Having Two Legs

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

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.

Saturday, May 21, 2005

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).

Thursday, April 28, 2005

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.

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.

Monday, April 25, 2005

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.

Saturday, April 02, 2005

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.

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.

Friday, March 25, 2005

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.

Clowney

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

Thursday, March 24, 2005

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.

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.

Monday, March 21, 2005

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.

Thursday, March 17, 2005

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.

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

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.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

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.

Saturday, January 29, 2005

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.

Monday, January 24, 2005

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.

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

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.

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.

Friday, January 14, 2005

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.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)