Press Release

This went out late last week, and it reiterates what I've already posted on this site. Nevertheless, here is an official release regarding the operations of Atlas School.

Atlas School Press Release: For Immediate Release

September 15, 2005

A Christian Boys School In Downtown Moscow

Atlas School is a small Christian boys school that meets in the Nuart Theater at 516 South Main Street in downtown Moscow. The school has met there for four years after being started in 2001 to meet the needs of a number of home schooling families that desired a more structured learning environment for their sons. Currently there are 15 students enrolled at Atlas, and over the four years of its existence, it has never had more than 18. The school continues to serve the needs of home schooling families and is structured with this kind of flexibility in mind. Classes meet in the mornings from 7:45 to 12:30, and a number of the students attend classes part-time. The headmaster, Toby Sumpter, is a graduate of New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, and he continues his studies in theology at Greyfriars Hall, a ministerial training seminar offered through Christ Church also in Moscow.

The boys at Atlas School study many of the same subjects that are offered in most schools like math, science, reading and writing. But there are several things that make Atlas unique.

Atlas focuses more attention than most on classical languages. Boys begin studying Latin, Hebrew and Greek fairly early in the curriculum with the goal of being able to read classical texts fluently by the time they are in high school. These languages are also taught as living languages, spoken and acted out through stories and plays. Until about an hundred years ago, this kind of literacy was assumed to be standard for educated men.

Atlas School seeks to be a learning community, a familial atmosphere where education takes place. Since we are serving home schooling families that already put a lot of emphasis on the importance of having a strong family culture, Atlas seeks to continue that sort of personal interaction among teachers, students and families. One example of this is the feast that Atlas students and teachers celebrate every Friday at the end of school. Mothers take turns cooking meals, making side dishes and providing deserts for the students. Students recite poetry, sing songs, tell one another jokes, and a “head boy” is chosen from all the students, a young man that has excelled in some particular ways in the previous week. Occasionally, fathers or men from the community are invited to join the meal. The fellowship that occurs around this feast is a picture of what Atlas School intends to be doing the rest of the week studying literature, Latin, or Algebra.

Atlas School is also a worshiping community. While the school has no denominational affiliation, all faculty and board members are baptized and professing Christians. Central to the mission of the school is that of training young men up to be Christian fathers, husbands, workers, and citizens. For this reason Atlas students begin every morning with a short prayer service where Psalms are sung, prayers are said, and Scripture readings are heard. There the students and faculty commit themselves to the ancient Christian faith and prepare themselves to courageously confront the future.

Students also take part in sports. Through a National Lacrosse Association grant, Atlas has acquired full sets of equipment for its team. While the team is still young, after two years, many of the boys are beginning to excel at the game. Other sports such as football and basketball are in the works for the coming years. Not only is Atlas committed to challenging the minds of their young men, it also believes that young men should learn courage and strength on the mock battlefields of athletics.

Atlas School seeks to aid the Christian community in Moscow in educating young men who are intelligent, brave, and full of good humor. Atlas School is thankful to be in the Moscow community and hopes to continue to serve families for many years to come.

Read More...

Summary only...

"do not worry about how or what you should speak"

C.H. Spurgeon relates the following in Lectures To My Students in the chapter entitled 'On the Choice of the Text:

"do not be misled by the sound and seeming fitness of scriptural words. M. Athanase coquerel confesses to having preached on a third visit to Amsterdam, the words, "This is the third time I am coming to you." (2 Cor. 13:1)... It is still worse to select words out of a miserable facetiousness, as in the case of a recent sermon on the death of Abraham Lincoln, from the sentence, "Abraham is dead."

Read More...

Summary only...

Kissing Joseph's Mouth

When Joseph is elevated over all of Egypt by Pharaoh after interpreting his dreams, Pharaoh tells Joseph, "You shall be over my house, and all my people shall be ruled according to your word..." So saith the NKJV. Only that last part is not quite what the Hebrew says. Literally it says, "You shall be over my house, and my people will kiss your mouth..."

I can see where the translators get the idea of honoring Joseph's words, but I still think there's more to it than that. It's not just obedience that Pharaoh is promising; he appears to be promising affection as well. Joseph will be like a wise husband to the people of Egypt, and they will be the faithful wife, or something along those lines.

The story of Joseph has many parallels to the story of Christ. Joseph is a kind of restored Adam over all the known world who gives life to the nations by storing bread up for the seven years of famine. This is Jesus ministry breaking bread for the multitudes and ultimately giving his own body as bread for the life of the world. And in this, Jesus becomes the good husband to his wife, the Church. Christ rules over all the house of God, and all the people of God kiss the mouth of Christ.

Read More...

Summary only...

How We Got Here and What We Do

It appears that there are a few questions as to how Atlas School began in the first place. At least one recent editorial in the local paper indicated that Douglas Wilson was the founder of Atlas School. While Pastor Wilson has been a cheerful well-wisher, the truth be known it was not he that started the school. Atlas School grew out of some private tutoring I gave one year (almost 6 years ago) to two middle school aged boys. At the end of that year, another family or two asked if their boys might join the classes, and I was happy to have them. These families were all home schooling families that for whatever reasons recognized the need for more structure in the schooling of their sons. Word got out that summer, and by August there were 12 boys. Parents asked if I would try to cover most of the subjects, and the ones that I couldn’t teach or that didn’t fit into my schedule were taken over by two other gentlemen. We realized that a house wouldn’t really fit our needs for space so one of the parents that knew the director of CCM asked if we might be able to use some space at the Nuart Theater. He said that it was fine, so we began having classes the Fall of 2001 in the theater at the Nuart. We brought in tables and chairs, and we set up and broke down each morning.

Since the families involved in Atlas were home school families, we tried to set things up to make what we were doing somewhat congruent with their interests and needs. Classes are only held in the mornings, finishing every day around lunch time. Since 2001 we have met in the Nuart and in the classrooms next door to the Nuart. We’ve never received a complaint until just a few months ago in the wake of numerous other complaints being filed against other organizations and institutions affiliated with Christ Church and friends. Many probably still don’t know that we even exist, but most people that spend any time downtown have at one time or another seen a small troupe of boys in navy blue sweater vests walking down Main Street. We have occasionally sat on the benches in Friendship Square reciting Kubla Kahn, and from time to time we have taken walks through the streets in our nature studies hunting for leaves and various species of trees. We have also had trash pick up days where the boys dress down and bring gloves and trash bags in order to help out with keeping downtown a little cleaner. On cold winter mornings I’ve been known to give into pleas and take three or four students down to a local coffee shop for hot chocolate and readings from Beowulf. The boys study math and spelling and science like most of other boys their age, but one of my passions is languages, particularly the old ones. All of the full time students take Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. We also try to read a lot together. I spend the last few minutes of every day reading out loud from Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings or the Chronicles of Narnia or sometimes just silly bits from P.J. O’Rourke or Annie Dillard. We read and write poetry together, and sing as often as we can. We begin every morning with a short prayer service were we sing Psalms, pray and read Scripture together, and our week ends with a feast on Fridays. A festive table is spread by the mothers of the Atlas boys: good food, full goblets, and candles. There we laugh and sing together, and enjoy the fellowship of one another. And that’s about it.

Read More...

Summary only...

Focus On the Shadow

A few clarifying points to my previous post: First nothing in the previous post should be read to indicate that Atlas is in any way flouting the law. Being a Christian doesn’t mean that I can pick and choose the parts of Scripture that best fit my whims or desires. I whole heartedly submit to all of it, and therefore I also am entirely committed to obeying all of the authorities placed over me. This would include but is not limited to: the city zoning administrator, City Council, and all others in authority in the civil realm. St. Peter says, “Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to the governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of those who do good.” (1 Pet. 2:13-14) This means that Atlas School has every intention of obeying every ordinance that the City of Moscow requires of us whether the building code, the zoning code, or any conditions or provisions they may place upon us wherever we end up as long as we are not asked to disregard the clear teaching of Scripture.

The law allows for 30 days to appeal a decision issued by the city, and that appeal has already been filed. An appeal stays the motions of the proceedings until there is a hearing. We have been in contact with city officials, notifying them of our intentions throughout, and we have every intention of continuing to do so.

Secondly, as to an important technicality: New St. Andrews College, as I now understand it, did not actually have a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), although it did have the city’s permission to be downtown. It was thought that NSA complied with the zoning code in the “similar institutions” clause, but recent rulings have indicated otherwise. However the original point still stands: nowhere in Moscow are schools welcomed, that is, allowed by right.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Shadow of Atlas

I kind of feel like Sam in the Tower of Cirith Ungol, a small insignificant hobbit watching the enemy shouting, cursing, stumbling and running away. And no, I'm not trying to insinuate anything about anyone opposing me. It's just funny.

As many of you know Moscow is currently being looked after by a small group of self elected Nannies. These women apparently believe no one knows how a city is best run, not even the city officials, mind you, and so they are busy tsk-tsking with all manner of 'concerned citizen' letters regarding boys in sweater vests downtown.

There are 15 boys enrolled in Atlas this year, but if you read the letters you'd get the impression we were 60 going on 150 boys plus teachers and staff. This is what tips me off to the fact that they obviously have never been in the classrooms we use nextdoor to the Nuart although they're absolutely sure that the boys are in constant mortal danger. But I would happily agree with anyone concerned if we really were stuffing 100 boys into a telephone booth for Latin class.

The troubling thing is that most of the time these Nannies continue to maintain, straight faced, that they don't mean us any harm. They just don't think we should meet there they say. The problem is that this is a patent lie. They are on a crusade to rid Moscow of Christian Education, particularly those institutions that stand with Douglas Wilson and Christ Church, giving modernity an enthusiastic rasberry. Thankfully the veneer is beginning to come off. In at least one of the complaint letters, one of the City Nannies makes it clear that she doesn't think Moscow needs a Christian boys school like Atlas. We need more of that kind of honesty.

The other problem is that there is no zone in the city of Moscow that welcomes schools. All schools exist on a provisional use permit. And the City of Moscow has already indicated that this permit can be waived if a handful of wackos quote lengthy sections from the Holy Zoning Code. The point being, there is no safe place to do education in Moscow. Open-minded? Diverse? Multicultural? What the Nannies really want is comformity, submission and silence.

But we'll be open on Monday, and 10 or 15 young men will come downtown to learn Latin and read the Bible together. That may sound very scary, but between you and me, it's just the shadow.

Read More...

Summary only...

Because of Sarah

Notice that at the end of Genesis 20 the reason that Yahweh had closed up the wombs of the women in Abimelech's house is translated "because of Sarah". The Hebrew actually says "on the word of Sarah" which seems to suggest that she prayed for God to protect/judge her abusers, etc. That's kind of cool. But also of interest is the fact that 'davar' (the word for 'word') has the same consonants as the word for pestilence or plague 'dever'. So there's a bit of a pun going on there. This fits because this chapter is an Exodus in miniature, with God's people being oppressed by a wicked king, God's people lying to protect themselves, and in the end being delivered from the king's hand and going out with great possessions (another example is Gen. 12). But in this instance, the 'plague' God sends is Sarah. And, as my wife pointed out, Sarah is barren. So God sends barrenness on the women of Abimelech's house. But of course after God has opened the wombs of the Philistines, He opens Sarah's womb too.

Read More...

Summary only...

Covenant Stuff

I haven't kept up with this stuff, and I'm sure everyone is way ahead of me here. There's a lot of great work being done on the Trinity right now and particularly the ramifications of a thorough going Trinitarian take on covenant theology.

But... I thought this was cool: Luke 22 has the last supper and the Passover and of course the institution of the Eucharist. It's weird that immediately after the Lord's Supper and the questioning as to who will betray their Lord, the disciples begin disputing about who should be considered the greatest. We know that the disciples were block heads sometimes, and so we (I) tend to read that everywhere. But Jesus doesn't miss a beat. He connects the dispute to the Lord's supper in verse 29-30. In 29 Jesus says "And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed upon Me." At least that's how it reads in my NKJV. But the word for "bestow" is the verb form of diathiki, the word for covenant or testament. Jesus is covenanting with his disciples a kingdom. There's some stuff there to unpack. But He uses the same word to describe what His Father did: "just as My Father covenanted (it might read) upon Me." Although I'm not one for 'proof texts' per se, this is a fine place to come to prove that a covenant does (or did) exist between persons of the Trinity.

That's probably old news for you. I think it's swell. But the other thing is the Kingdom-Covenant connection. The verb form for covenant has this regal connotation going on. To be in covenant is to be a subject of the King. The disciples were a lot quicker than I. They saw the cup of wine, and they heard Jesus tell them that it was His blood. When the 'testator' dies, the testament goes into effect (so saith Hebrews 9). The disciples saw the blood, heard the words and immediately they wanted to be made governors and princes. And Jesus didn't say, "No, there's no such thing..." He said this is how you get the highest position: by serving.

Read More...

Summary only...

New View

So here's a new template. The old one was showing up with a grey background even though the coding said white. Anway, that means that I have to re-enter all the links and whatnot. I put a few up this morning, but I'm doing it all by memory so it may take me some time to remember everything I had up there.

Read More...

Summary only...

Update

Hey all. It's been a while. Summer has been charging along at a gallop. But it has been a grand ride thus far.

My summer has a number of layers to it. I'm a teacher which means I have the gift of summer time, for which I am very grateful. I hope that I might always have at least some part in a school if for only the gift of summer. But of course I really do love the teaching part too! This year, my summer job is an internship with a small church plant in Elk, Washington. In addition to preaching and leading the service each Sunday, I am also teaching a Sunday School class on a hodge-podge of topics. I've been preaching through Genesis, and we are in the middle of some of the great passages in Abram's life; Chapter 17 will be this coming Sunday. We made a few changes to the liturgy at the beginning of the summer, adding a number of traditional spoken responses throughout the service, and a corporate prayer of Confession. The service already followed a basic Covenant Renewal pattern, but these additions add to the congregation's participation in the 'work' of worship. It's interesting that in so many Protestant churches, worship is done 'up front'. But of course that's the very thing the Reformers were so concerned about.

In addition to the internship, I have been doing some work for Veritas Press. Veritas is the East Coast flagship of the ACCS, the East Coast Logos if you will. They're working on a fabulous project called the 'Omnibus'. Designed for both homeschool and day school settings, the Omnibus will be a series of books (6 I think) that work through the literature and history of Ancient, Medieval, and Modern eras. The books consist of a thorough introduction and background on the author and historical context of each work, a worldview essay and analysis, as well as a staggeringly detailed series of lesson plans for working through the material. From Homer to Genesis, Beowulf to Chronicles of Narnia, the books are all full color with loads of pictures and suggested activities, and they even come with an interactive CD/DVD of some sort (I haven't looked at mine to see exactly what it is yet). Check the whole catalogue out here.

Between preaching and writing, we visited my family down in Grants Pass, Oregon. My dad is the pastor of Faith Church (OPC) in Grants Pass. We were there for only a few short days, but our primary purpose was to celebrate my brother, Andy's graduation from highschool. Andy finished school homeschooling, but he (like several of my other siblings) has been taking classes at the local community college for the last two years. He's an athletic guy, a strong Christian, and probably the best looking of all the boys. Watch out girls.

And of course if that wasn't enough, I'm involved in Summer Theater. Jim Nance, an elder at Christ Church and a teacher at Logos School, is directing Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream this year. Apart from the joy of just doing theater, we are putting on shows particularly for the Trinity Fest. I have been assigned the role of Bottom the Weaver, the aptly termed 'ass of the play'. The part is excessively fun, and the entire cast is a blast to work with, including my other brother, Jesse, who also has a part. I'm also really enjoying the rehearsals for the fresh air, outside on the stage at East City Park where we will be performing in August. You don't have to go to the Trinity Fest to come to the play, but of course, why would you want to miss any of it?

Another exciting challenge has been my father-in-law's recent heart surgery. My in-laws just arrived to Moscow (Troy actually) about two months ago after his retirement from 30 some odd years at Westinghouse and Northrup Grummin (sp?) which are big defense contractors with the government. The cardiac specialists in Maryland which he has visited regularly for the last several years have been assuring him that his heart was as solid as a drum. But after a month or so here and reoccuring chest pains, he went in to get checked out in Spokane only to find that four arteries were clogged or nearly clogged. We're of course very thankful that God was so kind and merciful in giving hints and clues that all was not well, the Maryland doctors notwithstanding. Although they went in to do four bypasses and came out having done five, Dad has pulled through the surgery well and is home (as of Saturday) recovering. We appreciate your continued prayers for a full recovery with no infections or complications.

Yesterday was Independence Day and, like true patriots, we went outside to enjoy our country. I took River down to the fireworks stand in the morning in order to fill up a proper quota of munitions and to procure the necessary barbque supplies at the grocery store. We spent the afternoon down in Lewiston (about 20 miles south) at Hells Gate National Park where several of our friends were camping out through the weekend. We chatted and hung out there, and let the kids run around and find gross things to put in their mouths. We also went down to the beach (read river front with sand) and splashed around a bit. We took the scenic route up highway 12 from Lewiston over to Troy and ended up at Jenny's parent's house for dinner. Hamburgers on the grill were followed by fireworks in the backyard. Some of the Jackson's neighbors had a lot more money than us, and they put on a fantastic show across the street. River took the fireworks fairly well. He really enjoyed the 'pop its', the little white bundles that explode when tossed on the ground. The real fire crackers themselves were kind of overwhelming at first, and he cried some. But by the end he was watching with awe and was apparently also too tired to feel threatened.

At any rate that's what we've been up too. We do hope you and yours are having a fantastic summer as well. We're moving (yes, again) a few blocks over into the Robinson Trailer park at the end of this month. The sad part of this otherwise really great deal, is that we have to give Porter away. So we're looking for a home for our Australian Shepherd/Boarder Collie. But he's a great dog, and we're sure he'll make another family very happy.

All the Best!

Read More...

Summary only...

School's Out for the Summer

Last day of school was yesterday. God has been very kind: four years now teaching at Atlas. It, as they say, has certainly flown by.

In honor of the occasion, I offer this poem which is by one of my students (one of the younger ones, mind you).

A Cave Man

A cave man sat in a cave of stone
picking his teeth with an old steak bone.
He felt he was brave,
while in his cave,
though he didn't have a light or a telephone.

But all at once, he heard a roar.
A Sabertooth Tiger was at his door.
The poor old mole
was in a hole,
and the tiger would have his hide, he swore.

But just as the tiger wrinkled his snout,
the cave man jumped to his feet with a shout.
He grabbed the back wall
and gave it a haul,
and turned his cave right inside out.

Then he was out wih the tiger in,
so he rolled up a rock with a cheerful grin.
He blocked the way
for a week and a day,
and now he's wearing a tiger skin.

Read More...

Summary only...

Passing the Peace

Is the practice of "Passing the Peace" biblical? Is it necessary? Isn't it just something Roman Catholics and "high-Church" types do? And doesn't it just make people feel awkward? Doesn't it distract from the rest of the service?

The principle behind the practice is that being united to God means that we are united to one another. The point of the Passing of the Peace is not supposed to be an awkward point where everyone tries to think of something they might have done to offend someone else. That’s not the point at all. The ‘Peace’ is not a time of confession. Rather, it’s a time of showing our unity and communion with one another. Shaking hands and greeting one another in the Lord is a visible, tangible opportunity to show forth the unity that we have in Christ (Ps. 133, Eph. 4:1-16). The way we speak, sing, listen, pray, eat, drink etc. in worship is the pattern for how we are to live in the world. Obviously we are not required to do EVERYTHING in worship that we do in the world, but we do have specific exhortations to greet one another. Romans 16 in particular is an entire chapter where Paul gives a host of greetings to be given to particular saints in the Church of God. See verse 16 in particular where he commands us to greet another with a holy kiss! I don’t think that’s just cultural thing, and we know that this is not just a first century version of shaking hands because of the fact that it is designated as ‘holy’. This implies a kind of liturgical connection. It is a particular greeting that saints greet one another with, differently than the rest of the world because we are family in Christ. The end of 1 Corinthians 16 is another passage of greetings from Paul and another command to greet one another with a holy kiss. 1 Thess. 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14, and 2 Corinthians 13:12 also exhort us to greet one another with a holy kiss. Philippians 4:21 exhorts us to greet all the saints in Jesus Christ. The writer of Hebrews encourages us to greet all those who rule over us and all the saints (13:24, See also 3 John 1:14). We ought to see the importance of the concept simply on the grounds of how often it is repeated. I should clarify that I am not here arguing that the "Passing of the Peace" must include the 'holy kiss'. I'm rather arguing that the "holy kiss" is at minimum a principle that ought to be applied: a liturgical greeting among the saints.

Obviously ‘greetings’ are something that people often send in the mail, and we are reading first century mail (!). But greeting one another in peace and love is exhorted over and over in the New Testament because we have been brought together for fellowship and communion. The command we have to greet one another ‘in the Lord’ or with a ‘holy kiss’ implies that this is not just a “hey, how’s it going?” sort of greeting. That kind of greeting can be done before or after the service. The Passing of the Peace is a time for real, personal greeting ‘in the Lord’, extending peace and blessings to one another because that is what we have received from God through Jesus Christ.

As far as awkwardness goes, we’ve been doing it here at Trinity for the last 6 months or so, and I have not heard one single comment to that effect. Everyone I know has said that it is one of their favorite parts of the new liturgy. And again this is not a casual, “hey, how was your week?” kind of greeting. This is specifically a time to greet one another ‘in the Lord’. At Trinity we greet one another saying things like: “The Lord be with you/And with your spirit”, “The Peace of the Lord be with you/And with you”, and others just say, “God bless you!” And thus, it should not be a distraction or a sidetrack to the rest of the worship service. This, leading right into Communion is very fitting because Communion is not just a ‘me and God moment’. We are seated together at the table of the Lord, and this is a very tangible way to ‘discern the body of the Lord’ and prove the fact that there are not divisions among us as Paul warns against (1 Cor. 11:18-34).

Read More...

Summary only...

The Love that Overwhelms Us

In The Bondage of the Will, Luther notes that 'necessity' is an unfortunate term in describing the alternative to contingency. "Its meaning is too harsh and foreign to the subject; for it suggests some sort of compulsion, and something that is against one's will, which is no part of the view under debate." He goes on to use it, having no alternative on hand, but I appreciate the recognition of its deficiency. I'm not sure I have any better suggestions, but I agree with Luther completely here. When discussing foreordination and foreknowledge, no freedom is displaced or intruded upon; rather the sovereign will of God works in a mysterious and wonderful way upholding, enlivening and directing every last detail of the universe. We are not oppressed or coerced into the path that God would have us take. If any oppression or coercion is taking place it is solely as a result of our own freedom and will. We are only inhibited by our own nature. God does sometimes directly interfere in what we might call the 'miraculous', but the usual miraculous (if we dare call it usual) is a result of the constant joy overflowing the Trinitarian fellowship. The world is won over to God by His love. It's the sovereign grace of God that compels all things, the dance and song of the Triune fellowship that invites the world to follow the path laid out for it before the foundation of the world. It is no faceless necessity that binds us to the God of heaven. Like the perfect lover that He is, it's the rich and (seemingly) careless love of the Trinity that wins every detail of the universe. And thus the vast galaxies and every last stray atom sing his unending praises because we are all deeply smitten.

Read More...

Summary only...

Devotional 1: Infant Baptism

We believe in Paedobaptism. This means that we believe that God has claimed our son and all children that are born into a family with at least one believing parent. They are set apart to God; they are “holy” to God in fact (1 Cor. 7:14). Leviticus 27 is one place where we learn what it means for something to be “holy to the Lord.” There, houses, fields, servants, fruit, tithes or anything else that is “holy to the Lord” becomes His property. It may not be sold for profit, but it belongs to the priests, God’s personal attendants. But we also baptize infants because salvation is of grace. Peter says that the promise of forgiveness of sins is for us and our children (Acts 2:39), and this is consistent with the Old Covenant which was a promise that flowed through generations (Gen. 9:12, 17:7, Deut. 7:9, 1 Chr. 16:15, Ps. 105:8, etc.). Also, while no children are explicitly mentioned, we do have record of early household baptisms (Acts. 16:15, 1 Cor. 1:16). The faith of one head of the household is enough for God to claim servants, children and any others in the household. The sign of the Old Covenant was circumcision, but the sign of the New Covenant is baptism. As the sign was placed upon both young and old, slave and free in the household of Abraham and his descendents, so it is with baptism in the Christian era (Gen. 17:9-14). Likewise as it was covenant breaking not to obey God in this, so it is disobedience not to baptize our children. Baptism is “circumcision without hands” according to Paul, and through the working of faith it unites us and our children to the death and resurrection of Jesus (Col. 2:11-12).
In addition to believing that we should baptize our children and all household members who are willing, we also learn an important lesson about obeying God. His Word is sufficient and clear, but He sometimes requires things of us that we must infer. Sometimes the tidy-minded want everything spelled out explicitly. But this is called legalism; God expects us to grow up into maturity and connect the right dots as we do.

Read More...

Summary only...

American Civil Religion

Interestingly the late 1940s and 50s saw an upsurge in ‘religion’. At this point over 90 percent of American citizens readily claimed affiliation with some religion or sect. But this was another sign not of God’s blessing but of his curse on our nation. To have a proliferation of churches and not a semblance of repentance or sorrow over sin is a sure sign of a deep blindness.

“Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply religious faith, “ President Eisenhower proclaimed, “—and I don’t care what it is.”

This generic religiosity and faith-talk substituted for real heart felt faith and sincere repentance and obedience. “The Howdy Doody Show” likewise encouraged its young watchers to worship “at the church or synagogue of your choice.” This civil religion really was fairly innocuous simply because they got along so well. Protestants, Catholics, and Jews (the big three in America) all had leading figures who spent most of their time condemning the Great Red Menace, Communism, when immorality and decadence of all stripes and flavors was spilling out of the American family.

And just to make sure, in 1954, Congress added the phrase “under god” to the Pledge of Allegiance because Atheism was the official religion or faith of the Communist party. Of course it is fairly ironic that the aurthor of the pledge was himself an athiestic socialist, but hey, that's how it goes.

It should be fairly clear from what we’ve already seen that this was never meant to be an exclusive reference to the Christian Trinitarian God; no, it has always meant the generic ‘god’ that the masses of Americans believe in with no distinctive claims or demands for anyone. As others have pointed out very clearly, this is the same god that is invoked in the National Cathedral, the god of American Muslims, Jews and far too many Evangelicals.

Read More...

Summary only...

SHOD

In Genesis 35:8-11 shortly after Deborah, Rebekah's nurse, dies, God appears to Jacob, changes his name to Israel, and gives himself the name God Almighty. What I noticed recently was the fact that God's name God Almighty is El Shadai. In the context of the previous couple of verses it seems likely that a pun may be intended. Deborah was Rebekah's nurse, literaly "Rebekah's one who gave suck". "Shod" is the word in Hebrew for breast, and maybe this is a stretch, but God is also our 'nurse' in some sense. Israel literally means 'God preserves or perseveres', and there is a very real sense in which a nurse does the same thing. Just after Rebekah's nurse has died, God reveals himself as El Shadai, and shadai has the same root letters with an extra suffix. I'm not necessarily arguing against the translation 'almighty', I just think there's more going on than the English can reveal. Neat indeed.

Read More...

Summary only...

Jacob and the Angels

In Genesis 32, just after Laban and Jacob have made their peace, the angels of God meet Jacob as he is going on his way. Jacob recognizes that he is surrounded by the presence of God and names the place 'The Camp of God' (32:1-2). However in the next verse, most tranlsations read, "Then Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother..." But the word for messengers is the exact same word as angels. It seems incredibly odd to assume a change of characters here. It seems rather that Jacob sent the angels of God ahead of him to Esau, and these same angels returned to him in verse 6 to advise him of Esau's approach with four hundred men.

Jacob's stature is furthmore impressed at the end of chapter 32 when he wrestles with God. The man that wrestles with God is surely suited to command angels. Jacob is an ancient picture of the status of Christians, placed over all things, even judging the angels in Christ (1 Cor. 6:3).

Read More...

Summary only...

Cleared

Thanks to all who have prayed for Atlas over the last week or so. We received word today that we have been cleared on the zoning charges. Atlas is free to meet in the downtown district. There are always opportunities for appeals, if our enemies are so inclined, but pray that they might see the futility of further attacks.

Other than a few shuffles of class locations, we have continued classes as usual. And one hopes that the last six weeks of classes will be fairly uneventful. Thanks for your continued prayers.

Read More...

Summary only...

Honest to God

Everyone tries to give a shot at the question, ‘what’s with the Moscow crowd?’ Or those already in town, ‘What’s with Christ Church and Doug Wilson?” So I fling this answer out just in case you care what I think. It is my blog after all. It’s what you’re here for right?

So what’s with Moscow? What’s with Christ Church? We believe that the Triune God made heaven and earth in six days. Our first parents sinned, disobeying God’s command and the world was plunged into sin and death. But God in his great mercy and kindness sent his Son to become a man and redeem us from the bondage of sin. Jesus came to set us free from sin. He did and so we are. Yeah sure, says the skeptic, lot’s of people believe that, but why Christian schools and colleges? Why poetry and stories? Why dancing and feasting? Why dark beer and drama and art? Why all the flack? The true and honest answer is that we love life. We love the God of heaven. We love the freedom we have been given. We are grateful, overflowing people astounded at the goodness of God and the goodness of creation. And we are thankful down in our bones.

But no one can love without hating. If something or someone is truly loved, that which might destroy it, is detested. Love assumes protection. Love demands a guard. The man who refuses to guard what he says he loves is a liar. We defend what we love.

We love God. We love his law. We love the freedom we have been given, and we believe it is the only true freedom. And this God and the life he has given us is more precious to us than anything else in the world. We would gladly die for it, and we will fight for freedom from sin and evil with all the gusto we can muster. That’s what we are. We are men and women and children committed to living honestly before God. We hate guilt. We hate sin. We hate every cultural attack on the freedom we hold so dear. We are freemen before God. And we are free down in our bones. We stand before God honestly, openly, and grateful. And that’s the truth, honest to God.

Read More...

Summary only...

Joining the Fray

The last several years have seen a proliferation of attacks on anything remotely related to Christ Church. In fact for a while the intoleristas boycotted every restaurant in Moscow because they realized we ate there too. But realizing that meant they'd go hungry, they've eased up a bit and settled down in the area of zoning and building codes.

But that's pretty much the skinny. Atlas is under fire from two individuals who have far too much time on their hands.

It was only a matter of time really. You see we're scary. Boo. Gotcha didn't I? 15 boys in sweater vests. Yikes, I know. But it's true.

Pray for us that the final weeks of school would not be to disturbed. Pray that we would find favor in the eyes of city officials. And pray that God would bless our enemies with more fruitful work.

Read More...

Summary only...

Atlas School: Missions Update

Atlas School continues to flourish under God’s blessing. Jamin White, Mark Reagan, Mark Beauchamp, and Toby Sumpter continue to teach and lead the young men in their studies. We are also grateful for the oversight of our board: Bruce Evans, Joe Kline, Bill Amos, and Jeff Handel. As spring is nearing, many of the students have begun training for Lacrosse. The Atlas “Giborim” (“Mighty Ones”) are particularly enjoying the new equipment we have this year through a US Lacrosse grant. Coach Kline already has the guys running and sweating happily.

One of the central goals of Atlas is to instill in young men a love for life. This means among other things that our aim is to fill our days together with sacrifice. If any man would find his life, he must first lose it for the sake of Christ (Mt. 10:39). Worshipping, feasting, reading, laughing, drawing: these are all opportunities not only for joy but for service. Head knowledge is nothing without love. Please continue to pray that we would pursue this task faithfully. Pray that we would not only speak and read intelligently, but that we would do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. Pray also that God would send the right students, families, and provide teachers, as we plan for next fall. We are grateful for your continued prayers and encouraging words.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Justice of God

The book of Romans is about the justice of God. Paul's concern from the beginning is how God can be just and still reject Israel. Isn't God being unjust or unrighteous in cutting Israel off and grafting the Gentiles in? Paul's answer is no, of course. God is just because his faithfulness and promises are still in effect to those with faith. Abraham was not yet circumcised when God vindicated him. What did God vindicate him from? God vindicated him from the taunts of his neighbors and family in Ur, who may have believed he was crazy to take up the nomadic habit. God viewed him and showed him to be in the right when he had interaction with pagan kings and other inhabitants of the land of promise. Why did God say that Abraham was right? Why did God deliver him from his enemies? Because Abraham believed God and obeyed him.

One of Abraham's great vindications was when God gave him a son from the barren womb of Sarah. Isaac was a flesh and blood declaration from God saying, 'Abraham is right for doing what he does. He's with me.' Circumcision was a seal, a physical mark that said God had made a covenant with Abraham, but it was Abraham's faith that proved he was right. Abraham believed God, and therefore Abraham was right. And if Abraham was right then all that befell him necessarily required God's justice. Abraham was in the right. Therefore God the judge, in order to judge justly, bound himself to rule in Abraham's favor. But how can this be when all that Abraham ever did was not just or right. Abraham sometimes was unjust and not right. How can God rule in his favor every time, when sometimes Abraham was bound to be wrong? God basically said to Abraham, 'I will take care of this later. For now, you're right, even when your wrong. Trust me.'

But what about God's promises? God's promises remained unfulfilled to Abraham. The story that God had told Abraham was not at an end when Abraham died. Abraham's death before seeing the rest of the story cries out for justice. Abraham's sojourning, his altar building, his household building is worthless to Abraham if he does not see God's promises fulfilled. But Abraham dies believing God, believing that God will vindicate him. That even from death, God is able to vindicate. For death is necessarily wrong. It is wicked, it is backward, and it is opposed to the very nature of God. God's justice requires that Abraham's wrongs be acquitted and his death be revearsed.

But this is of course the rest of Paul's point. When Adam and Eve sinned, they died, and sin came into the world. But this same sin and death was placed upon Jesus Christ on the cross. This would have made the cross no different than any other cross in Palestine at this time, except for the fact that Jesus was innocent. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, having God for his Father, and therefore He was not under the reign of sin and death. But he submitted to death, humbling himself, taking upon himself the sin and death of the world. Christ's death was the answer to Abraham's (and our) wrongs. Christ's blood was the just due of all our injustice, every time we were, are, or will be wrong. But that was not the end. Christ was right and yet he died as though he was wrong. He was accused by the Jewish and Roman officials. They condemned him as a blasphemer. He was convicted of their charges, and he died before the multitude a guilty man, when he was in fact not guilty. This is the great injustice of history. This is the greatest injustice of history. Murder, rape, abuse, torture, famine, and calamity all pale in comparison. The problem of evil is here if nowhere else. How could a good and just God allow that?

And had the story ended there, God would be unjust. But it did not. The way that God has made the world is such that death cannot stick to the innocent. We often speak of life as being hard to preserve, death being difficult to beat. But for those who are right it is quite the opposite, death is hard to preserve, and life cannot be beat. Christ was right and the scribes and pharisees were wrong. Jesus was right, Pilot and the masses were wrong. How do we know this? Because Jesus rose from the dead. The resurrection proves Jesus right. It is his vindication for the world to see. Jesus paid the penalty for our wrongs, so that God might justly say that we are right, even when we have been wrong, that we are just, even when we have been unjust. And He rose from the dead both so that the world would know that Jesus was right, but so that we might know what happens to people who die being right: They rise from the dead. In this sense, the death of every believer is unjust and cries out to God for vindication. The graves of the just are memorials before God demanding his justice.

But with Abraham, we are sure that we have been and will be vindicated because we believe God. We believe God, obey Him, and He says we're right and all of our enemies are wrong. He judges on our behalf because we believe Him. Faith is what makes us right. Unbelief makes others wrong. And whatever our accusers may say, whatever accusations they may bring, whatever they may convict us of, we may live confidently knowing that the Judge of the whole earth will do right. Every wrong against us will be declared wrong, and those who plot against us will be destroyed. Justice will be served, and though we may die, life will win out over death, and we will wake up like Jesus in indestructable bodies. And we will smile at our enemies, because we knew we were right all along.

Read More...

Summary only...

Nietzsche

Not withstanding an admittedly rudimentary knowledge of this jolly old pagan, I must give my judgment that he is perhaps one of history's greatest conspiracy theorists. To have grasped the breadth and depth of the radical and subversive work of Christ and to conclude that its fundamental traits are a sham and a farce is an accomplishment that no ordinary conspiracy theorist is capable. I raise my glass to you Friedrich on this Good Friday, the day in which we celebrate the death of all natural nobility and greatness because our hunger for joy is not so easily assuaged.

Read More...

Summary only...

Clowney

Edmund Clowney (1917-2005): one of the Church's great generals.

Read More...

Summary only...

That Jolly Old Pagan

In C.S. Lewis' The Four Loves he, on several occasions, refers to Ovid as that "jolly old pagan". It's not just once mind you, but at least two or three times. Lewis' remark is striking in a couple of ways not the least of which is the fact that in all my reading of Ovid which admittedly is on the lesser side of a tad, I don't recall Ovid being all that jolly. Old? Yes. Pagan? Obviously. Jolly? I'm not so sure, but that's Lewis' point. Secondly, although jolly may be meant in a rather ironic or facetious way in regards to Ovid's actual personality, Lewis surely means that he is jolly for our purposes.

Along those lies, I would commend to you The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce. That jolly old pagan fought in the civil war, took up journalism, and when he had had enough of that, took for the deserts of Mexico and was never heard from again. But his dictionary is a handy dandy reference guide for anything remotely useful or not. In addition to the aforementioned desk tool, I might also recommend the H.L. Mencken. Another jolly old pagan who has written prolificly on nearly everything. I might also add that these last two authors are not only amusing and witty, but if you've ever wondered where Douglas Wilson gets his sense of humor, you might start here.

Go. Run along now. You've got more useful things to do. ttfn.

Read More...

Summary only...

Learning Life

I'm no expert, I assure you. But life is for living. Here I am, Holy Week is coming to its climax, and I'm doing lesson plans.

I believe in the resurrection, ergo I believe in living.

I've decided to give my students assignments in living. I would feel embarassed and ashamed if I allowed any student to finish their studies at Atlas having not been taught to live: sort of like a traveling circus without any elephants. I would gladly take suggestions you might have but the following is the beginning of my so-called 'assignments in living' list: Climb a tree, examine the underside of a rather large rock, fly a kite, play with a small animal, tiptoe through tulips, watch a sunset & a sunrise, smell the flowers, learn a dance, meet a stranger, whistle.

Read More...

Summary only...

Nominalism and Logic

In The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Keith Mathison quotes John F. Johnson in his description of the late medieval philosophy scene: "The realist school of thought, with its belief in universals, did not challenge the authority of the Church. Realists treated logic and dialectic as useful but clearly subordinate tools. The nominalists, on the other hand, were inclined to give a very important place to human reason."

This emphasis initially seemed almost backwards to me. But it makes sense. In pursuing order and meaning, realists found it outside the material and created world, whereas nominalists located it within human thought and language. Thus, nominalists might be more apt to place trust in a system of thought (e.g. dialectic) because that is the very organization of the world. While, realists might be more cautious, recognizing that the order and meaning of the world transcend what we may rationally conceive.

And if this be so, both seem inadequate. A blog post I read (dated two years ago), suggested that the best realists and nominalists realized that a marriage or fusion was necessary of the two extremes. The scholastic dichotomy was in the end false. It was suggested that Wittgenstein is a modern example of the merger between the two views. However that may be, the creation account seems to suggest some sort of merger of its own. Whereas form and meaning are assigned and given in the initial creation of the cosmos by God himself, man's initial task is that of naming the animals. And whatever the man called the animal, that was its name. Mankind shares in the creation process. We share in the gift of meaning, this is something of what it means to be created in the image of God.

Thus we might heartily agree with the realists that meaning does transcend us in that God is Creator and Lord, and at the same time we might recognize that the nominalists are right, in that we are co-creators and lords.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Trinitarian Gospel

And this is the gospel: that God is three in one. It is only with this God that humans may have any direct dealings. It is only with a God who can reveal Himself to and in us that we have any hope. We can only come to know a God who is simultaneously the Revealer, the Revelation, and the Assurance of receiving the Revelation. This is true monotheism; all other attempts are polytheistic and idolatrous.

This must be so because any attempt at knowing a Unitarian god must have some mediator. And this mediator must either a) be another divine being or b) a human being who is by nature incapable of revealing God truly and in enough fullness to be of any help. In which case we are left with worshipping a god unknown, as in the latter case, which is blind idolatry. Or, we are faced with another god altogether, in which case we are not really Unitarian but polytheistic, and we are no closer to knowing the original God we sought. Thus God is Trinity: three in one.

And this is the gospel: that we know God, or rather, we are known by God. And this Revelation of God is Jesus.

Read More...

Summary only...

Genesis 7

A. And Yahveh said to Noach you go and all your house into the ark because you I saw righteous before my face in this generation.
B. From all the clean beasts you will take to you seven seven man and his wife and from the beasts that are not clean, it two: man and his wife. Also from flying creatures of heaven seven seven male and female for life’s seed upon the face of the all the earth.
C. Because for days yet seven I am sending rain on the earth: forty days and forty nights and I will wipe all standing things which I made from on the face of the ground. And Noach did as all that Yahveh commanded him.

A. And Noach was a son of six hundred years and the flood was water on the earth. And Noach went and his sons and his wife and the wives of his sons with him into the ark from the face of the waters of the flood.
B. From clean beasts and from the beasts which have no cleanness and from the flying creatures and from and all which creep on the ground. Two two came to Noach into the ark male and female as God commanded Noach.
C. And it happened to the seven of days and waters of the flood were on the earth. In the six hundred years to the life of Noach in the second month in the seventeenth day to the month in that day all the springs were broken open, the many deeps and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

A. In that day itself, Noach went and Shem and Ham and Japheth, sons of Noach and wife of Noach and three of the wives of his sons with them into the ark.
B. They and all the life according to its kind and all the beasts according to its kind and all the creeping things creeping on the earth according to its kind and all the flying creatures according to its kind and all the birds all the wings. And they went to Noach into the ark two two from all the flesh that in it is the spirit of life.
C. And they came male and female from all the flesh they came as God commanded it and Yahveh closed it from behind. And the flood was forty days on the earth

A. and the waters multiplied and they lifted up the ark and she rose from on the earth. And the waters were mighty and they multiplied exceedingly exceedingly on the earth and all the exalted mountains were covered which are under all the heavens. Fifteen forearms from above: the waters were mighty and the mountains were covered.
B. And all flesh perished: the creeping thing on the earth, the flying creatures and the beasts and the living things and all the swarming things that swarm on the earth and all mankind. And He wiped out all the standing things which were on the face of the ground from man to beast to creeping thing to flying creatures of the heavens and they were wiped out from the earth
C. and remained only Noach and who were with him in the ark. And the waters were mighty on the earth one hundred fifty days.

Read More...

Summary only...

Socialism & Friends

Introduction
As we have seen, the breakdown of the old feudal system of the middle ages brought all kinds of conflict with it. The French Revolution was the first all out break with Christendom, and with it came a host of difficulties. Where society had once been viewed in terms of how each part of society fit together to form the whole, under revolutionary ideals, men began being viewed as production hours and in terms of monetary value. This (de)valuation of men was of course done in the name of liberty and freedom, but in reality it created a view of the world that encouraged covetousness, greed, and envy.

From Estate to Class
The French Revolution, you will remember, was largely carried out by (what we would now term) an upper-middle class group of men known as the bourgeoisie. It was a movement by some who were usually wealthy businessmen, motivated by greed, hunger for power, and a disgust for the Christian faith, to have greater impact and say in a kingdom of corrupt royalty. This was the beginning of what moderns would term ‘classes’ of people. These classes are ways of categorizing people based upon their income and wealth. What had once been ‘estates’ (Clergy, Royalty, and everybody else ie. Families) meaning sectors of society that performed specific functions or aids to equip and encourage the health and growth of the whole people, came to be viewed as classes, defining men by their money rather than their gifts.

The word “socialism” came into the English language from the French somewhere around 1820. Finding its roots in Latin, the word refers to companions or neighbors and came to mean a belief in a certain way society should function or the role a civil government should play in society. In some of its earliest formulations, socialism envisioned a ‘utopian’ society, that is, a society that assumes the best about human nature. Socialism dreamed of a world where government was unnecessary, where men and women gave to one another freely as needed, traded, and served one another with complete justice and equality. More importantly, it dreamed of an egalitarian society, a society with no classes, with no inequalities.

These sorts of movements of course have origins. Socialism is no different. With the simultaneous outbreak of revolutionary thought, disrupting societies, questioning all of the glue that had held previous generations together, and the emergence of the industrial revolution, the increase of mass production and the growth of cities, another “class” appeared on the scene: the working class. This working class or “proletariat” was made of those who labored in the mills and factories, whose only assets were their bodies’ ability to work. As the world changed in dramatic ways it faced challenges that essentially boiled down to learning how to get along in new settings. While we must not idealize the medieval feudalism (for it certainly was not perfect), it is at least praiseworthy for its personality. Men made covenants with one another, vowing to provide, defend, protect, and be loyal to one another. This ‘faith’ among men, was a kind of bond that gave some stability to society (crusades and feuding knights notwithstanding). With that bond broken between men, a new kind of faith needed to be forged without which human societies cannot function.

The bourgeoisie, which continued its success, soon had a large working class which filled its needs for production. However, a number of things contributed to growing discontent among the working class. In many places the working environment was difficult, wages were extremely low because of the demand for work, hours were incredibly long, and a host of others. As the bourgeoisie had once banded together in order to redress wrong that they perceived in society, so too some began to see the need for the working class to band together for protection as well. Initially, socialist ideals were suggested and promulgated by members of the bourgeoisie and upper classes. Men and women who saw the sufferings of the workers in factories sought protections and justice for men and women, believing that they ought to be treated with more dignity and respect. But it was not long before these concerns and the hoped for solutions were shared by many within the ranks of the workers. Worker Unions began emerging at this time, and strikes became a symbol of the little man giving the corporate business owners ‘what for’.

Socialism and Scripture
As men began looking for solutions to the dilemmas they found themselves in, few thought to give heed to Scripture. But God’s Word gives instructions for the care of the poor and the working class. “And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.” (Lev. 23:22, 19:9-10, Dt. 24:19) “At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town. The Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance among you, and the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.” (Dt. 14:28-29) The Old Testament law also has provisions that require the forgiving of debts in certain years, as well as general laws that required the Israelites to treat their workers with dignity and justice, to pay their wages promptly, and not to oppress them in any way. The Proverbs declare that he who gives to the poor lends to the Lord and will be repaid generously. While the New Testament does not give many direct instructions regarding the poor or working class, the general thrust remains the same as the Old Covenant, treat all men as you have been treated. Since you were once slaves (literally and spiritually) and you have been given freedom and salvation, so treat all those around you generously, seeking the blessing of all. In Galatians, Paul recounts that the elders of the Jerusalem council gave their blessing to Paul’s ministry to the gentiles only insisting that his ministry not neglect the care of the poor (2:10).

But these Biblical requirements to care for and provide for the poor do not in any way set aside other clear requirements. The eighth commandment prohibiting stealing, assumes that an owner possesses property. Further, while the early church clearly experienced an abundance of community, which we ought to imitate, it was nevertheless voluntary as indicated by the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:4). Lastly, the New Testament lays the normal responsibility for provision of families upon the man of the house (1 Tim. 5:8). Taking all of this evidence as one, the Scriptures require that every man provide for his own household honestly and diligently. But, whether through hardship, irresponsibility, or some other providence, the poor will always be with us, and the Bible requires that all men be generous to the poor. Churches are also instructed by the authority of the apostles not to neglect the poor. Lastly, it is just and right for civil magistrates to require that land owners (and others that are well off) to give of their incomes to charitable causes (churches, ministries, or poor directly). However when civil governments assume that the actual care of and provision for the poor is their responsibility they go too far.

Marxism and Communism
But many flatly rejected the Bible’s teaching opting for their own ideas, and in the mid-1800s, Karl Marx and his friend Friedrich Engels developed a theory of history, economics, and politics that they called ‘scientific socialism’ which came to be known as Marxism. This theory believed that revolution was the key to bringing about the eradication of class. Competition or capitalism would be replaced by a dictatorship of the working class. It was believed that when the proletariat grasped the reigns of power, private property would be abolished, and civil government would whither away and disintegrate for lack of need, moving from the stage of ‘socialism’ (revolution to proletariat rule) to ‘communism’ (abolition of private property to disintegration of government). These visions for a new order and reorganized society were very attractive to many during this period.

While none of these dreams were ever to be realized, some aspects of them were grasped and developed. Socialist political parties and workers unions formed, societies and clubs working for socialist agendas. But more importantly for the 20th century, some of the bloodiest regimes in history rose to power in the name of Marxism, socialism, and communism, promising equality and justice but delivering oppression and slavery.

Conclusion
When men go their own ways, refusing to be guided by the wisdom of God, they become fools. Change is inevitable. New technologies, industrial advances, and cultural shifts must and will occur. This is because the God of history does new things. He raises up kings and emperors and puts them down. He raises up civilizations and empires and crushes them down to the ground. The Kingdom of God will never be destroyed, but it is growing throughout history in way that is different from all other kingdoms. It is a Kingdom made of men, lands, and blood, but all of the remnants of the old cities of men must be shaken down and torn away. As this occurs, men must always seek the wisdom of God found in the Scriptures.

As we seek to live faithfully before God today, we must seek to repent of the errors of our fathers. Men are not mere producers. Their value is not in their incomes. Viewing our neighbors according to income brackets is foolish and unhelpful. We must seek to return to a way of life that values different stations, gifts, and callings, and we must be generous with whatever we have been given and wherever we have been placed. Secondly, we must likewise repudiate all attempts to eradicate private property. Whether by legislation or theory, these are attempts to rob men of their gifts from God and responsibility before God to use them well. Lastly, we must recognize that God has ordained three basic kinds of government: familial, ecclesiastical, and civil. Each must do its part, seeking the good of all others and not grasping or envying.

Read More...

Summary only...

In Defense of the East and the West

The debates concerning the infamous filioque clause have been a major part of the fuel, fanning the fire of divide between East and West. Sparked by discussion of Barth's Dogmatics and re-reading a few pinches of Eastern theology, a few thoughts occurred to me.

First, it seems to me that 70-80% of the division is based upon undue process. Barth concedes this, and he cites at least one other theologian, admitting that the acceptance of the clause by West into the creed was done poorly. Related is of course the doctrine of the Roman church concerning the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff which the East adamantly denies. Thus this addition to the Creed was a tangible point upon which the West might be called to account, but the decision was made solidifying tensions, leading to schism. Creeds are ecumenical statements which should require the voice of the entire Church, and where the Church is not yet one voice, it should not speak, at least not creedally.

Barth points out however that the original Nicene formulation was worded fully realizing that it could have included this phrase. However, in their battle against Arianism, admitting procession from the Son in addition to the Father ran the risk of denying the Holy Spirit's equality with the Son whose equality with the father was established in the second article of the creed. Some Arians of the day were already speaking of the Spririt's procession from the Son, but of course their theology placed the Son in a first creation or supreme creation status, nonetheless, certainly not very God of very God. Not including the filioque clause was a further stab at the Arians. The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father was a clear establishment of His Godhead.

It is also maintained that the writers of the original creed never intended to exclude the true unity of the Son and Father in the sending of the Spirit. East and West alike are cited to show that it was commonly believed on all sides (unsurprisingly, given the language of the NT), that the Spirit was in fact the Spirit of the Father and the Son. Given this reality and the fact that the West surely failed in properly bringing this phrase into official liturgical use, it could be argued that a first step in reconciliation between East and West would be dropping the phrase from the Western Church.

Secondly, it appears to me that both sides of the debate have things to repent of. The West is right, I believe in insisting upon the unity of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit throughout the NT is spoken of as the communion of the Father and the Son, the culmination of their love, and the person of God who indwells the Church drawing us into union with the Father and the Son. It is also right in insisting that there is only way to the Father. Popular caricatures not withstanding, the East has from time to time tended to suggest dual paths to God, distinguishing the Son and Spirit as two possible options. I admit that this is probably more popular distortion than true dogmatics, but regardless, there is a mystic strain throughout the East that suggests that there is something to this.

Nevertheless, it appears to me that the East is correct in insisting upon the language of Scripture. We do not confess that the Son was begotten of the Father and the Spirit. This is primarily true because this is the language of Scripture. But this does not mean for a moment that we do not believe that the Holy Spirit is intimately involved in the begetting of the Son. The Son is begotten of the Father through the Spirit. Likewise, it appears to me that the East is right concerning the word "proceeds". The term is used only once in the New Testament (Jn. 15:26), and it is used in reference to the Spirit proceeding from the Father. Thus, if we are to be true to the language of Scripture, which the Creed is certainly supposed to do, it means that the Bible does not teach that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. However, and this is important, this does not mean for moment that the Spirit is not the Spirit of Christ and the Father, as the New Testament so clearly teaches. Just as the Son is begotten of the Father through the Spirit, so the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Consequently, it appears to me that to be consistent, we (the West) either need to drop the filioque clause (though not denying all that we mean by it), or we need to insert another clause to the creed: "... begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit before all worlds..." Given the current state of dividedness, I would favor dropping the filioque clause for now, although I would not necessarily be opposed to reinserting both clauses at some time in the (probably distant) future when the Church is more united and mature. But perhaps the Church would decide not to. Perhaps it would be wise to protect "begotten" and "proceeds", fencing them with the very words of Scripture.

Gladly, this sort of decision is not facing us currently, but for the present it seems that both East and West have things to get over, pride to swallow, and unity to pursue. May the Triune God be so kind.

Read More...

Summary only...

War Between the States Pt. 2

Introduction
As we have seen throughout this year, the world is as complicated as people. Virtues and vice, the image of God and our fallen nature, greed, lust, and wisdom are the tangled realities of the world we live in. This was no less true of the War Between the States. But given the fact that it occurred means that it was part of God’s working in this world, even given the confused and complicated snarls that are entailed. But this means that we must recognize that God sovereignly oversaw, planned, and brought about the war, even in all of its shocking cruelty.

God of Calamities
“I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.” Is. 45:7

By the mouth of Isaiah, God declares who he is. He rules over all the affairs of men, whether war or peace, whether good or evil. And not only does he rule over them and plan them, He in the mystery of providence actually does them. It is the Lord who does “all these things.” In Amos it is written: “If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid? If there is calamity in a city, will not the LORD have done it?” Amos 3:6

But we know that the Triune God is not Zeus. He is not a petty god with whims and mood swings. God is righteous and holy, and though he uses evil things for his own good purposes, he has no delight in wickedness. This means that there is a ‘method to the madness.’ The disasters, calamities, and horrors of life are delivered by the God of heaven for a reason. There are not the random temper tantrums of an erratic deity. While this does not mean that we can figure out everything or that every hardship is easily traced, God does deal with humanity through covenants. A covenant is essentially a solemn bond or friendship with sanctions (blessings and curses). This means that God has given us some insight into how He runs the world. And Scripture bears this out: “Hear, O earth! Behold, I will certainly bring calamity on this people -- The fruit of their thoughts, Because they have not heeded My words, Nor My law, but rejected it.” (Jer. 6:19) Here God plainly states why calamity is being brought upon Israel: they have rejected God’s ways. In another passage we read: “'And they came in and took possession of it [the land], but they have not obeyed Your voice or walked in Your law. They have done nothing of all that You commanded them to do; therefore You have caused all this calamity to come upon them.” (Jer. 32:23) Again, disobedience brings God’s judgment. Thus we may state that generally speaking, calamity is God’s method of discipline. Just as a faithful father exhorts, rebukes, and spanks his children (Prov. 22:15, 29:15, Eph. 6:4) so our heavenly father disciplines us his children (Heb. 12:9-11)

But we must also recognize that the covenant is not cosmic vending machine. God has revealed himself to us, but his purposes and plans are still beyond our full reach or comprehension. We see now only dimly the plans and purposes of God. This means that we must live by faith, and we must be humble. Luke records the following: “There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. "Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Lk. 13:1-5) Here Jesus teaches the disciples at least two things. First, no one is innocent. We are all sinners before God, and thus God is just in dealing us any hardship or tragedy. Life is far better than we deserve, even under the worst circumstances. Secondly, Christ teaches us that we must not consider ourselves better or more invincible to God’s judgments than others. Our immediate response to disaster whether in distant lands or in our own lives must be to search our hearts and lives for sin to repent of. Otherwise, as Jesus says, we will “all likewise perish”.

Lastly, we should remember the following story related in John’s gospel: “Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.” (Jn. 9:1-3) Here, we are reminded that even though God has given us His covenant, He is still free to do as he pleases. This is also the story of Job. God sent disaster upon Job, utterly destroying his family, health, and welfare. Job’s friends council him to confess his sins that God will relent, but Job insists throughout that he is righteous. As it turns out Job was righteous, and that was precisely why God sent the hardships upon him to display him to Satan and (presumably) the rest of the world, a faithful man of God even in the midst of horrific tribulation. The blind man and Job remind us that God is still God, and we cannot account for everything. But there is one constant, and that is the love of God. Whether he is chastening a wayward people or trying the hearts of his faithful or merely preparing to show us some amazing deliverance, he does it all in love. This is the mystery of God.


The Loss of War
Thus we return to the war. War is never lovely. While it is true that the battlefield is often the greatest display case of valor, courage, and duty; regardless of its outcome or real necessity, it is always a disaster. And the War between the States was no different. Perhaps there it was also magnified in ways never seen before by human eyes. Where in the past, guns had been poorly made and unstandardized munitions and equipment the norm, the Civil War was perhaps the first experience of the horrors of modern warfare. It is true that in every war women loose husbands, children loose fathers and older brothers, and those that do return are often maimed, sickly, and spiritually scared from the intensity and devastation of the conflict. But because of the train system, North and South alike were enabled to mass transport soldiers to any given area for battle. Thus it became the norm for armies of tens of thousands to meet on a given day, and thus casualties and mortalities increased at the same rate.

One of the first battles known as Bull Run was fought between armies of 22,000 and 30,000 men with large losses on either side. Antietam was the single bloodiest day of the war, with 23,000 casualties. A general described one battle at Malvern Hill, “As each brigade emerged from the woods, from 50-100 guns opened upon it, tearing great gaps in its ranks. Most of them had an open field half a mile wide to cross, under fire of field artillery and heaven ordnance. It was not war—it was murder.” As Perryville, where there were 7,600 casualties, a soldier writes, “It was an awful sight to see there men torn all to pieces with cannon balls and bomb shells. The dead and wounded lay thick in all directions.” At Shiloh there were 23,000 casualties, and a couple days after the battle of Antietam, a soldier reported that field smelled horrible covered with about “5 or 6,000 dead bodies decaying over the field…I could have walked on the bodies all most from one end to the other. A day after Chancellorsville where there were about 30,000 casualties, a man wrote, “the shrieks and groans of the wounded… was heart rending beyond all description.” A soldier from Maine wrote after Gettysburg, which had around 50,000 casualties, “I have seen… men rolling in their own blood, some shot in one place, some another… our dead lay in the road, and the Rebels in their haste to leave, dragged both their baggage wagons and artillery over them and they lay mangled and torn to pieces so that even friends could not tell them.” In all, it is estimated that around 620,000 men lost their lives in the War Between the States.

Major Events
After the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, almost immediately the seven states of the ‘deep south ‘ seceded from the Union: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida. Intense debate continued in the central states until the outbreak of war in 1861. At that point, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Caroline, and Virginia also seceded. Incidentally, West Virginia was first recognized as a separate state at this time. Western Virginia refused to participate in seceding from the Union. Thus it was recognized as loyal to the Union in 1861 and formally entered the Union as a separate state in 1863. Only Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland remained undecided.

Fort Sumter was the site of the first fighting of the war. Where almost every other federal fort or arsenal had been seized by the southern states, Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina held out. Finally Jefferson Davis, the new president of the Confederate States of America realized that if the confederacy was to be taken seriously they would have to use force, and he ordered the Confederate troops to attack.

Scare tactics and house arrests swung elections in Maryland and Kentucky toward the favor of the Union, and by the end of the year, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky were all securely held by the Union. However, to the surprise of many, the first two years of the war generally favored the South. Although many of the battles were stalemates or slight victories for the South, the North was generally on the defensive. The Seven Days Battle, Second Battle of Bull Run, Antietam, and Fredericksburg were fought in 1862, with huge casualties on either side, the South nevertheless seemed to have the greater head of steam.

Many consider Gettysburg the turning point in the war. A gigantic clash of armies, it appears that the North had the advantage in position, and the South had somewhat of a disadvantage in communication. Lee, leading the armies of the South, had at least one officer under him who was reluctant to follow his orders, another officer who simply went missing for the day of July 2, and perhaps most devastating of all, his favorite officer Stonewall Jackson, beloved by all, had died in the months previous, due to wounds inflicted by friendly fire at Chancellorsville. Invading Pennsylvania, General Lee hoped to deal the Union forces a decisive blow on their own territory. Beginning on July 1st, the two massive armies faced off. There were huge losses on either side, culminating for the Confederate Army in what is remembered as “Pickett’s Charge” and attempt to break the center of the Union army in two. But Union lines held, and the Confederate troops returned in tatters.

Conclusion
Hopefully it is not difficult to see how brutal and sickening war is. It should be enough to read of these events for intelligent men to hate and detest the great loss it accrued to all sides. But we must simultaneously recognize that these are the kinds of calamities that the God of the Bible brings upon societies. May merely studying these calamities be enough, causing us to turn from our evil ways lest the Lord come smite us with His wrath.

Read More...

Summary only...

David B. Hart

Please do yourself a favor. Go to google and search for "David B. Hart". Look for the articles "The Pornography Culture" and "Christ and Nothing." I'd find the links for you, but well you should have to work for these kinds of jems. Seriously: he's an Eastern Orthodox theologian/philosopher who has been blowing my mind for the last day or so. Read him. Then read him again.

Read More...

Summary only...

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...