When This World Elbows Its Way Past the World to Come

Published on by D. G. Hart

In addition to reading about Turkey, I also brought along materials that have to do explicitly and implicitly with Roman Catholicism. The explicit source is David I. Kertzer’s The Kidnaping of Edgardo Mortara – the case of the Jewish boy abducted in 1858 by the Vatican that led to the 1870 collapse of the Papal States. But I also brought along some back issues of magazines and that includes several issues of First Things.

Last Friday I ran across two remarkably different statements on the relationship between the Christian faith and the world’s affairs. The first, the classic pre-Vatican 2 perspective, ran like this:

. . . this life has not been given to us so that we can use it to enjoy the pleasures of this world, pleasures that alienate us from God, that pervert the heart, that cloud our judgment, that overwhelm our will, pleasures that unfortunately simply produce agitation, rancor, competition, jealousy, affliction, and unhappiness. (Archbishop of Bologna, Christmas letter, 1858)

The second came in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis:

All men of good will . . . believe that there are energies in the free human spirit whereby man may fulfill his destiny on earth, which is to be, not God, but the image of God. All men who believe in God are agreed that He is the Master of history. Man, therefore, manifests himself as the image of God chiefly by his intelligent, confident efforts to master the course of historical events and direct it toward the common good of the peoples of earth. (John Courtney Murray’s response to Pacem in Terris, quoted by George Weigel in First Things, February 2013)

Protestants used to call the difference between these outlooks like these a contrast that separates historic Christian orthodoxy. And those differences invariably attended the church’s embrace of a nation’s mission. I have no idea how conservative Roman Catholics account for such changes in outlook — Americanism used to be the explanation. But speaking about the political order — as if the church has that task — does seem to be the precondition for forgetting that the differences between the citizens of City of God and the City of Man cannot be correlated to life in the earthly city.

123 thoughts on “When This World Elbows Its Way Past the World to Come”

  1. The Archbishop of Bologna appears to be akin to some of our more fundamentalist, Biblicist, pietistic, revivalistic Reformed sects (think Richard Smith or the Netherlands or Heritage Reformed Churches) while John Courtney Murray appears to be in line with our more optimistic, culture-embracing, Neocalvinist brothers (cousins?). Think the all-of-lifers who might gather together in the Calvin College faculty lounge. It seems most Christian sects experience these tensions. The duty of the 2K man is to stand athwart this theological landscape yelling “stop!”.

    Like

  2. “The duty of the 2K man is to stand athwart this theological landscape yelling “stop!”.”

    So 2K is now handing out specific “duties” to its followers? Duties above and beyond being a good neighbor and churchman? Perhaps you take it to be a neighborly or churchly duty to yell “Stop!” But now I lose my grip on the difference between 2Kers and the Bayly’s, who stand outside abortion clinics and yell “Stop!”, telling people like Zrim that he has a “duty” to do likewise.

    Seems like ordinary folk like me are caught between a rock and a hard place. No matter which clique we sign up with, we’re given duties that we must meet in order to be considered full members pulling our weight. But social issues aside, what happens if I sign on to 2K and don’t fulfill this duty to yell things? Am I somehow considered less if I choose to spend my week planting flowers and helping my neighbor water her lawn?

    Oh boy, I’m in trouble. It’s hard enough to do those things God commands without having to fulfill all of these extra duties.

    Like

  3. Paul,

    Our duties are akin to the duties of cats to lie on the couch while occasionally batting a paw at the dust as it is illuminated by a sunbeam. It’s a light burden. You can manage.

    And Zrim will do what I tell him to, or else.

    Like

  4. Erik,

    That would be refreshing if ‘light’ wasn’t vague. I mean, what if I’m not a yeller, and doing so would raise my bp. What if I want to act with comportment? What if I’m an introvert? Zrim, help.

    Like

  5. Paul,

    That’s fine. All I would ask is that if you see fellow believers’ Christian liberty being trampled on in your own church, you bring it to the attention to your elders. This is where the rubber meets the road on this issue for most of us. You don’t have to be a loud-mouth like me.

    Like

  6. Erik, friendly tip: Paul is from the epistemological wing of anti-2k, division A (for aggressive), which makes him extra fun to wind up. Watch this.

    Paul, philosophy is very good and everybody should study it but it’s far from everything, and faith is not the sum of its logical parts, it’s the mysterious work of God.

    Like

  7. Erik,

    That sounds like a deal.

    Oh, just one more thing. I think my liberty trampling detection meter may be malfunctioning. You see, one (unnamed) 2Ker told me that a man at my church could spend every waking moment with a women who was not his wife, going to the movies, dinner, and dancing with her. Meanwhile, the wife is at home, in full bathrobe regalia, and eating chocolate Bonbons. He said if I brought that to the elders’ attention, that would be trampling his liberty. I would have thought otherwise. Or, take myself. I like to study philosophy, logic, and analytic theology. But other (unnamed) 2Kers have told me that I shouldn’t be doing that. Rather, my free time should be spent studying the Confession, reading church history, or reading Wendell Berry. So the rubber may meet the road in theory, but figuring out actual violations seems to be open to a wide spectrum of opinions. That’s unfortunate, of course, since it makes the 2K touchstone either superfluous or non-compelling. Superfluous, because even the most austere theonomist among us agrees that “Christian liberty” should not be trampled. Non-compelling, because while people agree where the theoretical rubber meets the theoretical road, there can be reasonable disagreement on just where the practical rubber meets the practical road.

    Like

  8. Zrim,

    Eric and I were having a nice conversation. I’m sure he didn’t need you poisoning the well. (But if I haven’t told you, I appreciate the near 180º you’ve pulled since we started discussing these issues. Really, I’m not being sarcastic. It warms my cold epistemological heart seeing that the hours spent with you have not been wasted, even if unrecognized.)

    Like

  9. Erik, What does a cat lying on a couch batting his paw at a sunbeam, have to do with “fighting the good fight of faith”, which I thought all Christians were called too?

    Erik, what does “fight the good fight of faith” mean to you?

    Like

  10. Hey Doug,

    What does fighting the good fight of faith have to do with the context of the question of “duties” as was asked in this thread?

    Like

  12. Paul, humor and subtlety look good on you. Very slimming. Now join forces with Doug and the world is yours for the taking.

    Like

  13. Zrim,

    I know you’re trying hard to justify that “He’s an agressive meany” meme, but I only did two things: (a) pointed out that you were poisoning the well and (b) showed my sincere appreciation of the moves you’ve made over the years. Now, if you persist in these conspiracy theories, I will be forced to refer to you as ‘Alex Jones’ instead of ‘Zrim’. I much prefer the latter.

    Like

  16. @Bruce, I was weighing in on our normal christian duty. I didn’t think there was a separate 2K duty, (stop!) but I could be wrong.

    Paul, you’re a beauty!

    Keep pressing on!

    Like

  18. You see, one (unnamed) 2Ker told me that a man at my church could spend every waking moment with a women who was not his wife, going to the movies, dinner, and dancing with her.

    There you go, the whole 2K thing is forever ruined by that anecdote.

    x__x

    Like

  19. Erik,

    You strike me as a guy with a good sense of humor. On that assumption, get a load of this one: Above, Sean said, “think meds.” That was in reference to me. But, did you know that Sean actually challenged me to a physical fist fight in the comment section at The Confessional Outhouse? Now, you might think he was just joshing. But he wasn’t, and he admitted he get a little carried away. So I submit to you this question: Who really needs the meds?

    I’m not sure about this whole 2K thing. You have Erik telling us it’s our “duty” to “yell” at people, and then you have Sean challenging transgressors to fisticuffs! To get into your secret meetings, do I need to pump iron, chew tobacco, and sport cowboy boots?

    Like

  21. Paul (or are you Doug), who are you going to believe. A libertine posing as a 2ker, or God’s word?

    See, I knew you’d come back. You can’t resist.

    Like

  22. Paul,

    This same Sean, regularly takes his wife to the pub with his homosexual friends for a night of drinking fun, once or twice a week. All covered under the umbrella of liberty of conscience. Sound familiar?

    As long as Sean or his wife, doesn’t actually have sex with them, he sees no problem getting buzzed on long Island ice teas, and yucking it up with them, as if there were no tomorrow. Fun and frivolity of the highest order! Sean has even found *one* verse in the Bible, he *thinks* supports his actions.

    Somehow, I don’t think that was what the Apostle Paul was getting at in 1 Cor. 5, but I could be wrong.

    Sean appears to fit your profile of that (unnamed) 2K fellow to a tee. But I could be wrong, maybe Sean only party’s with homosexuals, because God has laid a burden on his heart, that they would repent and be saved. Maybe Sean only takes his wife out drinking with their “gay” friends, because he feels God will use him to display the gospel in action, at least until he gets too buzzed.

    I hope the later is the case, but I don’t know.

    Like

  24. Paul, who’s working hard? You make it easy. Erik makes a molehill remark, you turn it into a mountain and then ensue making passively aggressive references to past exchanges with me. All of which keeps me skeptical of your professed appreciation, which is curiously vague. What moves are you talking about? I still believe in political liberty for those with whom I disagree, something which always seemed to eat you alive.

    Like

  25. Erik, think Cady.

    Doug come on now. I figured you were on my team after your defense of Gentry. I’ll say this for my effeminate neighbors, they know the difference between sin and crime and are respectful of the idea of consenting adults.

    Like

  27. Doug/Paul,

    You guys appear to both be trying to fill Richard Smith’s shoes, but you are poor imitations.

    I suspect Sean does something with the military so I wouldn’t mess with him. He could probably make the two of you disappear and there would be nothing left that could be identified through current forensic methods.

    Like

  29. Erik,
    I will do my best to control myself because this “bowling” team could easily go into the gutter!!

    Like

  30. “… Paul Newman?! I though you were dead! I liked you in “Hud”, “Cool Hand Luke”, and “Harper” …”

    Don’t forget “Nobody’s Fool”!! BTW, Erik, another favorite is Jack Nickelson in “The Pledge.”

    Like

  31. Erik, why do you make light of Sean’s decision for social company? I like your sense of humor, but I think you’re crossing the line, when you joke about Sean willingly socializing with men walking in perversions that God has said, are worthy of death. For me, it’s a wisdom issue.

    “Be not deceived, bad company corrupts good morals”.

    I’m not claiming Sean has turned into a raging homo, or that he ever will, BUT to willingly socialize, or party with men walking in abomination before God, is not wise. Sean drinking it up, and pounding long island ice teas, gives tacit approval to their life style, without saying a word.

    It seems as if Sean is saying with his body language, “let’s eat and drink, and have a few laughs, for tomorrow we might die”.

    That’s not very funny Erik, why make light of it?

    Like

  32. Doug, I think the real deleterious influence was the Bunko. It put me in a place of white suburban capitulation and surrender. I needed to get ‘comfortably numb’ and since this wasn’t the whiskey and beer chaser crowd, my choices were a fuzzy navel or L.I. ice tea. I went for the least associative opportunity. But, who was I kidding! I was at a Bunko party.

    Like

  33. I don’t know Doug, Sean did marry late.

    Have you ever read the Bible and taken note of the kind of people Jesus hung around with and the kind of people he told off?

    Like

  34. George,

    Those are both in my Netflix queue and you just got them moved up.

    One can not be a serious student of 70s cinema and not have to reckon with Nicholson early and often. “Chinatown” is certainly one of my top 10 all-time favorite films. And then there’s “Five Easy Pieces”:

    Like

  35. George, if you *liked* The Pledge” I would suggest you re-think the ending. Sean Penn deliberately inserted a European ending. A horrible unrealistic depressing ending!

    A European ending teaches us, that there is no rhyme or reason for why things happen. No God, no justice no happy endings. Just weird arbitrary tragic events that go unaccounted for. Even when the bad guy gets killed, no one knows, everyone is still devastated, Jack loses his mind, not knowing that his trap worked. When I saw the The Pledge, I immediately said, “God would never let it go down that way”.

    The Bible story’s which are true never go down that way. People find out what’s really going on with kook killers. Justice prevails. We should yearn for justice to prevail, which is a good thing.

    Sean Penn, doesn’t believe in God or happy endings, and it shows. The killer died, but there was no resolution.

    Two thumbs down on the ending!

    Like

  37. Erik, you and Sean are joking like unbelievers. I wasn’t implying Sean was a homosexual, or that he was in danger of abandoning ship, and swimming to “Fag Island”.

    It’s much more serious than that. It’s really not funny in the slightest. Can you imagine cracking wise in the presence of Christ. Would you make “gay” jokes to Jesus face? On the last day, will you offer a few “gay jokes”?

    Then please don’t with me either,

    Like

  39. Erik, next time you feel tempted to make light of sodomy, picture Jesus sitting next to you. Hopefully, that will curb your irreverent tongue. Somehow Erik, I don’t think God thinks your very funny right now.

    Like

  40. Doug,

    So why did the Tower of Siloam fall on those people?

    If I ever meet you in person I won’t be surprised if you are a wooden cutout. If there’s a Christian cliché that you haven’t embodied I don’t know what it is.

    Like

  41. “picture Jesus sitting next to you…”

    I would thank Him for common grace in making me basically immune to certain temptations out there.

    and I would thank Him for His obedience in leading to a way for me to be cleansed and to make a scout’s effort to conquer those temptations that I am unfortunately heavily drawn to in life… STILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    “So why did the Tower of Siloam fall on those people?”

    They didn’t keep the Law perfectly.

    [I think it’s safe to assume that answer has 3 good responses (which I won’t bother stating as I’ll assume they are criminally obvious… ]

    Like

  42. Erik: Old Life is great. It’s like hanging out in Middle Earth. You never know exactly who or what is going to show up.

    Sometimes I’m engaged in “paralysis by analysis” in not knowing whether to $(#* or go blind or fall to the floor and pray for some practical guidance in the life of other pour souls…

    Like

  43. Doug, so why do you corrupt your own theonomic morals by hanging out at such a radically 2k venue? And why is sex everything for you? Can you conceive of the possibility of a Christian being made a meal and drinks by a homosexual person and enjoying good conversation over it? Those of us who have gay family members do that all the time. Do you really think treating them more than per their sexuality will diminish their understanding of one’s well established moral opposition to their sexuality, as if just because one eats their food and laughs at their jokes has anything to do with all of a sudden affirming their sexuality? What’s one thing to do with the other, unless everything is sex? And have you considered that by not making everything sex you might gain a little more traction otherwise with those who don’t see it your way? Or is the point to make everybody see everything exactly like you?

    Like

  44. Erik, as I have said, we don’t know why God causes calamities, but we know that God is Lord of the storm. God’s ways are higher than our ways.

    When God causes a tornado, we shouldn’t say, “this family was killed, therefore they were evil”. Jesus taught us that with the Tower of Siloam. But we ALSO know God caused it to fall for his own very good reasons. And it fell, as some form of judgement. In other words, God did not cause it to fall, because Israel was so obedient.

    When I see God’ s hand moving in calamity, I think we should fall down on our knees and worship God.

    And Erik, I like you! I even think you have a good sense of humor. But much like me, you are capable of getting carried away, as we all are. Just reign it in Buba!

    Blessings

    Like

  46. Doug,

    Would Gentry have gotten the Jesus of Grace or the Jesus of Law if the nurse he exposed himself to (twice) was male?

    Like

  47. Doug – And it fell, as some form of judgement. In other words, God did not cause it to fall, because Israel was so obedient.

    Erik – You’re unsurprising, wooden mistake is the equation that “Bad things happening in this life” = “judgment” and “good things happening in this life” = “blessing”. Once you reach spiritual & emotional maturity (if it’s not too late) you’ll realize the world is more complicated than that. Have you not read the Bible? Have you not read great literature and watched great film? Have you no sense of the comic or the tragic? Have you even lived? Do these things before it’s too late. Start with the books of Job & Ecclesiastes since you are such a fan of the Old Testament. Then move onto the lives of Jesus and Paul.

    Like

  50. Wow, lots of comments since I last checked. I’ll reply in order:

    D.G. Hart: I knew you missed me, and I didn’t want to leave you pining, so . . .

    Doug: I was not thinking of Sean. And, depending on the details, I don’t care if Sean goes drinking with homosexuals.

    Zrim: Erik’s remark was indeed a molehill. I simply used his remark as fodder, because every time some non-2Kers has ever dared to mention ‘duty,’ your head explodes. I’m sorry you didn’t catch on but I was lampooning Zrim. Smile, you’re on Candid Camera.

    Erik: I was here long before “Richard Smith,” if anything, he was trying to be me. Also, Sean was given a little personal info about me and was forced to retract his challenge. At this point, he’s just mad because I can actually back-up the snark and smack talk. But I still love him, and his gay friends.

    There, now I’ve properly ruffled everyone’s feathers.

    Like

  51. Paul,

    Richard would never say he loved Sean’s gay friends.

    Does anyone know what happened to Richard? I’m worried. He could be overcome with Religious Affections in some gutter someplace.

    Like

  52. Paul, maybe I am not meant for dees dooties. Cooking dootie, dead guy dootie. Maybe it’s time for me to get a better dootie.

    Like

  53. OK, Doug. Although “The Pledge” paints a perfect picture of reality in this life, how about James Coburn in “Dead Heat on a Merry-go-round?” Two happy endings; criminal Eli Kotch (Coburn) got the money from his bank heist and headed off to Mexico to live it up with his accomplices and his jilted girl, Camilla, friend got all of the millions in inheritance that he (Coburn) didn’t know about.

    Like

  54. Erik, I was seeing gamma rays and monsters and stuff. Zrim consoled me and told me it would be alright. I dried my eyes, stayed my quivering lip and somehow have managed to carry on.

    Like

  55. If only all of life’s dramas could end like “The Shawshank Redemption”. Doug might not like the fate of the Bible-quoting warden, though. Since he read the Bible he should have been the good guy and that pagan Andy Dufresne should have got what was coming to him for his unbelief.

    Like

  57. Dr. K on Bavinck on Marriage and the Family on The Reformed Forum:

    http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc275/?utm_source=Reformed+Forum+General&utm_campaign=6bdacf38e4-2013_04_Newsletter&utm_medium=email

    I’m 2/3 of the way through. Pretty solid & balanced thus far. I think 2K guys interacting with Dr. K has had some good impact on some of his thinking on transformation. He’s also not buying full-fledged patriarchal family centered churches.

    Like

  58. Paul, more passive aggression. I am Nacho to your Ramses: I am singing, it’s my turn to sing at dees party. Everyone eez dancing, happy party. But Ramses is not dancing, he does not dance at dee parties.

    But I’m still curious on what specific moves on my part have caused you so much alleged sincere appreciation.

    Like

  60. D.G.H.,

    I did ruffle Doug’s feathers, and I did so even on the assumption that I am Doug. See:

    UD = P = Paul, H = Hart, D = Doug, Z = Zrim, and E = Eric

    Where Rxy = the two-place relation, x ruffled y’s feathers, and Cx = x is a commenter, then

    (x) (Cx -> Rpx)

    Since Doug is a commenter, Cd, then

    Cd

    therefore,

    Rpd

    The only way I can’t get Rpd is if if D = P and ¬Rpp.

    But if Doug is me, and if I said I ruffled Doug’s feathers, then clearly I would have assumed ¬(¬Rpp).

    Like

  62. Yep! This 85 year old, blessed by our Creator with 1 life-long OPC wife of 60 years, as of 05/15/13 is still on God’s green earth. Jesus created it (John 1:3,10, etc.), cares deeply about it, and wants us to too! As I have said a time or 2 🙂 @ OLTS, We have 25 grands (7 married) and 6 g.grands. God cares about them all, and their USA future, and so do we! So sorry for the auto-bio, Darryl! Nothing has changed for us since I last checked in. Still enjoying ministry @ Alexian Village. No big fights like same ole guys @ OL. Looks like no change @ OL, same strange view of 2K— moon high wall of separation between the 2Ks. I still say that Jesus’ summary of the 10 comms give us duties in Vertical AND horizontal worlds. Read Covenant College Prof, Kelly Kapic’s piece in Reformed Theological Seminary latest mag. Remember 1Cor. 13, OK? Love Bob Morris

    Like

  63. OBM, have you read any 2k? No 2ker says that the 10 Comm’s don’t apply to believers. It’s whether the state has a duty related to any of the three uses of the law that’s the question. BTW, do you favor mixing the temporal and spiritual powers as in Constantinople (Christian and Muslim), or Rome (the Eternal City), or Puritan Boston?

    Like

  64. Darryl, I didn’t understand my recent point as you did. I, too, wonder what happened to Richard. Seems others have given up on OLTS too. But not Erik! Did other of your fans misunderstand Old Bob’s plea for Christians to Puh-LEEEEZE do something to reverse our sorry culture’s ethical plaunge to the hurt of all of us, even Darryl and wife? Tell me! You guys seem to have a lot of time on your hands, Are you pleasing God with it? How can I criticize very critical guys withour being, myself, too critical? Hypocrisy? Love, Bob Morris

    Like

  65. Darryl, what’s lame? Your comment contained two jabs: (a) I am Doug and (b) I was wrong to claim I ruffled everyone’s feathers. I could have denied (a) but that would have been lame, and boring. Instead, I showed that your (b)-jab was false. That was more interesting since it actually illumined some logical errors you had to make in order to get (b) off the ground. Instead of thanking me, you take another jab? Talk about lame.

    Like

  66. OB (wan kenobi) Morris – numerous times you have made remarks in your posts about “walls;” knocking down walls, people building walls “high as the moon,” etc.

    Please elaborate: Who are those building these high walls of separation, as you see it? The 2K-types who you’re saying are too distinct in their demarcation between the KoG and the KoM? Or is it those who pretend to flee from the world by constructing all kinds of taboos to separate themselves from the general morass?

    Like

  68. Darryl, if you haven’t got it by now, you’ll never get it. But my offer still stands: next time you’re in GR, stop by for a course in logic. Who knows, you may be able to finally get one over on Bryan Cross (zing).

    Like

  69. Nah, I doubt the logic course will help out with Bryan. His stark rationalism led him to noumenal notions about Rome as it is. There’s a lesson in there for those who have ears to hear.

    Like

  70. Old Bob,

    I get nervous when a guy with the initials “B.M.” starts talking about “plaunge” (ing).

    Let’s keep this site clean for the sake of the children.

    Like

  71. Paul,

    You’re starting to threaten Tom Van Dyke’s record for number of posts made without making any kind of point. Another 17 and you’ll have it.

    Like

  74. Erik,

    You’re still behind. I’ve been posting here, off and on, for years. I own that record. And it’d take a helluva lot more than 17 more posts to break it. Now what?

    Like

  75. Darryl,

    Three logicians walk into a bar. The bartender asks, “Does everyone want beer.” First guy says, “I don’t know.” Second guy says, “I don’t know.” Third guy says, “Yes!”

    Not only can logic be funny, it has great practical use in the world. Note this little known story about a meeting between Mike Tyson and A.J. Ayer, former Wykeham professor of logic at Oxford.

    http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/12/24/reviews/001224.24spurlit.html

    Has a historian ever done anything as cool?

    Like

  76. Hi Guys, Don’t think I am now sinking back down into the OLT mire. I quit. Again. At least for the usual 4,5, weeks 🙂 Darrel, Whoops! Darryl says (I miss Darrel!) that “No 2ker says that the 10 comms don’t apply to believers.” Who would say THAT!? Another DGS booboo? Oh my, I forget to be loving when I mess with OLT! More… Curious George asks OB, “Who are those building these high walls of separation…?” Reply: There are commendable Wallbuilders— (visit on-line) the organization founded by our often helpful Christian Brother, David Barton. But the often UNhelpful ones are: The ACLU, OLTS (frequently), many OPC preachers, New Horizons, (I think of Feb? 2012 issue with the very puzzled boy on cover, USA flag in one hand Bible in other, and 3 out of 4 articles inside, DGH wrote #2), (Should I be a good citizen OR a Christian? How about BOTH/AND?, continuing…main line media, academia (most), public “educators”. Now, Erik is nervous about my sad initials B.M. and begs me to “keep it clean” for the sake of the children. Funny, Erik! Whose children? Need I repeat my Darryl-condemned mini bio? Must go to more heavenly duties. Love Bob Morris (BM) 🙂

    Like

  77. Paul,

    That’s a bad record to have.

    You have piqued my interest with that Ayer article, though, so you may not be beyond redemption.

    See if you can reach Old Bob for us.

    Like

  79. Paul, no, this: An infinite number of philosophers walk into a bar. The first one orders a beer. The second one orders half a beer. The third orders a quarter-beer. The fourth orders one-eighth of a beer. The bartender, having majored in Philosophy (that’s why he’s tending bar), shakes his head, mutters something about philosophers being a bunch of idiots and puts two beers on the counter.

    Molehills, mountains. Still waiting to hear what you sincerely appreciate. Or was that a way to take the edge off your aggressive MO?

    Like

  80. Erik,

    That’s a perfect record to have for OL. After all, when Darryl told me his goal was to only make unsubstantive comments, I said to myself, “Self, you can beat this bow-tie-wearing, cat-loving, Breaking-Bad-hating, cigar-puffing, Wendell-Berry-reading, little darling (Old French origin of “Darryl”) at anything.” And so I did.

    That aside, I’ve figured you out.You are either Richard, or Doug, or Old Bob, a neo-Cal through-and-through. How do I know? First, your talk about “duties”, and then your talk about “redeeming” me, is a dead giveaway.

    Like

  81. Zrim, I don’t have an aggressive MO. That’s your meme. And you’ve been having one helluva time trying to make it stick. By the way, didn’t you major in poetry or literature or something along those lines?

    Like

  82. Old BM – So now OL(T) is lumped together with the likes of the ACLU, “many OPC preachers,” and a February, 2012 issue of New Horizons mag, the article written by DGH. Well, at least I hope the latter sticks, but how do you reconcile the ACLU into the midst of all of this? Instead of that confusion, how about BOTH, period, for the flag/christian instead of your other options? Would you rather, down there in your Alexian hovel, have the gov’t swoop down and decide that you, you, you, and you are unsuitable for further gov’t sustenance (and cower) or the wise counsel of the Reformed who tell you that it matters not, do as you wish? What can you lose? The ACLU would tell you NO, rise up against and resist the oppressors! Do you agree with that?

    Like

  83. Erik, I am happy you have a sense of humor. I banter the same way with Zrim and he tells me to take my meds and that I have an anger problem. I’m happy to learn that not all 2Kers are stiff, uptight, overly sensitive chaps. I was beginning to think there was something in the 2K water, but you’ve shown me that 2K may not be beyond redemption.

    Like

  85. Darryl it’s funny when the Germans face off against the Germans. Archimedes is always a wildcard

    Like

  88. Better version:

    Who hasn’t found themselves tagging along with a crazed friend who, unbeknownst to you, has planned to rob an equally crazed drug dealer. I’ve warned you about the language. The scene is loosely based on John Holmes and the Wonderland murders.

    This is a movie with some profound theological insights, if you can stand it.

    Like

  90. The Germans’ had such high hopes for Marx.

    Reminded me of 10th grade baseball. My buddy was a benchwarmer. Occasionally the coach would send him in to pinch run. “Get your legs loose”, the coach would say. My buddy would warm up sarcastically like Marx was warming up.

    Like

  91. Erik, that scene is indeed great (!), but I cannot affirm that it is “the best scene ever.”

    Like

  94. Erik, It’s that and all the love and good cheer that’s been engendered since Bill Bixby’s alter showed

    Like

  95. I’m still spooked about losing Richard. I have a falling out with a revivalist at church and a few weeks later Richard disappears. I’m wondering if “Richard” has been in my midst all along. The only trick to it is I don’t think the guy at my church is a Baptist. That would be unbelievable.

    One odd thing: I once challenged Richard to listen to my pastor’s sermons and he takes me up on it and says that he listened to “10 or so”. Who would do that? He also seemed to know more about where I was from than I think I had revealed (even what church I grew up in).

    Now we gain Paul back as well. Strange things are happening at Old Life.

    Like

  96. Sean,

    Counselor, come out, come out, wherever you are.

    P.S. Don’t send any of your thugs after me, you know what I’ll do to them.

    Like

  97. There’s my boy. Come on down to south texas I’ll get the crust outcha eyes, stick a lollipop in your mouth and make you my new butt buddy.

    Like

  98. Far be it from me to say what I’m about to say, but there’s been an excess of infighting recently. Let’s clean it up, whadda ya say?

    As part of the clean up, just go away, Paul, unless you get a radical re-orientation. In your current mode you are a parody of men who know logic but can’t relate to actual human beings. You can’t seriously think your haughty approach and symbolic logic is ever going to win anyone over. I’m sympathetic to you – the heart is deceitful above all things – but how about talking in the human mode to other human beings?

    But at least John Lofton (is he a buddy of yours, Doug?) isn’t trying to get into conversations here like he is over at Christian in America.

    Like

  101. MikelMann,

    LOL. Putting on my cynical hat, I’d say you were contacted by Zrim or Hart and told to try to rile me up so I can show this “aggressive” side Zrim keeps talking about. That’d be the charitable interpretation. Charitable because the interpretation that you’re being serious and actually making a comment that you take to accord with the facts of the thread would be to require me to view you as perhaps one of the most obtuse human beings who has ever surfed the net.

    Of course, the “logic” I used (in one post) was intended to be snarky and makes sense given a history between Hart and I. As far as being haughty, you sound like a parody of those uncool dads who break up the rough housing teenagers. You’re a parody of those stick-up-the-butt, bespectacled teachers who hand out detentions to the group of boys in the back of the class. Everyone here was commenting on the same level. Joshing and taking jabs. Having fun.

    Regarding “winning people over ” . . . are you really dumb or playing dumb? As I stated twice now, I haven’t been trying to make a substantive comment. I haven’t been trying to make a “case” for anything. I haven’t put forth a position that I’d like people to agree with. I came here to goof off, to act snarky, because that’s what Old Life is here for. When you have people who mock logic and who tell you, as Zrim has told me, “I don’t care if my argument is logically fallacious. The conclusion is true! Using logic to defeat it is to embrace worldly wisdom, which is really foolishness in God’s eyes,” then you simply don’t try to make rational points, unless you’re means-end irrational.

    Clearly, there’s a marked difference between my posting here, and my posting when I’m being serious and trying to make a substantive point. This can easily be demonstrated by reading the stuff on my blog, though I have my doubts you will read it—part of the reason being that you lack the mental equipment to do so.

    http://shadflyfathens.wordpress.com/

    How’d you like that tall glass of milk?

    Like

  102. Paul,

    What do you do for a living?

    When Sean asked you to be his “**** buddy” he was suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome as a result of Doug persecuting him over drinking too many Long Island Ice Teas down at the bowling alley with his wife and his two gay neighbors. Pay him no heed.

    Like

  103. I didn’t mind Sean asking me to be his “**** buddy”. It was understandable. Have you seen me? I mean, in 8th grade I won “nicest legs.” I did find it funny that Mikel Mann told me to leave and complained about my behavior here without saying a word about Sean’s “**** buddy” comment, which is part of the reason I can’t believe he’s serious. But it could be that he thought Sean was serious, and thought that was perfectly okay. After all, he is 2Gay, er, I mean, 2Kay.

    Like

  104. Paul –
    That you found me worthy of so many words – all of them with your characteristic charm – brings a tear to my eye. I’m too easily flattered, but perhaps I can be forgiven in the circumstances.

    Like

  105. Paul, you have a remarkable ability to index so many things I’ve said that earn your scorn (though your paraphrasing is awful). Whither those things that have earned your sincere appreciation? Still waiting.

    ps never put M&M up to anything. His will is free.

    Like

  107. A question: Help, guys—esp.Darryl. Background___ In my April Hillsdale College (Darryl’s employer) IMPRIMIS (“Pursuing Truth & Defending Liberty since1844”), There was a tribute to Ed Feulner by HC president, Larry P. Arnn. A loving attaboy to Feulner for founding the great Heritage Foundation in 1973 and heading it ever since. Now retiring and being replaced by the great Senator, Jim DeMint, who very recently resignd (R-SC). Finally, my question: How do you guys guess such men would comment on most posts and comments (allergy to all political involvement by true Christians) @ OLT? I am wondering too how they would do at a guys’ stoggie and booze meeting with, say, Darryl, Erik and Sean! Love, Old Bob

    Like

  108. Mikelmann: I found your signaling me out for my mild and often humorous behavior, while saying nothing about “Sean” and his “butt buddy” comment, to be very flattering. Since you viewed me so worthy, I returned the favor.

    Zrim: Really? That was a verbatim quote. You made an argument. I showed how it was fallacious according to the rules of logic. You said, “I don’t care, my conclusion is true.” In any case, you’ve (slowly) been coming around, softening your earlier rhetoric (due to 2K cage stage, no doubt), and I humbly take some of the credit.

    Darryl: If you could understand the stuff I linked to, I might be worried about your assessment. And remember, you’re the guy who (seriously) thought 2 + 2 equaled a numerically different sum depending on what base you added in. LOL

    Like

  109. Old Bob – I am wondering too how they would do at a guys’ stoggie and booze meeting with, say, Darryl, Erik and Sean!

    Erik – Since Joseph Coors was one of the founders of Heritage I assume they would do well.

    Did you know that political conservatism and Christianity are not necessarily one and the same? Have you ever heard of Ayn Rand?

    Like

  110. Paul, whatevs. Yours is a fundamentalist logic–anyone who still disagrees after your hermetically sealed logical arguments is either dim, lazy, illogical, or all of the above. You’ve no toggle between logical and illogical. You’re the Bryan Cross of Reformed Protestantism. I don’t which is worse, leaving others in the condescending peace of Christ or the angry angst of logic.

    Like

  111. Paul’s babblings about logic remind me of something that Darryl wrote on 11/2 that seemed particularly insightful.

    For these reasons (and because of the Fall), we operate in a world where rationality is bounded. Contrary to what epistemological idealists tell us, our situation cannot be cured by special revelation (fundamentalists/theonomists), or by Christian worldviews (neo-Calvinists), or by the warming of the heart (revivalists), or by the magisterium (Roman Catholics). Therefore, logic is only as valuable as the outward limits of our bounded rationality. There remains much about our daily lives, such as whether we sit in chairs or squat on the floor, that is less the product of rational choosing and logical analysis than of the accidents of history. In my view, the “old life” perspective accounts for this haphazardness in a way that is beyond the reach of fundamentalists/theonomists (Doug), neo-Calvinists (Paul), revivalists (Richard), and Roman Catholics (C2C folks).

    Like

  112. Previous comment retyped below. Blockquote feature screwed up.

    Paul’s babblings about logic remind me of something that Darryl wrote on 11/2 that seemed particularly insightful.

    “What neo-Calvinists could learn from books like Home is that culture is never as self-conscious or intentional as the ideas-have-consequences model alleges. Like history, culture is accidental, and it comes to us without a rule book or manual. We inherit the choices (ironic and unwitting) of previous generations and accept them as part of the cultural norm. And when those norms prove unacceptable, we change them but often the changes are as much functional as based on ideals.”

    For these reasons (and because of the Fall), we operate in a world where rationality is bounded. Contrary to what epistemological idealists tell us, our situation cannot be cured by special revelation (fundamentalists/theonomists), or by Christian worldviews (neo-Calvinists), or by the warming of the heart (revivalists), or by the magisterium (Roman Catholics). Therefore, logic is only as valuable as the outward limits of our bounded rationality. There remains much about our daily lives, such as whether we sit in chairs or squat on the floor, that is less the product of rational choosing and logical analysis than of the accidents of history. In my view, the “old life” perspective accounts for this haphazardness in a way that is beyond the reach of fundamentalists/theonomists (Doug), neo-Calvinists (Paul), revivalists (Richard), and Roman Catholics (C2C folks).

    Like

  113. Thanks for your lonesome response, young man Erik! Seems like others may not know the folks I mentioned and/or about the nicotine bunch. I do wonder about Bobby and his “History and culture are accidental…” comment! Is he 2K or Neo-Calvinist or, maybe, an Ayn Rand fan? 🙂 Yes, I know about her and read her “Atlas Shrugged” when I was about your age or younger. Bad lady! Why do you ask? I guess I made it clear that I highly respect Heritage and Hillsdale. I didn’t say I liked ALL of their supporters. Being 95% teetotaler, I don’t honor the likes of the Colorado beer makers, Coors. Think I’m inconsistant? Also do you REALLY think I think that Political Conservatism and Christianity are “one and the same”? I see a BIG difference between Ayn Rand, Rand Paul (think he was named after her?) on one hand, and you OLTS folks, Calvin, Edwards, Charles Colson on the other? C’mon young fellow, you are better than your response above! Are you trying to encourage me to put Darryl and fans back on the back burner of my available time? Love, Bob. (no relation to Bobby) P.S. I bet I won’t hear something from Darryl showing he thought about my question!

    Like

  115. I DID, EriK, Ask Larry Arnn. Maybe after you comment on what I wrote on this post, I may have a word or 2. Love Bob

    Like

  116. Erik – Expound on the differences between political conservatism and Christianity for us.

    Old Bob – I DID, EriK

    Erik – Where? How are they different? All you did was throw out some names. You talk a lot more about conservatism than you do about Christianity, why? You talk about Hillsdale, Larry Arnn, and Imprimis, but Hillsdale is “an independent, coeducational, residential, liberal arts college”. What do they have to do with Christianity and the gospel?

    Just what exactly is your agenda here?

    Like

  117. Like many here, Old Bob, you mostly just grouse about Hart & the Old Life regulars, never bothering to spell out what you are about. Why should we pay attention to you?

    Like

  118. Erik,

    When Colson is listed along with Calvin, I think you have your answer. Colson’s “theology” was about as Christian as a Thomas Kinkade painting.

    Like

  119. Bobby,

    Whenever we try to take on people here who lead with their conservatism (Old Bob, Tom Van Dyke) they tend to lose bladder control and flip out once the debate shifts to nuts-and-bolts theological issues. The ironic thing is that I am a political conservative and probably agree with them on politics. I don’t lead with my conservatism, however, I lead with my Christianity. Some on the “religious right” just can’t handle that. It blows their mind.

    Like

  120. Erik, the problem is also application of one’s theological and political views.

    So what are going to do during this upcoming workweek: well…. obey the speed limits, do my job to the best of my ability, tend to my family, read Scripture, and pray for strength to take on whatever else arises.

    Like

  121. Bobby, that indeed is insightful. But when gadfly Paul brings old-lifery in for philosophical animus, St. Paul usually comes to mind:

    For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

    Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

    If Paul is still around, this will be the part where old-lifers are dinged for being anti-intellectual.

    Like

  122. “If Paul is still around, this will be the part where old-lifers are dinged for being anti-intellectual.” -Zrim

    Right, because neo-Cals, such as Colson and the folks at World Magazine, were/are such intellectual heavyweights.

    Like

  123. Bobby, well, they did give us Evangelicals and Catholics Together, which is weird since evangelicals and Catholics regularly mistake the Reformed for being a latent form of the other (Richard Smith and Bryan Cross respectively).

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.