living bird is dipped in the blood of the first bird and in the "living water" and finally released in order to make atonement for the house. The house is also sprinkled seven times with the blood and "living water." The actual sprinkling is done with hyssop, scarlet, and cedar wood of course.

I'm not sure what all that means, but there's obviously a death and resurrection/baptism motif going on. The House of Israel is cleansed by the death of Christ as blood and water flowed from his side. And his resurrection is his own "release" making atonement for the house. Again, atonement effects an exodus out of the city: the bird in Lev. 14, Jesus' "living water" in John 4, the early Christians in Acts, and to the ends of the earth.

Jacob's well has become a spring, and the house of Israel is cleansed.

Read More...

Summary only...

Belly Buttons

This is of course the weekend of our expectations. The famous and infamous History Conference is finally upon us. The press have shown up to do their part, and the opposition has promised exactly that.

Early reports signal much smoke and little if any fire. In fact the only fire I've seen in the last couple of days was in the bakery this morning when a couple of pizza boxes began the exciting process of combustion. But alas the only foul play seems to have been the people who closed who accidentally put the boxes near the oven. Oh-well. Apparently there were four or five protesters last night doing their protesting thing. This morning there was one, solitary protest being accomplished by one fellow who was holding a sign that said, "History stopped when Wilson touched it." I know that really struck me as I'm sure it is you at this very moment.

Alas. The irony only grows and exponentially increases. We are maligned in the press, our businesses are boycotted, spit upon, and vandalized. We are refused service, declined business opportunities, and our tires are slashed (repeatedly). We are lied about, slandered, and libelled (with names I've never heard in the Bible). And when the lady is asked what the deal is, she says, "We know it's not about slavery, we just don't like your attitude." Obviously we have a bad attitude. They have formed coalitions and associations; they have posted signs and posters and had secret deliberations about how to get rid of us. While we went in to the university to pay an extra fee for security, the university was in the next room planning the protest. Today, the whole lot of them was to gather at five o'clock for their "we really mean it this time, not in our town" march from downtown Friendship Square to the university SUB where the conference is being held. New St. Andrews students will be on hand to give out cookies and hot coffee to the protestors.

'Not in our Town' is their motto, and 'We're too great for Hate' stands as their damning banner of tolerance, freedom, and human rights. And the incoherence of their arguments, "You have a political agenda", "What's your standard is a trick question", "We don't like your attitude" and the rest prove the very fact they so wish they could deny. They are their own reductio ad absurdum.

But we have not resisted to the point of shedding of blood. And our joy is multiplied in the presence of our enemies. Our tables are laden with blessing and gladness. We will dance, we will laugh, and though they should cry "conspiracy! conspiracy!" we will only build snow men with charcoal eyes, carrot noses, and corncob pipes; and if the glee is right, we'll spend a few extra minutes putting buttons on their bellies. And I'll name mine Bill, and you'll name yours Selena.

Read More...

Summary only...

world eye

there’s a world in my eye
an island spinning round
you and i can’t see the lie
it’s to the mind tight bound.
Round the retina it revolves
and manufactures history
conjures and resolves
interprets imagistic mystery.
this globe in fact pours out
its life and hue and glimmer
on every point about
and cooks it to a simmer.
Then with vegetarian lite
it fills the mental frame
reorders chaos right,
awakens truth the same.
and i upon my throne
and you upon your dais
long we reign alone
and ever truth our bias.

and if you’ve got an ill
politics, culture, art
this rock will be the pill
to cure your every smart.
just lodge it in your eye
it’s christian never fear
there’s no need to die
the truth is ever dear.
there’s no need for Sacraments
hands and knees be gone
all the rest are condiments
with this eye-log on.
watch for the others
no one is without
we’re all eye-mind brothers
thinking leaves no doubt.
we play with material raw
but the forms are in our head
ideas are the law
of the living and the dead.

for as you think it so
so it is as you think
but i’ll not wear the window
nor from this well take drink.
i walk through a world
alive with life throughout
a splendid word unfurled
where even mountains shout.
Creation spurns the world eye
the Son of Mary dies
hands were meant to lift high
Creation groans and cries.
my knees i’ll teach to rule
as bent they search the ground
my hands will go to school
lifted they are crowned.
And tongue and eye and mind
all humbled to the King
minds to taste, tongues to see
and eyes to joyful sing.

Read More...

Summary only...

Suspirium

I really dig this term: "suspirium". Suspirium is the rhythm and momentum of the language we speak and write about God that passes directly into language spoken and written to God.

Another bit of Barth.

Read More...

Summary only...

Mo' Barth

A few thoughts triggered by Barth's 1.1 of Church Dogmatics:

1. While Barth isn't married to the idea, he is willing and gives slight blessing to allowing theology (ie. dogmatics) to be labeled a "science". He is sufficiently made ill by the various dangers associated with so doing. He will not afford any other realm of study the bar to which theology must be measured. The protestant liberals of Barth's day, no less than ours, were interested in having the Church and theologians in particular justify themselves before the court of human reason, materialistic science, and logic. Barth will not bow to the gods of the Englightenment Pantheon. Theology must be judged upon its own principles. The Church must study, critique, and reform itself from within.

2. That said, retaining the term "science" for all its baggage could be an insightful tool working to accomplish the very opposite of what we fear. That is, while we do not want the language of the Church (ie. theology) scrutinized by extra-ecclesiological standards, we do want every other sphere held up to the scrutiny of the Church. This is not exhaustive of course, but in general, the methodology of theology should inform the methodology of every other science.

Read More...

Summary only...

Kah Mints

I don't know what the deal is with the comments. Apparently mine fell into a crevice from whence they are unlikely to return. If there are any other free comment systems out there let me know... I'm not allowed to spend money on this habit.

Read More...

Summary only...