Peter Lawler has responded to Patrick Deneen about the divide among U.S. Roman Catholics on whether or not to get right with America. Part of Lawler’s response is to invoke Augustine on the homelessness that all people feel this side of the eschaton (or is it merely the impermanence of creaturely existence?):
All political arrangements, devised as they are by sinners, have within them the seeds of their own destruction. It’s the City of God, not the City of Man, that’s sustainable over the infinitely long term. Still, Christians have the duty not to be too alienated from their country, and to do what they can to be of service to their fellow citizens by loyally encouraging what’s good and could be better in the political place where they live. America, we southerners know especially well, is the easiest place in the world to be both at home and homeless, to enjoy the good things of the world without forgetting that our true home is somewhere else.
When Lawler does this, he implicitly invokes the Augustinian- vs. Whig-Thomist debate previously mentioned here. Ironically, it is Lawler the Whig, who identifies more with Augustine than the Augustinian-Thomists who seem to be motivated more an older view of politics than an Augustinian one.
Through most of these debates I fail to detect a recognition of an even older division in political thought, namely one between pagan and Christian theories. Here is how R. A. Markus describes that difference in his book on Augustine:
For the polis-centered tradition of Greek thought the political framework of human life was the chief means of achieving human perfection. Life in a city-state was an education for virtue, a fully human life, the good life. Politics was a creative task. It consisted in bringing into being the kind of ordering of society which was most conducive to the realisation of ultimate human purposes. In this sense, Plato, Aristotle, the Sophists and the rest all upheld fundamentally the same conception of political activity. . . .
In Judaeo-Christian tradition the key-note of political thinking was different. The people of God, whether of the old or the new Covenants, could not think of themselves as citizens involved in creating the right order in society, nor of their leaders as entrusted with bringing such an order into being. Only God’s saving act could establish the one right social order. In relation to that kingdom they were subjects, not agents; in relation to all other human kingdoms, they were aliens rather than citizens. . . . Their whole tradition was dominated by the need to adjust themselves to a society radically alienated from the one ultimately acceptable form of social existence. In such a society they could never feel themselves fully at home. (Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St Augustine, 73-74)
Since Thomism is what seems to bind both sides of the Roman Catholic debate about the U.S., and since Thomas Aquinas was responsible for injecting a major dose of Aristotle into western Christianity, could it be that Thomism is responsible for the preoccupation of contemporary Roman Catholics about society and politics instead of ecclesiology and sacraments (what accounts for the transformers, neo-Calvinists, and theonomists is likely nostalgia for Christian nationalism — Dutch, Scottish, or U.S.). In fact, I wonder if anyone who is serious about Augustine and his views on the church as a pilgrim people can ever talk about “human flourishing” with a straight Christian face. If Markus is correct, human flourishing is what the pagans wanted through the polis. For Christians, human flourishing doesn’t happen this side of the new heavens and new earth.
Old Life 
No one should ever use the asinine and obscenely overused term “human flourishing” again, regardless of their face.
LikeLike
Sorry, that was rude.
LikeLike
Louis, your 3:58 comment was very ill considered.
LikeLike
“Human Flourishing” seems apropos in the context of a megachurch with its own Starbucks quality coffee bar. Not so much in a URC/OPC with a pot of Folgers and members having a smoke between service and Sunday School in the parking lot. That’s our heritage — human muddling through, not flourishing. Vale of Tears/Troubled life and all that.
Living in the City making 200k on two incomes makes flourishing seem a little more attainable than it is for the common man in the sticks.
LikeLike
Louis,
The single name with no link means never having to say you’re sorry. Me, I get stalkers.
LikeLike
I’m holding out for earnest human flourishing.
LikeLike
Since Thomism is what seems to bind both sides of the Roman Catholic debate about the U.S., and since Thomas Aquinas was responsible for injecting a major dose of Aristotle into western Christianity, could it be that Thomism is responsible for the preoccupation of contemporary Roman Catholics about society and politics instead of ecclesiology and sacraments
I don’t think so. I think it’s that secular modernity has abolished not just religion or the scriptures as an objective guide to morality, but also any notion of God or metaphysics that argues against relativism and materialism. To the modern secularists, everything is politics and politics is everything.
Thomism at least offers a philosophical rigor beyond “because the Bible tells me so,” which is useless as a sword and, with the continuing erosion of religious freedom
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/371454/homosexual-jim-crow-laws-get-real-ryan-t-anderson
isn’t even a decent shield.*
For you may be uninterested in politics, but politics is very interested in you: There are not two kingdoms, there is only one.
_____________
*
LikeLike
TV D (sorry about the reference to television),
Here is what the Sisters of the Poor object to signing:
____
I certify that, on account of religious objections, the organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services that would otherwise be required to be covered; the organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity; and the organization holds itself out as a religious organization.
Note: An organization that offers coverage through the same group health plan as a religious employer (as defined in 45 CFR 147.131(a)) and/or an eligible organization (as defined in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(a); 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A(a); 45 CFR 147.131(b)), and that is part of the same controlled group of corporations as, or under common control with, such employer and/or organization (within the meaning of section 52(a) or (b) of the Internal Revenue Code), may certify that it holds itself out as a religious organization.
I declare that I have made this certification, and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true and correct. I also declare that this certification is complete.
Click to access EBSA-Form-700.pdf
_________________
Is this the kind of invasion of religious rights that you find ominous?
LikeLike
Erik, lol!
LikeLike
Tom – Thomism at least offers a philosophical rigor beyond “because the Bible tells me so,” which is useless as a sword and, with the continuing erosion of religious freedom
Erik – I will say that a person who says no more than “because the Bible tells me so” and lives a clean life, trusting in Christ and being kind to others, can be a powerful witness. No one says you have to be a scholar to have an impact on others. Most people, in fact, are not intellectuals and in fact ignore intellectuals. The debates we have here appeal to about 5% of the population.
LikeLike
Erik, in fairness, the objection is what happens when the form is signed. As you see on page 2 the carrier/ third part administrator gets a copy, and that triggers “(2) The obligations of the third party administrator are set forth in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2510.3-16, and 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A.” Those obligations are to provide, at no cost to the objecting organization, contraceptive services to the employee.
Now, this is only the third time I have posted a out this here, which believe it or not is not particularly frustrating because it boils down to a question governed by the Employee Retirrment Income Security Act of 1974, also known as ERISA, and the second lowest grade I ever got when I was in school for my LLM in tax law was in the ERISA course. So, hold on and pour a drink to mitigate the pain.
The Little Sisters of the Poor do not operate their own health plan. They contract with what is called a Third Party Administrator. Third Party Administrators are subject to ERISA except when they aren’t. Yes, I know, only Congress could write such a law, but they did, and this part has not changed for 40 years. The Little Sisters contract with a Third Party Adminstator that just happens to be what is cled a Church Plan, and they are totally exempt from ERISA. Under the Afforable Care Act, if you are exempt from ERISA, you are exempt from any of the provisions of the ACA
The Little Sisters Third Party Administraor does not offer contraceptive services, and has said that it won’t offer them in the future. If the Little Sisters contracted with a non-church plan such as Blue Cross, then the signed form would trigger an obligation on the part of Blue Cross to provide contraceptive services. But that is not this case, which is why it will go away in the lower courts when there is actual fact finding.
I can’t make it much clearer.
LikeLike
Dan,
I think you meant to direct that to Mikkelmann.
I still needed a double to get through it.
LikeLike
Erik, oops.
LikeLike
Dan, it’s a little curious that you answer a question not intended for you then complain that you answered it. You say “it will go away in the lower courts when there is actual fact finding” but it appears to be headed for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Are you saying they will be doing fact finding there?
But that never was the point. Do you think the requirement to sign the form would be an ominous invasion of religious rights? This is not the same question as “is Obamacare a monstrosity?” or “who is technically correct under ERISA law?”
We don’t like to see anyone’s conscience wounded even if we disagree on the point of their religious objection – in this case an objection to the use of any contraceptives. But the Sisters aren’t supplying contraceptives. Neither are they supplying a health plan that allows employees to choose contraceptives. They are objecting to a form that will be used as evidence that contraceptive purchasers need to go elsewhere. The issue is whether this requirement, should it be enforceable, is an ominous deprivation of religious liberty. How distant must causation be?
LikeLike
<i.mikelmann
Posted February 19, 2014 at 7:22 pm | Permalink
TV D (sorry about the reference to television),
Here is what the Sisters of the Poor object to signing:
____
I certify that, on account of religious objections, the organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services that would otherwise be required to be covered; the organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity; and the organization holds itself out as a religious organization.
Note: An organization that offers coverage through the same group health plan as a religious employer (as defined in 45 CFR 147.131(a)) and/or an eligible organization (as defined in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(a); 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A(a); 45 CFR 147.131(b)), and that is part of the same controlled group of corporations as, or under common control with, such employer and/or organization (within the meaning of section 52(a) or (b) of the Internal Revenue Code), may certify that it holds itself out as a religious organization.
I declare that I have made this certification, and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true and correct. I also declare that this certification is complete.
Click to access EBSA-Form-700.pdf
_________________
Is this the kind of invasion of religious rights that you find ominous?</i.
Mike, thx for your principled reply. I have found 1st amendment/14th Amendment litigation so incoherent and unprincipled [on the liberal end] that I'm just going to wait for the Supreme Court decision before I spend the time to get up into the eyebrows on it.
As a matter of public policy, I don't think the Obama government should be shoving this down their throats. There were much easier and less aggressive ways to get free contraception to American women than this.
I'm a pluralist, not a theocrat.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 19, 2014 at 8:32 pm | Permalink
Tom – Thomism at least offers a philosophical rigor beyond “because the Bible tells me so,” which is useless as a sword and, with the continuing erosion of religious freedom
Erik – I will say that a person who says no more than “because the Bible tells me so” and lives a clean life, trusting in Christ and being kind to others, can be a powerful witness. No one says you have to be a scholar to have an impact on others. Most people, in fact, are not intellectuals and in fact ignore intellectuals. The debates we have here appeal to about 5% of the population.
I’d agree with you, Erik, if moral decisions regarding the ordering of our communities and our society were left to the conscience of the people, not forced on us by judges, or if the will of the people via duly enacted laws [DOMA and California’s Proposition 8] weren’t frustrated by both the Barack Obama and Jerry Brown Administrations’ cynical refusal to defend them in appellate court.
And these people aren’t going to stop. Already California is implementing a “transgender” law where kids can choose which gender’s bathroom to use at schools.
Now I realize there’s a fatalism–or faith–a sangfroid in Calvinism’s predestination thing, and of course in 2k–that this will all blow over in a million years. But if you want to witness
“But from the beginning, God made them male and female.”
you’ve got to speak up. BTW, there’s no scientific evidence for “transgenderism.”* Of LGBT, even if we stipulate the G and the T, we don’t have to give away the entire farm. ;-O
________________________
*http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/02/surgical-sex
LikeLike
TVD, you mean the SCOTUS if/when it comes back? Because this was their initial handling of the case:
Click to access Litttle-Sisters-order-1-24-13.pdf
TVD: “As a matter of public policy, I don’t think the Obama government should be shoving this down their throats. There were much easier and less aggressive ways to get free contraception to American women than this.”
I would say that about Obamacare in general. What I’m trying to work out is how much people of faith can reasonably demand to be separated from sin. The Pharisees had their ways of avoiding sin that were sometimes physical, like separation from Gentiles. Jesus didn’t do it like that.
In response to the business that did not want to sell a wedding cake to gays, the Kansas House introduced legislation that stated, in part:
______
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender: (a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement;
_______
Was that a Christian bill or a Pharisaic bill?
LikeLike
MM, sorry, but I intruded because I had pointed out to TVD in at least 2 other threads that this case will be a nothing burger. The litigation was referred back to the 10th Circuit. Since all that it had before it were motions, I suspect that until the United States raised the point in its brief to the Supreme Court, the 10th Circuit may not have been made aware that filling out the form and sending it to the third party administrator would have resulted in– nothing. Since the Supreme Court has removed the emergency aspect of the case, I suspect that the 10th Circuit will send the case back to the District Court for further fact finding, and this case will ultimately disappear.
But the potential controversy will remain, and the Beckett fund will find a plaintiff that objects to filling out the form when it will result in employees of such organizations receiving contraceptive services. I suspect that the Supreme Court has ready tipped its hand in how it will resolve those cases though. In granting the Sisters relief. they did require them to provide a statement claiming to be exempt and send it to HHS. That seems to be minimally intrusive and I can’t imagine any Court saying that the government can’t require you to notify it of an exemption you are claiming. There doesn’t really seem to be a difficult 1st amendment issue here at all, unlike, say, the Hobby Lobby case.
I had no intention of getting sideways with you.
LikeLike
MM,
Christian/Pharisaic is a false dichotomy there.
It could be construed as a libertarian bill.
LikeLike
Tom,
I don’t think we necessarily disagree that some of these issues you are raising are of concern. For me, the issue becomes to what degree I need to fight the left using the same weapons they use. Most of these people are dreadfully lost and have no hope — in this life or the next. Best case they’re dead in a few years and rotting in the ground. Worse case they’re dead and suffering toment in hell. If you ever wonder why the secular West seems to have a death wish, it’s because they do. Secularism is dismal and sex is their god because it’s ultimately the only fleeting pleasure they enjoy. It also explains why NPR is so depressing — because the people behind it are profoundly depressed.
What you need to consider is that theists – especially Christian theists — have hope beyond this life which is why they may hold onto this life loosely. We vote, we pray, we try to do the right thing, sometimes we fight, but we don’t fight in the same way the hopeless do. If they win, their hopelessness is only increased. If we win, we realize another fight awaits because sin and sinners do not stop. This world is passing away, but Christ’s coming kingdom is forever.
LikeLike
“I had no intention of getting sideways with you.”
No problem. I realize you were trying to get sideways with Erik and that’s perfectly understandable.
LikeLike
Tom,
And the man of the right without Christ is in no better of a boat. The only difference is he’s medicating himself with material goods throughout his life. Like the man in Scripture who stored away treasure in barns only to die unexpectedly, the man of the right without Christ will be sorely disappointed as well.
LikeLike
Great, now I’ll get stalkers for other people’ posts…
“Erik, you are filth, you are scum, you are a degenerate for what Mikkelman wrote!”
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted February 19, 2014 at 10:04 pm | Permalink
TVD, you mean the SCOTUS if/when it comes back? Because this was their initial handling of the case:
[link]
TVD: “As a matter of public policy, I don’t think the Obama government should be shoving this down their throats. There were much easier and less aggressive ways to get free contraception to American women than this.”
I would say that about Obamacare in general. What I’m trying to work out is how much people of faith can reasonably demand to be separated from sin. The Pharisees had their ways of avoiding sin that were sometimes physical, like separation from Gentiles. Jesus didn’t do it like that.
In response to the business that did not want to sell a wedding cake to gays, the Kansas House introduced legislation that stated, in part:
______
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender: (a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement;
_______
Was that a Christian bill or a Pharisaic bill?
Exc question, Mike. “Cooperation with evil.”
I think the L’il Sisters of the Poor will win because they’re an explicitly religious org, and Hobby Lobby will lose because they’re just a family business [albeit a solely owned private company, IOW no outside stockholders].
My sphere of religious freedom would include Hobby Lobby, but I won’t be terribly upset when they lose.
I think Darryl is underrating “Thomism” here because it does offer us a moral framework
http://www.hprweb.com/2012/09/avoiding-cooperation-with-evil-keeping-your-nose-clean-in-a-dirty-world/
and a vocabulary to talk to our own consciences with! The Bible can’t give us every specific answer to stuff that they couldn’t have even imagined. But God did give us reason, and according to Romans 2, even the gentiles had some sense of right and wrong.
As for the Kansas bill, I like it. I credit Calvinism. 😉
BTW, do you Machenites do Wisconsin v. Yoder? Spot on re public education.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 19, 2014 at 10:39 pm | Permalink
Tom,
And the man of the right without Christ is in no better of a boat. The only difference is he’s medicating himself with material goods throughout his life. Like the man in Scripture who stored away treasure in barns only to die unexpectedly, the man of the right without Christ will be sorely disappointed as well.
Oh, well. Acc to your theology, I’m either elected or SOL* anyway, so who cares? See you in heaven. Or not.
In the meantime, thx for treating me decently. Or not. [You know who you are.]
___________
*spit out of luck
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 19, 2014 at 10:29 pm | Permalink
Tom,
I don’t think we necessarily disagree that some of these issues you are raising are of concern. For me, the issue becomes to what degree I need to fight the left using the same weapons they use. Most of these people are dreadfully lost and have no hope — in this life or the next. Best case they’re dead in a few years and rotting in the ground. Worse case they’re dead and suffering toment in hell. If you ever wonder why the secular West seems to have a death wish, it’s because they do. Secularism is dismal and sex is their god because it’s ultimately the only fleeting pleasure they enjoy. It also explains why NPR is so depressing — because the people behind it are profoundly depressed.
What you need to consider is that theists – especially Christian theists — have hope beyond this life which is why they may hold onto this life loosely. We vote, we pray, we try to do the right thing, sometimes we fight, but we don’t fight in the same way the hopeless do. If they win, their hopelessness is only increased. If we win, we realize another fight awaits because sin and sinners do not stop. This world is passing away, but Christ’s coming kingdom is forever.
You know, Erik, if there were no such thing as children, I’d be right there. In fact, few of these controversies would even exist if everyone were just grownups for 1000s of years and sexual pleasure were no different than a nice back rub.
And the natural law argument for sexual ethics is more that sexual immorality will make our children suffer—in this life, not the next. And in Calvinist theology their eternal future is predestined anyway. So sure, in the end none of this matters.
LikeLike
Tom, You know, Erik, if there were no such thing as children, I’d be right there.
Cutting into line… Tom, I hear you on this. I have 3 married daughters and 10 grandchildren. I am deeply troubled as to what may lie ahead for them. But since we can’t control how things will unfold where is the solid hope and refuge to be found? Certainly not in what this world promises. To best aid our children for the future they will face is to bring them up in the faith of Christ and not the hope of a better day here. We, they (as covenant children), and those pilgrims before us are all sojourners in this life “looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.”
LikeLike
You certainly do make one think, Darryl, with your writing.
Lates.
LikeLike
As Machen says, if my salvation in any way depends on me, any certainty I supposedly have, is toast.
It’s what’s most offensive about the Gospel. And also why it has power.
My reading of Scripture, anyway..
Toodles!
LikeLike
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
LikeLike
vd,t, so you’re saying that secularism is responsible for Roman Catholics not worrying about hell, purgatory, or heaven more than the U.S.?
LikeLike
“I think Darryl is underrating “Thomism” here because it does offer us a moral framework”
“Say what you will about National Socialism, at least it was an ethos.”
LikeLike
Jack: Tom, I hear you on this. I have 3 married daughters and 10 grandchildren. I am deeply troubled as to what may lie ahead for them.
Good thing we were designed to have inherent factors that let us reason away this kind of thinking at certain moments….
LikeLike
Tom – Oh, well. Acc to your theology, I’m either elected or SOL* anyway, so who cares? See you in heaven. Or not.
Erik – This is no way precludes the preaching the gospel. In fact, it makes preaching the gospel a pleasure and not a burden because the Calvinist knows they are not responsible for the hearer’s response. Pressure-free evangelism.
LikeLike
Tom – You know, Erik, if there were no such thing as children, I’d be right there. In fact, few of these controversies would even exist if everyone were just grownups for 1000s of years and sexual pleasure were no different than a nice back rub.
And the natural law argument for sexual ethics is more that sexual immorality will make our children suffer—in this life, not the next. And in Calvinist theology their eternal future is predestined anyway. So sure, in the end none of this matters.
Erik – This is why you teach your children Law & gospel and prepare them for how the world that they will be going into works. If your focus is on cleaning up that world vs. preparing them to live as aliens & strangers in it, you will be disappointed.
Sin is going to impact them regardless of the supposedly pristine environment in which they’re raised. Doug Phillips attempted to create a pristine, Christian environment for his bevy of kids, but then he turned out to be the problem in their lives. Sin isn’t just in the world, it’s in us.
Instead of pouting about Calvinism you should study Scripture and see if you find it biblical. Then you can complain to God, not us. Ever read Augustine vs. Pelagius?
LikeLike
With sin ever-present in the world until Christ returns it seems we have two broad choices:
(1) A world where the church and the government work hand-in-hand to enforce religious orthodoxy and correct behavior through the threat and use of coercion and force. When political power is available through holding church office and membership, however, history shows us that this leads to corruption of the church.
(2) A world where the church and the government are separate and where government may be based on preferences of those who are not Christians. The church, however, remains free to teach what it wishes and believers are free to live according to their consciences, even though this may entail government sanction in this life.
If we can only have one or the other, which is less damaging to our souls?
LikeLike
Another way to ask the question: Would I rather live in a country with gay marriage or a country where I am forced to participate in the idolatrous worship of the Mass? Which does me more harm 1,000 years from now?
LikeLike
Erik, i’d take the gay marriage and Mass place over a county that
1) has an Evangelical bent where the service is a lousy rock concert, comedy routine and powerpoint of the leader’s trip to the circus, with zero edifying theology content; and
2) where kooks take the Reformed Confessions and spend literally 12 hours a week trying to Jesus Juke everybody in bitter and angry ways…
LikeLike
Instead of #humanflourishing (for the hipsters) and (its sometime friend and fellow wax nose) social justice how about we talk of neighborliness, reasonableness, common sense, fairness, living quietly, working with our own hands (or keyboard), and not being dependent on others. Most of those are biblical concepts.
LikeLike
The Dalai Lama (when he’s not golfing and stiffing caddies):
a) loves the human flourishing concept
b) wears a visor like Steve Spurrier (who knew? — better than a baseball cap with a flat brim, I guess)
https://twitter.com/eliseamyx/status/436508151442325504/photo/1
LikeLike
Stelly might consider giving that visor/chrome dome look a try for the next reinvention.
LikeLike
Oh, and lastly for today..
Tom,since you liked my Calvin and Hobbes from before, maybe you will like this:
http://www.tateville.com/preshumor.html
LikeLike
No word on whether this guy goes around the internet staunchly defending every last word of the Westminster Larger Catechism:
http://literatecomments.com/2014/02/20/dude-really-wanted-his-candy/
The Twix bar, the forklift, and the fired Iowan
His jobless benefits are denied because he reportedly used a forklift to get his stuck snack.
Written by Clark Kauffman
It’s a familiar tableau: an overpriced vending-machine candy bar dangles on a spiral hook, tantalizingly out of reach and refusing to drop.
For most of us, that mini-drama usually ends in defeat. But not for Robert McKevitt of Spirit Lake, whose victory over an uncooperative vending machine ultimately cost him his job.
McKevitt was working the second shift at Polaris Industries’ warehouse in Milford when he decided to break for a snack last fall.
He says he deposited $1 in a vending machine, selected a 90-cent Twix bar, and then watched as the candy bar crept forward in its slot, began its descent and was abruptly snagged by a spiral hook that held it suspended in midair.
“I was, like, ‘Oh, man,’ ” said McKevitt, 27. “So I put in another dollar, and then it wouldn’t do anything.”
At first, McKevitt’s frustration took the customary route: He banged the side of the machine. He tried rocking it back and forth.
But when that didn’t work, McKevitt walked away and commandeered an 8,000-pound forklift, according to state unemployment compensation records.
He reportedly drove up to the vending machine, lifted it 2 feet off the concrete warehouse floor — then let it drop. He allegedly repeated the maneuver at least six times, by which time three candy bars had fallen into the chute for his retrieval.
When a supervisor confronted him, McKevitt allegedly explained he was simply trying to get the snack he had paid for.
He was fired five days later.
In a ruling that became public last month, a state administrative law judge denied his claim for unemployment benefits, saying McKevitt had demonstrated a willful disregard for his employer’s interests.
McKevitt, who served in Afghanistan with the Iowa National Guard in 2011, didn’t testify at his Dec. 16 unemployment-benefits hearing.
But he told The Des Moines Register he never lifted and dropped the vending machine.
He says after shaking the machine to retrieve the elusive Twix bar, he used his forklift to move it back in place against the wall.
“That machine was trouble,” he said. “They fired me, and now I hear they have all new vending machines there.”
LikeLike
AB, that P&R map has been a great resource for at least 6 years for me.
Always fun when the hypers get an eyeful of it and do their thing in protest over being called hypers…
LikeLike
I was told (and in no way put any weight into it) that the difference between Hoekema and Hoeksema is the letter “s” which also stands for satan.
LikeLike
“You like Sproul Jr. a whole lot better than his father”
Ouch.
LikeLike
Not to bend-the-blog (so to speak), but – Erik got any good recommendations for Netflix selections? I’m stuck in queue-less doldrums, not to mention protracted Winter cabin fever.
LikeLike
George, if you like a bit of misery how about both Wallanders — UK and Swedish. Idiot Abroad is good of you’re not faint of heart. (Sorry, Erik’s busy chatting up a secretary)
LikeLike
CW – thanks, but for some bizarre reason the last one I checked out was the 1972 movie version of Eugene O’Neill’s “Long Day’s Journey into Night,” and now I’m depressed enough. I’m thinking of either a mindless shoot-em-up/bang-bang or some mindless comedy.
LikeLike
George, Raising Arizona and The War of the Roses work for me.
Erik’s too traumatized to talk about movies right now.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 20, 2014 at 8:48 am | Permalink
Tom – You know, Erik, if there were no such thing as children, I’d be right there. In fact, few of these controversies would even exist if everyone were just grownups for 1000s of years and sexual pleasure were no different than a nice back rub.
And the natural law argument for sexual ethics is more that sexual immorality will make our children suffer—in this life, not the next. And in Calvinist theology their eternal future is predestined anyway. So sure, in the end none of this matters.
Erik – This is why you teach your children Law & gospel and prepare them for how the world that they will be going into works. If your focus is on cleaning up that world vs. preparing them to live as aliens & strangers in it, you will be disappointed.
The problem is what the government teaches your children. The problem is when the government forces you to bake gay wedding cakes. You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.
And I agree there’s only so much we can or should do to “clean up” this fallen world. But that doesn’t mean nothing. One cannot give “witness” from under a bushel basket.
LikeLike
George,
What genre?
Streaming or disc?
I need to be careful how I answer this so it doesn’t take up the next week of my life.
LikeLike
Tom,
Who’s in hiding?
You need to be more specific about what I have to do that I’m not doing. Write letters? Do I have to buy stamps?
LikeLike
George, try Idiot Abroad. Doesn’t get much more comedic and mindless-genius than that.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 20, 2014 at 5:50 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Who’s in hiding?
You need to be more specific about what I have to do that I’m not doing. Write letters? Do I have to buy stamps?
Nothing personal.
LikeLike
MM – I’ve had a VHS of “Raising Arizona” for years, but thanks. The Roses one looks intriguing – I’ll have to consider it.
BTW, ain’t the biker guy from Iowa? Check this out for entertainment – insanity at it’s best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxwVXp0uEIg
LikeLike
CW – An Idiot Abroad would appeal to me, but the misses doesn’t like British comedy. Keep ’em coming.
LikeLike
Erik – disk, unfortunately. And either drama or suspense and/or comedy, even (groan) “romantic” comedy, if it comes to that.
LikeLike
Jack Miller
Posted February 20, 2014 at 12:08 am | Permalink
Tom, You know, Erik, if there were no such thing as children, I’d be right there.
Cutting into line… Tom, I hear you on this. I have 3 married daughters and 10 grandchildren. I am deeply troubled as to what may lie ahead for them. But since we can’t control how things will unfold where is the solid hope and refuge to be found? Certainly not in what this world promises. To best aid our children for the future they will face is to bring them up in the faith of Christ and not the hope of a better day here. We, they (as covenant children), and those pilgrims before us are all sojourners in this life “looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.”
There’s a looming fatalism to this discussion that I don’t find particularly biblical. And I think there’s a lot of pain in the sexual confusion stuff that regardless of whether our kids are “saved,” they don’t need to suffer. And even according to your own theology, I think there’s a line the government can cross that goes beyond its half of the Two Kingdoms.
Unless we just get stoic about living in a moral cesspool. But I don’t believe our actions against the slime are all futile.
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham
Posted February 20, 2014 at 11:05 am | Permalink
Oh, and lastly for today..
Tom,since you liked my Calvin and Hobbes from before, maybe you will like this:
http://www.tateville.com/preshumor.html
Thx—Mrs. TVD loved the Calvin & Hobbes so much she fwded it everywhere.
The TR in the link above is especially hilarious.
LikeLike
Darryl, if you could kill my accidental insertion of my email address above, I’d be appreciative.
LikeLike
George,
Discs are actually better. Way more options.
I was looking back at things I have watched in the last year or so that I think you might like.
Seasons 1 & 2 (the only seasons, unfortunately) of “Men of a Certain Age” were really good.
“The Trip” with Steve Coogan.
Errol Morris’s documentary “Tabloid” and the documentary “Frisbee” were both interesting, as was the documentary “Obscene” about the publisher Barney Rosset.
I highly recommend “Brideshead Revisited” with Jeremy Irons if you haven’t seen it. “Downton Abbey” is also enjoyable if you like the Brits.
LikeLike
George,
Regarding comedy: If you aren’t too offended by bad language, I think Richard Linklater’s “Dazed and Confused” gets better with each passing year.
http://literatecomments.com/2012/11/19/the-best-high-school-movies-of-my-generation/
LikeLike
Erik, that’s what my Coffee-Break-and-Veggie-Tales evangies say about NPR (as they reach for the Xian radio dial). But did you know Ken Myers was also behind NPR once?
LikeLike
M&M, ding on Raising Arizona.
“…and when there was no meat, we ate fowl and when there was no fowl, we ate crawdad and when there was no crawdad to be found, we ate sand.”
“You ate what?”
“We ate sand.”
“You ate SAND?!”
“That’s right!”
LikeLike
C-Dubs, ding on Idiot. Karl “BS Man” Pilkington, superhero of skeptics everywhere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmERX0tTIUU
LikeLike
Zrim,
I actually listen to NPR in the morning but can only stand it for about 15 minutes at a time. After that the whining becomes insufferable. The only thing worse is national network TV news.
Most Christian radio would drive me just as crazy, though.
I listen to Steely Dan, classic rock, books on tape, or lectures. I’ve heard of Myers but haven’t heard him.
LikeLike
Z, I’m a connoisseur of idiots.
LikeLike
“There’s a looming fatalism to this discussion that I don’t find particularly biblical.”
Tell that to Jesus.
LikeLike
Erik, if it’s levity one wants in his news, there’s always “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me.” And for those who think personal stories beat personal testimonies, there’s “The Moth.”
LikeLike
C-Dubs, snob. I merely consume idiots.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m just a Philistine, but sometimes movie critics see a lot more than what is really in a movie. For exhibit 1, consider a piece on the War of the Roses:
____
The movie’s audacity operates on at least three interlocking and interrelated levels: as a Christmas release, as a commentary on the star personas of Douglas and Turner, and as an account of a contemporary battle of the sexes, with particular relevance to feminism…. Like other Hollywood pictures, the movie deliberately leaves itself open to different levels of interpretation and identification, and can’t be said to offer its ideological critique overtly and without ambiguity.
________
Ugh. It’s dark comedy, and fun if you like that kind of thing. My one quibble would be the quick shot of the dog at a key point, which is to say the film lost the nerve to be darker.
LikeLike
Tom,
“There’s a looming fatalism to this discussion that I don’t find particularly biblical.”
According to Jesus this world is under judgment. As regards the ultimate direction and fate of this life – its gov’ts, societies, pleasures – the die is cast. That doesn’t mean one can’t work for a more just society. But the question is where does your hope lie? If it’s in what man is building here and now then you are without hope.
I think there’s a line the government can cross that goes beyond its half of the Two Kingdoms.
2k isn’t a 50/50 thing as if they were equal partners in this world. Christ’s kingdom is everything or nothing. One kingdom is ending. One is beginning. The cross is the intersection. Ultimately, you can’t keep the gov’t from crossing some line that encroaches on your space. Even though there are periodic successes (for which I can be thankful), it’s still just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic of this world which is under judgment. Besides, we’re all part of the real problem, not the solution.
The real corruption isn’t in a particular policy or gov’t. The corruption is in us. To hope in this world is to hope in your sinful self – elevating yourself only to be placed under that same judgment looming over the world. That’s the real problem for which no societal arrangement has a solution. Fatalism? Perhaps… except for the cross of Christ.
LikeLike
C-Dubs, snob. I merely consume idiots.
I get off the subway car and get onto the adjoining one at the next stop.
LikeLike
“There’s a looming fatalism to this discussion that I don’t find particularly biblical.”
As if we give a tinker’s dam what you think. When will it sink in?
LikeLike
“Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.
Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD his God…”
Psalm 146:3-5
LikeLike
Two new episodes of “Inside the Actors Studio” are on Bravo – Amy Adams & Matthew McConaughey. Adams was raised LDS.
http://literatecomments.com/2014/02/21/two-new-episodes-of-inside-the-actors-studio-on-bravo-amy-adams-matthew-mcconaughey/
LikeLike
The UCC in town brings in a heavy hitter every year for a weekend. Last year I think it was Walter Brueggemann. This year it’s Phyllis Tickle.
http://amestrib.com/news/author-speaker-discuss-upheaval-christianity
I wouldn’t mind hearing her if I could find the time. Could I tolerate sitting through a UCC worship service on Sunday? The minister is gay.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke,
I find the hand wringing over homosexuality puzzling. I never got over our casual acceptance of divorce and fornication among Christians! I have only found church discipline, on these matters, in Reformed congregations.
If we treated divorce and fornication with as much “passion” as some treat SSM, we would be less popular but a huge threat to the church could be quelled. That is to say, I think some Christians use homosexuality as an easy cross to climb onto, especially since most of them are not members of our churches (and if they are members, why aren’t you leveraging church discipline!?)…but God forbid if some “conservative” congregations use church discipline to curb divorce and fornication!
LikeLike
That is to say:
If other Christian traditions treated divorce and fornication with as much “passion” as some treat SSM, they would be less popular but a huge threat to their churches could be quelled. That is to say, I think some Christians use homosexuality as an easy cross to climb onto, especially since most Gays are not members of “conservative” churches (and if they are members, why aren’t you leveraging church discipline!?)…but God forbid if some “conservative” congregations use church discipline to curb divorce and fornication!
LikeLike
Luther Perez
Posted February 21, 2014 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
Tom Van Dyke,
I find the hand wringing over homosexuality puzzling. I never got over our casual acceptance of divorce and fornication among Christians! I have only found church discipline, on these matters, in Reformed congregations.
If we treated divorce and fornication with as much “passion” as some treat SSM, we would be less popular but a huge threat to the church could be quelled. That is to say, I think some Christians use homosexuality as an easy cross to climb onto, especially since most of them are not members of our churches (and if they are members, why aren’t you leveraging church discipline!?)…but God forbid if some “conservative” congregations use church discipline to curb divorce and fornication!
Luther Perez
Posted February 21, 2014 at 7:46 pm | Permalink
That is to say:
If other Christian traditions treated divorce and fornication with as much “passion” as some treat SSM, they would be less popular but a huge threat to their churches could be quelled. That is to say, I think some Christians use homosexuality as an easy cross to climb onto, especially since most Gays are not members of “conservative” churches (and if they are members, why aren’t you leveraging church discipline!?)…but God forbid if some “conservative” congregations use church discipline to curb divorce and fornication!
Yes, I’ve heard that argument for SSM before–that heteros have made such a joke of marriage that one more won’t hurt.
As for Same-sex attraction [SSA] there’s a small bit of discussion here
https://oldlife.org/2014/02/callers-dilemma/comment-page-3/#comment-120799
You may notice I’m not wringing my hands too much, for I see things somewhat as you do. And unlike some others, I draw a distinction between thought and action, between “orientation” and conduct, between what adults do and what children are taught, between Same Sex Attraction and Same Sex “Marriage.”
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke,
Yes, I’ve heard that argument for SSM before–that heteros have made such a joke of marriage that one more won’t hurt.
I don’t think the heteroes, in the churche communities I am a part of, make a joke of marriage…and I suspect SSM will not become a problem, as well. I suspect congregations that do not treat divorce and fornication lightly, will be struggling with 2 men or 2 women requesting a SSM. But I do believe congregations who turn a blind eye to divorce and fornication, will be spending a lot of time concerning themselves over SSM in other churches and in the community.
LikeLike
Divorce and fornication have been around since biblical times. Mr. Charter might even say they’re natural–unlike SSA.
But SSM is quite a modern innovation. Even 25 years ago people might have thought you were joking. Or mad.
So the difference here is that Christianity has historically still looked askance at divorce and fornication. That it would not just grit its teeth but embrace gay “marriage” is off the hook.
LikeLike
I’m not suggesting that we accept SSM, in OUR churches…just like we wouldn’t accept divorce and fornication. There are consequences, I think church discipline works! I wish other “conservative” church communities practiced it! Most of the evangelical churches I’m familiar with seem to have replaced discipline with ” look repentant” when it comes to divorce and fornication…and I suspect SSM will be coming to an evangelical church, near you! The Roman Catholic record on church discipline, at least when it comes to divorce and fornication, seems to be a joke!
LikeLike
Luther Perez
Posted February 21, 2014 at 9:29 pm | Permalink
I’m not suggesting that we accept SSM, in OUR churches…just like we wouldn’t accept divorce and fornication. There are consequences, I think church discipline works! I wish other “conservative” church communities practiced it! Most of the evangelical churches I’m familiar with seem to have replaced discipline with ” look repentant” when it comes to divorce and fornication…and I suspect SSM will be coming to an evangelical church, near you! The Roman Catholic record on church discipline, at least when it comes to divorce and fornication, seems to be a joke!
Despite its hypocrisies in creating loopholes [annulments], does any other Christian church besides the Catholic formally ban divorce?
[Might as well start at the beginning. Adultery is worse than mere fornication, yes?]
LikeLike
Rome huddling to tune-up family issues and divorce…
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2014/02/21/vatican-trying-to-reset-expectations-at-consistory-on-the-family/
LikeLike
Luther, or how about not hyperventilating about sexual sins of whatever sort? Why does moral opposition (and discipline) have to come with self-righteous indignation? Passion is for new lifers.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Point taken. I guess, it was my passive aggressive way of saying…SSM just does’nt concern me like other things do.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted February 21, 2014 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
Luther, or how about not hyperventilating about sexual sins of whatever sort? Why does moral opposition (and discipline) have to come with self-righteous indignation? Passion is for new lifers.
Who says the indignation is “self-righteous?” Some are self-righteous, certainly, and are exposed as fools, esp when their own carnal sins are laid bare.
But those who aren’t hypocrites? MIA, bullied into silence. Only the fools and the hypocrites are the ones to speak up.
The “righteous” figure that discretion is the better part of cowardice, and they are right.
_______________
To the point, “Luther Perez”: Contra the scriptures, your children are being taught that all sexualities are created equal. That there is no difference between male and female, or at least that they’re fungible—interchangable—no difference between a child having a mother and a father or a child having Parent1 and Parent2 of whatever gender.
Whatever indeed. The “whatever” of sexuality sits on your lap. Tell her what you can.
LikeLike
My kids are taught all kinds of things I have to “unlearn” them at home. “Democracy cures all ills”, “making money will make you happy,” “war will keep us safe,” “you have a free will that can save you,” “poor communication skills are grounds for divorce,” “multiple sex partners will turn you into a man” those and many others have had a powerful impact on my children, nieces and nephews. Anglicans performing SSMs or bakers’ being forced to make cakes for fornicators and/or sodomites, just do not seem to be threats I worry about.
LikeLike
Tom, it’s when passion and moral objection are coupled that self-righteousness is born. Adding consistency instead to moral objection would be preferred. At least, I thought so when as a deacon I abstained on the petition passed around a meeting of deacons protesting the opening of a local strip club whilst a member on her third illegitimate child remained undisciplined.
LikeLike
Jack, wow. The Bible trumps church teaching:
How convenient.
LikeLike
Zactly, Zrim. Everyone has their last straw — the thing they really, REALLY don’t like/are indignated about. For evangelicals it was abortion. They had already whiffed on marriage and divorce, worship, soteriology, church order…you name it. For (some) lib presbys it is SSM or gay ordination. They had already whiffed on the gospel, female officers, marriage and divorce, etc,– so you have ECO and the EPC for those. Liberalism (squishy word – theologically and culturally confused) is the last straw for the PCA, which clings to some level of confessional subscription, traditional sexual mores, and good doctrine but is crumbling on worship and order, and is being seduced by cultural transformation — looking for a way to be liberal (aka cool) without being…liberal The quiet, dispassionate, plodding consistency displayed by some P&R churches is to be preferred.
LikeLike
Zrim – At least, I thought so when as a deacon I abstained on the petition passed around a meeting of deacons protesting the opening of a local strip club whilst a member on her third illegitimate child remained undisciplined.
Erik – Grand Rapids 90210.
LikeLike
Christians living in “the world”- a federal appellate judge tells us all about it:
http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-broader-significance-of-notre-dame-v-sebelius/
(Do teasers have to be accurate in a technical, nit-picking sense of “accuracy”? No? I didn’t think so.)
LikeLike
It’s a funny thing, the accusation of fatalism and nihilism, leveled at Calvinist. My Black Pentecostal friends claim Calvinism would weaken the “Black Church” forcing it to withdraw from “The Fight” again…and Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary biologist with a strong a nationalistic Anglo-Saxonist bent believes,
“Unfortunately, the spiritual capital of Puritanism “was squandered by their WASP descendants. The saintly secularism of the Puritan has degenerated into the nonchalant nihilism of the postmodernist.” “Possessive individualism” and “tasteful consumption” had come to define the highest expression of Anglo-Saxon character and culture. The governments of England and other Anglo-Saxon areas became dominated by financial interests.”
From: http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2014/2/17/the-dispossessed-elite
It’s tough out there for a Calvinist!
LikeLike
Zrim – At least, I thought so when as a deacon I abstained on the petition passed around a meeting of deacons protesting the opening of a local strip club whilst a member on her third illegitimate child remained undisciplined.
Luther – It’s in the air. A close cousin was able to kick her eldest son onto the streets because he’s gay (and he was willing to abstain from sex while he lived with her) using scripture to do it. But she is apathetic about her youngest daughter’s stripping career. And it ain’t burlesque stuff, either.
Postmodern problems? Or maybe the faithful been dealing with a broken world for quite awhile.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted February 22, 2014 at 3:11 am | Permalink
Tom, it’s when passion and moral objection are coupled that self-righteousness is born. Adding consistency instead to moral objection would be preferred. At least, I thought so when as a deacon I abstained on the petition passed around a meeting of deacons protesting the opening of a local strip club whilst a member on her third illegitimate child remained undisciplined.
I don’t know what should be done about either one, what discipline you should give the mother. I’d be interested to hear about that.
As for the strip club, to me it would depend on the zoning. I’m not a big moral fascist but I’m not an anarchist either.
LikeLike
Luther, I would tell them “This just in: Things suck. And they always have. And they will suck until the last day, more or less. And we’re all the reason. But there’s this little thing called the church and it is the only refuge. We don’t want to mess up the church by misguidedly trying to fix the world with it.” I believe that’s Machen in a nutshell.
LikeLike
4 spots left in my 20 team baseball fantasy league. Auction draft is this Thursday night at 7:00 p.m. Email me at erikcharter@yahoo.com if you want in.
LikeLike
Luther – It’s in the air. A close cousin was able to kick her eldest son onto the streets because he’s gay (and he was willing to abstain from sex while he lived with her) using scripture to do it. But she is apathetic about her youngest daughter’s stripping career. And it ain’t burlesque stuff, either.
Erik – Don’t get too close…
LikeLike
It’s always kind of seemed to me that disciplining a mother of illegitimate children is kind of piling on. They are making their beds and having to lie in it. That’s a tough life. I think I would rather take a pastoral approach and ask them why they are doing what they are doing. More of the Dr. Phil “How’s it workin’ for ya?” kind of approach.
The rest of the church usually gets their panties in a wad with all kinds of moral indignation, though, demanding that something be done. Easy target.
LikeLike
On homosexuality, my wife, who is a wise woman in spite of not being much of a scholar or theologian, said to me that she thinks she is kind of for gay rights. When I asked her what she meant, she said something along the lines of, “Well, if someone I knew told me that they were gay, I would tell them, ‘that’s your right, but I don’t know how to tell you how to deal with what God says about it in the Bible.'”
I thought that was pretty 2K and thoughtful. Treat people as adults, allow them to make their own life choices, but don’t let them off the hook as far as the consequences of their choices in this life and the life to come go.
LikeLike
Tom, tmi already. But my only point is that 1) indignation is way over rated. It’s sufficient to affirm or oppose in both theory and practice and 2) if it’s hypocrisy we’re worried about, consider what’s involved when getting behind a “keep our streets clean” petition when you can’t even keep your own house in order. That what the old timers thought of when they thought hypocrisy.
LikeLike
<i.Zrim
Posted February 22, 2014 at 3:41 pm | Permalink
Tom, tmi already. But my only point is that 1) indignation is way over rated. It’s sufficient to affirm or oppose in both theory and practice and 2) if it’s hypocrisy we’re worried about, consider what’s involved when getting behind a “keep our streets clean” petition when you can’t even keep your own house in order. That what the old timers thought of when they thought hypocrisy.
I’m not big on the hypocrisy game. These days, the inoculation against hypocrisy is to have no standards atall. That’s no improvement.
Here’s the thing–and Erik touches on it above with the gay issue–homosexuals have rights; homosexuality does not. Same with the unwed mother.
With the gay marriage issue, we’re getting into endorsing homosexuality, not just tolerating or forgiving it. To love the sinner, now we are obliged to love the sin. That’s wack.
LikeLike
Tom, that inoculation isn’t among the 2kers, if that’s what you’re suggesting. If the point is to mind one’s own house, it can only be done by having standards.
LikeLike
“It’s always kind of seemed to me that disciplining a mother of illegitimate children is kind of piling on. They are making their beds and having to lie in it. That’s a tough life. I think I would rather take a pastoral approach and ask them why they are doing what they are doing. More of the Dr. Phil “How’s it workin’ for ya?” kind of approach.”
Erik, IMO the church shouldn’t altogether pre-judge sinners according to categories of sin. Is it scandalous? What is the attitude of the transgressor? How should this particular person be handled so that s/he is best brought to repentance but also motivated to stay within the church? There are a wide range of options for what that “discipline” looks like, and some options as to who, if anyone, needs to know that it happened.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted February 22, 2014 at 4:17 pm | Permalink
Tom, that inoculation isn’t among the 2kers, if that’s what you’re suggesting. If the point is to mind one’s own house, it can only be done by having standards.
Well, your house is going to get smaller and smaller until you’re living in the closet.
Which is OK I guess, but you could be wrong that it’s God’s will that you bake gay wedding cakes. And that’s just the beginning, make no mistake.
LikeLike
The unwed mother is one of the worst things for a Session/Consistory to have to deal with. One way I think these moms can get a raw deal is the fact that if they had had a secret abortion no one would have known anything about it. They have the kid and they face church discipline. The public scandal could have been avoided by doing something private, but far worse.
I’m not so much against discipline, but people in the church should better watch themselves very closely before they pile on. The moms & dads who judge had better have a really good idea what their own kids are up to.
LikeLike
Tom,
You may be the most moralistic yet irreligious guy I have ever known.
“I don’t want our country to be a whorehouse…just because!”
I don’t get it.
Why don’t you want our country to be a whorehouse?
LikeLike
MM – There are a wide range of options for what that “discipline” looks like, and some options as to who, if anyone, needs to know that it happened.
Erik – Is there such a thing as secret church discipline?
Can elders bar someone from the table and not tell the congregation why?
In the URC the steps are pretty clearly spelled out and there has to be approval by Classis.
LikeLike
Chortles Weakly – “But there’s this little thing called the church and it is the only refuge. We don’t want to mess up the church by misguidedly trying to fix the world with it.”
AWSOME!
Erik Charter – “It’s always kind of seemed to me that disciplining a mother of illegitimate children is kind of piling on. They are making their beds and having to lie in it.”
Amen to that…but if the churches are the appropriate size, the father of the child should be known and he reminded that he is not forgotten. One church disciplinary action, I heard about, had a couple go before the congregation (16 years and 17 years of age, and she had become pregnant), they eventually married and still going strong….the father felt compelled to stay committed and marry. The elders of my Pentecostal church from my youth would chase the father down and pressure him to return to the fold and “make an honest woman” of her. That was the 1970s, though.
Men abandoning a mother and child can really drive me crazy…and outside of my current church environment, I’m surrounded by it.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 22, 2014 at 4:44 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Why don’t you want our country to be a whorehouse?
Far more interesting/puzzling/bizarre is why you don’t appear to care.
LikeLike
Erik, there are degrees of censure in the OPC. Excommunication is the most severe of the censures. There is, in fact a kind of secret discipline, e.g., when someone comes as their own accuser and repents of a sin that is not widely known. Such a person may receive an admonishment and nothing further.
I just reviewed “Ecclesiastical Discipline” in the URCNA Book of Church of Order and, frankly, I like the OPC’s much better.
LikeLike
Tom – Far more interesting/puzzling/bizarre is why you don’t appear to care.
Erik – Nice evasion. I care and have reason to care. You care and your reason is…
LikeLike
Luther – That was the 1970s, though.
Erik – Looking back at the 70’s for any sort of moral example is rather depressing.
LikeLike
Tom won’t tell us his religion because we might make fun of him.
Jesus tells us if we won’t tell people our religion for fear of being made fun of He will deny us before the Father.
Tom?…
LikeLike
MM,
I think we would just call that pastoral care.
Articles 51-66 cover the discipline process:
Click to access custom2520.pdf
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 22, 2014 at 6:40 pm | Permalink
Tom won’t tell us his religion because we might make fun of him.
Jesus tells us if we won’t tell people our religion for fear of being made fun of He will deny us before the Father.
Tom?…
Glad to see you cite the Bible [sort of] for once although He didn’t exactly say that. The reply, as always, is Mt 7:6. Nothing personal.
To return to the subject, I really don’t know what you mean by caring whether or not America becomes a whorehouse. Honestly. Y’all seem so fatalistic about everything. Inshallah, as it were.
LikeLike
Luther – That was the 1970s, though.
Erik – Looking back at the 70′s for any sort of moral example is rather depressing.
Luther – Hilarious! that made my day!
LikeLike
Yup, that’s what I was looking at, Erik. I think highly of our brothers in the URC but that leaves much to be desired IMO. FYI, here are three of the OPC church discipline censures that are less than excommunication:
1. Admonition
Admonition consists in tenderly and solemnly confronting the offender with his sin, warning him of his danger, and exhorting him to repentance and to greater fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. Rebuke
Rebuke is a form of censure more severe than admonition. It consists in setting forth the serious character of the offense, reproving the offender, and exhorting him to repentance and to more perfect fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. Suspension
a. Suspension is a form of censure by which one is deprived of the privileges of membership in the church, of office, or of both. It may be for a definite or an indefinite time. Suspension of an officer from the privileges of membership shall always be accompanied by suspension from office, but the latter does not necessarily involve the former.
b. An officer or other member of the church, while under suspension, shall be the object of deep solicitude and earnest dealing to the end that he may be restored. When the trial judicatory which pronounced the censure is satisfied of the penitence of the offender, or when the time of suspension has expired, the censure shall be removed and the offender shall be restored. This restoration shall be accompanied by a solemn admonition. Restoration to the privileges of membership may take place without restoration to those of office.
c. When a minister has been indefinitely suspended, the judicatory shall immediately notify all the presbyteries of the church.
LikeLike
My cousins are AofG and COGIC, and church discipline seems contingent on size of congregation. If they are on their way to mega-church status…It’s low on discipline and high on assorted legalisms…
LikeLike
Luther, rest easy: in the OPC we’re *never* on the way to mega-church status.
LikeLike
Tom,
If only the early church had cited Matthew 7:6 the whole Donatist controversy could have been avoided, huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism
LikeLike
MM,
The early stages of Article 55 are similar to your admonition and rebuke:
Article 55
Anyone whose sin is properly made known to the Consistory, and who then obstinately
rejects the Scriptural admonitions of the Consistory, shall be suspended from all privileges of
church membership, including the use of the sacraments. After such suspension and subsequent
admonitions, and before proceeding to excommunication, the impenitence of the sinner shall be
publicly made known to the congregation, the offense explained, together with the care bestowed upon him and repeated admonitions, so that the congregation may speak to him and pray for him.
This shall be done in three steps. In the first, the name of the sinner need not be mentioned, that
he be somewhat spared. In the second, the Consistory shall seek the advice of classis before
proceeding, whereupon his name shall be mentioned. In the third, the congregation shall be
informed that, unless he repents, he will be excluded from the fellowship of the church, so that his
excommunication, if he remains impenitent, may take place with the full knowledge of the
church. The interval between the steps shall be left to the discretion of the Consistory.
LikeLike
Sadly, in practice, by the time Article 55 comes into play the person is usually gone and not coming back.
LikeLike
Tom,
Do you believe that God is dependent on men for His will to be done?
LikeLike
Erik, it would be more interesting if they took those measures well before 100% certainty that the person couldn’t possibly care less about their membership.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 22, 2014 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Do you believe that God is dependent on men for His will to be done?
Do I believe in free will, do you mean? Your phrasing seems contentious.
LikeLike
tvd, you’ve said that.
LikeLike
Tom, you say small as if it’s a bad thing. But haven’t you heard, small is beautiful.
LikeLike
Kent – Erik, it would be more interesting if they took those measures well before 100% certainty that the person couldn’t possibly care less about their membership.
Erik – Is does feel odd when the consistory is going through the steps and no one even knows where the estranged member is at — literally. Sad situations, indeed.
The downside of our churches attracting some eccentric people is that when they shipwreck their faith that often entails eccentricity as well.
LikeLike
Eric Charter – Sadly, in practice, by the time Article 55 comes into play the person is usually gone and not coming back.
Luther – And when some men decide to send divorce papers to their wives.
LikeLike
Tom,
No. I mean do you believe that God is dependent on men for His will to be done?
LikeLike
Of course that is one wife.
LikeLike
Hopefully consistories/sessions (and fellow church members) can head off these potential church discipline situations long before they get to that point. We need to spend time together and get to know each other. That way we’ll have a better idea when people are getting off track. The label of “shepherd” is a good one to describe the task at hand. Unfortunately we all face the constraints of time & distance and people have an unlimited number of ways to get themselves into messes.
LikeLike
<i.Erik Charter
Posted February 22, 2014 at 10:59 pm | Permalink
Tom,
No. I mean do you believe that God is dependent on men for His will to be done?
I don’t understand the question. What does your Bible say?
When God wanted to destroy Sodom, he did it himself. But if he wanted to kill all the Amalakites, He should have done it Himself, because Saul didn’t follow through [1 Sam 15].
[Now it appears God got around to killing all the Amalekites in His own good time, since you don’t see any these days; still, it’s not certain. Maybe they’re the Albanians or something.]
LikeLike
Care to re-post (with proper HTML tags) so we can know what you say, Tomster?
LikeLike
Looks like Tom is a Protestant pastor.
LikeLike
Darryl, either that, or Tom doesn’t know.
LikeLike
The 1% who say that Christians have won the culture war are the optimistic Calvinists.
God is not sweating the culture war.
LikeLike
sorry Tom, just noticed this.
Tom Van Dyke – Despite its hypocrisies in creating loopholes [annulments], does any other Christian church besides the Catholic formally ban divorce?
Luther – but what is the consequence for a man seeking and getting a divorce in spite of church teaching. Thus far, in my personal experiences, most traditions look the other way or wag a disappointing finger at the member. That sin’ taken lightly in most Reformed traditions I know.
LikeLike
That should be “That isn’t taken lightly in most Reformed traditions, I know.”
LikeLike
The trouble with a church “banning” divorce is that marriage falls in the realm of the family as well as the church. It is also a matter in which the state has an interest. The church can administer discipline for those who divorce wrongly, but divorce is permitted for biblical grounds (adultery, abuse). The church has God-ordained boundaries, just like other God-ordained institutions.
LikeLike
Luther Perez
Posted February 23, 2014 at 11:38 am | Permalink
sorry Tom, just noticed this.
Tom Van Dyke – Despite its hypocrisies in creating loopholes [annulments], does any other Christian church besides the Catholic formally ban divorce?
Luther – but what is the consequence for a man seeking and getting a divorce in spite of church teaching. Thus far, in my personal experiences, most traditions look the other way or wag a disappointing finger at the member. That sin’ taken lightly in most Reformed traditions I know.
________________________________
Erik Charter
Posted February 23, 2014 at 2:04 pm | Permalink
The trouble with a church “banning” divorce is that marriage falls in the realm of the family as well as the church. It is also a matter in which the state has an interest. The church can administer discipline for those who divorce wrongly, but divorce is permitted for biblical grounds (adultery, abuse). The church has God-ordained boundaries, just like other God-ordained institutions.
My larger point is that gay marriage turns into an endorsement of homosexual conduct, not just a teeth-gritting toleration. Even in those denominations where divorce is [sometimes] permitted, it’s discouraged.
Trying to get to the heart of the matter, not just a pie-toss.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 23, 2014 at 7:19 am | Permalink
Looks like Tom is a Protestant pastor.
Andrew Buckingham
Posted February 23, 2014 at 7:46 am | Permalink
19% don’t know
Darryl, either that, or Tom doesn’t know.
Erik Charter
Posted February 23, 2014 at 8:50 am | Permalink
The 1% who say that Christians have won the culture war are the optimistic Calvinists.
God is not sweating the culture war.
God doesn’t sweat anything, I suppose. Neither do some of his Elect, it appears.
But for those without that “All Things Must Pass” crypto-Buddhism [or mebbe it’s a “Jah Will Provide” crypto-rastafarianism], this is quite interesting.
Mary Eberhart’s thesis [backed by stats] is that the current declline in christianity in the West is due to the decline of the family.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2013/07/10/how-the-west-really-lost-god-an-interview-with-mary-eberstadt/
Not the other way around.
And of course, even Calvinists worry [or should] about their children. Even if being Elect is somehow heritable, there’s still the question of how they’ll grow up, and live. There’s much confusion out there and confusion breeds misery.
LikeLike
Oh, Tom — you’re an interesting case, sort of like a new and drug-resistant form of eczema might be to a veteran dermatologist. This is just weak:
And of course, even Calvinists worry [or should] about their children.
Snarky, condescending, and unhelpful. Mere typing.
Even if being Elect is somehow heritable, there’s still the question of how they’ll grow up, and live.
You know we don’t believe election is “heritable.” You’re slinging stuff at the wall, hoping for stickage.
Again, you just seem to need to type something.
There’s much confusion out there and confusion breeds misery.
Freshman English-level profundity. I’ll take Vapid for $500, Alex.
Why are you here? Are you drawn to Old School P&R thought like a moth to a flame? Your disappointment with our disinterest in your version of the American project cannot explain it anymore. It would make more sense for you to try to recruit the gullibles at CtC to your cultural cause. One almost suspects that it is hard for you kick against the goads. When we will hear Tom say “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Calvinist?”
LikeLike
TVD, and
mebbemaybe Eberhart overestimates the family‘s importance (your family didn’t make you a believer, just a dabbling kvetcher):LikeLike
Tom – My larger point is that gay marriage turns into an endorsement of homosexual conduct, not just a teeth-gritting toleration. Even in those denominations where divorce is [sometimes] permitted, it’s discouraged.
Erik – Who around here is supporting gay marriage? Whose church is supporting it? Pope Francis has made far more supportive public comments about homosexuality than any Presbyterian or Reformed leader I’m aware of. An LGBT publication named him their man of the year.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366557/gay-magazine-names-pope-francis-person-year-alec-torres
LikeLike
CW, love tvd.
LikeLike
Tom,
Do you and the Mrs. have any kids?
LikeLike
DG, I’m bighearted to a fault. I love the dabbling kvetcher more than he could possibly understand.
LikeLike
Tom,
We have conservative Protestants who worship the family. It’s not going so well.
http://www.visionforumministries.org/
LikeLike
Just to prove that all this gay stuff is nothing new, I was looking at a 1976 yearbook from my high school over lunch today (that’s 12 years before I graduated). In the back they had a bunch of people listed as “Thespians”. I was appalled….hold on, my wife’s calling me…what’s that, honey?
Never mind.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 23, 2014 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
CW, love tvd.
The absence of content in the replies of some of your minions speaks for itself. But I’m happy to see you venture out of your bubble and actually read theses like Eberstadt’s–although as usual you theologize
If Eberstadt had given proper attention to Christianity’s own teaching about the importance of the family
what is merely a socio-historical hypothesis. Which is fine if you offer yourself as a theologian or a churchman but I think you don’t.
D. G. Hart is Visiting Assistant Professor of History at Hillsdale College. His latest book is Calvinism: A History (Yale, 2013).
BTW, I loved
Some Roman Catholics comfort themselves that secularization is really the gutting of Protestant Christianity’s convictions.
&
As Roman Catholics (in the United States at least) left behind their ghettos for suburban parishes, they assimilated American norms in ways that prepared the way for Vatican II’s engagement with the modern world
Using this for your jihad on Catholicism while the Protestant mainline collapses around your ears? You never miss a trick. Well done, sir, well done.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 23, 2014 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
Tom – My larger point is that gay marriage turns into an endorsement of homosexual conduct, not just a teeth-gritting toleration. Even in those denominations where divorce is [sometimes] permitted, it’s discouraged.
Erik – Who around here is supporting gay marriage? Whose church is supporting it? Pope Francis has made far more supportive public comments about homosexuality than any Presbyterian or Reformed leader I’m aware of. An LGBT publication named him their man of the year.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366557/gay-magazine-names-pope-francis-person-year-alec-torres
“Yet while Lucas Grindley, in his cover story, expresses admiration for Francis, he does not ignore his stance against gay marriage, noting that the pope has called it a “destructive attack on God’s plan” and has written that marriage should be a “stable union of man and woman.”
Don’t believe everything you read in the papers about Francis. Or gay magazines. Or Darryl.
LikeLike
TVD, you are big on being conservative, Well, a number of OL regulars recently tested quite high on a test of conservatism. Then you preach on marriage and the family. Well, the OL regulars I know don’t have a divorce among them and some are working on marriages of 30 + years. None of our kids are in jail or leading the latest deviant cause. Instead of badgering us, you should be pointing at us as the role model for all that is good, all that is true, yea, all that is winsome. OK, strike that last one, but tell us again why you badger us. I think you want to be our pal.
LikeLike
Tom – Which is fine if you offer yourself as a theologian or a churchman but I think you don’t.
Erik – Hart holds himself out as a churchman. OPC elders hold office for life. Most every key guy here is a P&R pastor or church officer.
Don’t be too hard on Tom. He just likes rapping with us, which is fine. I actually think he’s starting to come around on some things.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted February 23, 2014 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
TVD, you are big on being conservative, Well, a number of OL regulars recently tested quite high on a test of conservatism. Then you preach on marriage and the family. Well, the OL regulars I know don’t have a divorce among them and some are working on marriages of 30 + years. None of our kids are in jail or leading the latest deviant cause. Instead of badgering us, you should be pointing at us as the role model for all that is good, all that is true, yea, all that is winsome. OK, strike that last one, but tell us again why you badger us. I think you want to be our pal.
I do think you’re Calvinism’s last hope. As Prager says, preach what you practice. It’s the timidity that’s so jarring [exc when it comes to Catholics, of course, or fish in a barrel like the Baylys]. The problem is that voicing your beliefs have been left to idiots like the Baylys to make an embarrassing hash of, or to what’s left of American Presbyterianism, the weak tea of liberal Protestantism.Weak tea and hash. Yum. ;-P
LikeLike
Tom,
On Francis – He knows what he’s doing and is not surprised with the favorable attention he is getting.
The question is, will he keep going or pull a bait-and-switch? That’s what makes watching him so interesting.
LikeLike
Tom,
Regarding the Baylys: How would us speaking out like the Baylys not make us…um…The Baylys?
People “speak out” with their lives more than their words. When you worship on Sundays, do your job well, stay married, raise your children well, are nice to people — outsiders get the “cultural” message. If they come to our churches they get the theological message. When you speak to someone with words and they are not asking for your opinion the message just gets tuned out.
LikeLike
TVD, culture wars tend to be short-sighted, vitriolic, ostracizing, self-righteous and political. The gospel and the church are too important to be compromised for such.
Here’s the difference: you don’t have a gospel or a church.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 23, 2014 at 4:07 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Regarding the Baylys: How would us speaking out like the Baylys not make us…um…The Baylys?
Because they’re self-righteous idiots. Most of you are not. 😉
People “speak out” with their lives more than their words. When you worship on Sundays, do your job well, stay married, raise your children well, are nice to people — outsiders get the “cultural” message. If they come to our churches they get the theological message. When you speak to someone with words and they are not asking for your opinion the message just gets tuned out.
I’d say you’re invisible, huddling in your churches and little clubs—hence “preach what you practice.” Again, what needs to be said has been left to the weak tea and hash. Each is easy to ignore.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know that the silence of good people has contributed to the current climate.
_____
Erik Charter
Posted February 23, 2014 at 4:03 pm | Permalink
Tom,
On Francis – He knows what he’s doing and is not surprised with the favorable attention he is getting.
The question is, will he keep going or pull a bait-and-switch? That’s what makes watching him so interesting.
I don’t know either. But my working theory is that his is only a change in tone, not in message. And that change may make it easier to echo his message.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted February 23, 2014 at 4:20 pm | Permalink
TVD, culture wars tend to be short-sighted, vitriolic, ostracizing, self-righteous and political. The gospel and the church are too important to be compromised for such.
I take the long view, say the past century or 3 or 5. “Culture war” is a rhetorical trick to diminish and dismiss a real phenomenon.
LikeLike
tvd, and how is Rome’s truth playing out in you?
me theologize? You and your word games.
LikeLike
Timidity? Tvd, you had a chance to make a nation conservative while you were on a game show. You blew it.
And how courageous are you hanging around some obscure blog?
LikeLike
m&m, tom has a church but he’s lapsed. He needs the eggs.
LikeLike
again, tom, tell us how to be as visible as the great tom van dyke.
LikeLike
tvd, the long view is judgment day. Sorry to theologize. But what will the great tom van dyke do on that great day? Will cage rattling at OL get you past St. Peter?
your short sighted.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 23, 2014 at 4:32 pm | Permalink
tvd, and how is Rome’s truth playing out in you?
me theologize? You and your word games.
Of course you theologized, rather than address her hypothesis as it was offered, socio-historically. And you saved your fire for yet another Catholic, yet another conservative. There’s a pattern here, D.
D. G. Hart
Posted February 23, 2014 at 4:34 pm | Permalink
Timidity? Tvd, you had a chance to make a nation conservative while you were on a game show. You blew it.
And how courageous are you hanging around some obscure blog?
Presumably, as a churchman with a gig at one of the few Christian conservative colleges in the USA, you have no career at risk, one of the few in the country who could actually speak out without career consequences. Yet you go after the Catholics and the conservatives, like any good little secularist. Your choice of targets is puzzling.
D. G. Hart
Posted February 23, 2014 at 4:37 pm | Permalink
tvd, the long view is judgment day. Sorry to theologize. But what will the great tom van dyke do on that great day? Will cage rattling at OL get you past St. Peter?
you’re short sighted.
Thanks for your concern but according to your theology, I’m either Elected or I’m not. I’m working on being smugly inert like some of you, but my heart’s not in it.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 23, 2014 at 4:36 pm | Permalink
again, tom, tell us how to be as visible as the great tom van dyke.
Well, actually I was on a bigger blog but they kicked me off for being too effectively conservative.
Do you remember mocking me for that, Darryl? You get me coming or going, just the way you like it. ;-O
But perhaps I’m contemplating a comeback. I know all the liberal dirty tricks but now I’m studying what makes good men do nothing, and defend it so virulently.
LikeLike
“Well, actually I was on a bigger blog but they kicked me off for being too effectively conservative,” he said with winsome and unfeigned humility.
LikeLike
Chortles weakly
Posted February 23, 2014 at 5:39 pm | Permalink
“Well, actually I was on a bigger blog but they kicked me off for being too effectively conservative,” he said with winsome and unfeigned humility.
Oh, that’s lame next to what the lefties pull, Mr. Weakly. You can be more weaselly than that!
LikeLike
Just trying to love you, man.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke
Posted February 23, 2014 at 5:44 pm | Permalink
Chortles weakly
Posted February 23, 2014 at 5:39 pm | Permalink
“Well, actually I was on a bigger blog but they kicked me off for being too effectively conservative,” he said with winsome and unfeigned humility.
Oh, that’s lame next to what the lefties pull, Mr. Weakly. You can be more weaselly than that!
____________
Chortles weakly
Posted February 23, 2014 at 5:46 pm | Permalink
Just trying to love you, man.
That’s much better! I had faith in you. 😉
LikeLike
TVD, here’s a short story: “the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.”
What is your pearl of great value? Of course you aren’t 2k – you only consider one kingdom.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted February 23, 2014 at 6:58 pm | Permalink
TVD, here’s a short story: “the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.”
What is your pearl of great value? Of course you aren’t 2k – you only consider one kingdom.
What “two” kingdoms? Is that in the Bible?
Is the kingdom of heaven on this earth? I’m not following you here.
Further, what have you done to “purchase” it? I thought you were Elect and all that.
Thx for your answers in advance, Mike. I do like the pearl of great price story though. That’s in the Bible. The “two kingdoms” thing doesn’t seem to appear in the Bible. Sounds like…theology! =:-O
LikeLike
Tom – I’d say you’re invisible, huddling in your churches and little clubs—hence “preach what you practice.” Again, what needs to be said has been left to the weak tea and hash. Each is easy to ignore.
Erik – Actually, no. Guys here are attorneys, accountants, college professors, business owners, civil servants, pastors, coaches, etc. Just because we don’t write op-eds in the New York Times or work for some type of public policy think tank doesn’t mean we have no impact on people’s lives. Consider this nice piece on how the Book of Ephesians shapes the understanding of what it means to live the Christian life:
http://literatecomments.com/?s=ephesians&submit=Search
LikeLike
Tom,
Your own experience as a truth speake” should teach you something. You were part of a group blog, spoke your mind, and got kicked out. Sometimes patience, diplomacy, and a long-term plan beat going out in a blaze of glory.
Also observe Greg’s recent going out in a blaze of glory here. He could have made a long term impact, but he was so over-the-top with his message he flamed out in a week. No patience, no diplomacy.
LikeLike
“truth speaker”
LikeLike
tvd, so was Will Herberg doing theology when he talked about a Judeo-Christian religion — very pro-family, mind you — that had all the theological fortitude of Leave it to Beaver? You can’t simply resort to yelling “theology” when you’re losing the argument.
And we were talking about your courage. I like cats. Everyone knows I’m a wimp. But you beat up on cat lovers and think you’re the second coming of Eddie Dane.
LikeLike
tvd, I seem to recall they kicked you off because you were as “courageous” as you are here. I read the comments.
And writing blog posts is sticking it to the man? What kind of consulting do you do?
LikeLike
Tom – I don’t know either. But my working theory is that his is only a change in tone, not in message. And that change may make it easier to echo his message.
Erik – It’s a fool’s game, though. If you’re against homosexuality just say you’re against it and MAYBE people will respect you. If you act like you’re maybe not against it, only to reveal later that you were against it, are against it, and will continue to be against it you’re just defrauding people and they’ll end up hating you more than if you were just honest with them from the beginning.
Try courting two woman at the same time because you don’t want to hurt either of their feelings and see how that turns out.
LikeLike
” Sounds like…theology! =:-Oz”
Reminiscent of the wit and humor of Doug Sowers — happy face with a wink and a thumb up gee golly willicker!
LikeLike
The interesting thing about the culture war is that the only way to win it, if there is such a thing, is to live in an appealing way so that others might desire to emulate you and live that way themselves. If the culture I embrace involves worshipping on Sundays, working hard, caring for my children, loving my wife, being sober, and helping my neighbor I’m going to be very busy doing that.
The guy, meanwhile, who is not worshipping, not working hard, ignoring his children, not marrying the mother of his children, getting drunk and using drugs, and being selfish, could care less about my protests of his life choices. He’s not asking my opinion.
Maybe, just maybe, if God gets a hold of him, God can use me to influence the guy in a positive way.
I don’t see how my speaking out, supporting one political party over another, or doing anything else on a “macro” really impacts that other guy’s bad choices.
Maybe the best thing I can do is support a church that is there for him if and when he comes around.
Culture is by no means independent of the people who live in it.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 23, 2014 at 9:02 pm | Permalink
Tom,
Your own experience as a truth speaker should teach you something. You were part of a group blog, spoke your mind, and got kicked out. Sometimes patience, diplomacy, and a long-term plan beat going out in a blaze of glory.
Also observe Greg’s recent going out in a blaze of glory here. He could have made a long term impact, but he was so over-the-top with his message he flamed out in a week. No patience, no diplomacy.
Oh, I had my impact with the lefty weasels. That’s why they threw me out. My old partner is still there. They let him live because he’s no threat.
As for Old Life, Darryl wakes up in a cold sweat every night with a new perversion of my name on his lips. He hears me just fine.
My original reason for coming around was to see what you know about Beza and Knox and Goodman, about Calvinist history and political theology. But if Darryl knows, he ain’t tellin’. ;-/
Now it’s just to learn why so many in the Founding era turned against Calvinism. I’m starting to get it. It’s been an education. At first I saw Calvinism as just another theology, but then I see that even things like universalism were a reaction to TULIP, not just a lame Barney the Dinosaurism.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2014/02/evangelical-universalist-on-charles.html
[see comments section]
I’ve suspected from the first that one cannot understand the American Founding without understanding Calvinism, and every moment I spend with your tribe deepens that impression. I would have read the Chauncy piece a year ago without seeing the reaction to Calvinism, although it’s there with neon lights.
Plus I like you. Well, most of you. You’re sincere, I think, and your efforts at sophistry and glib insincerity fit like a cheap suit. I mean that as a compliment, of course. Peace, warrior child.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 23, 2014 at 9:04 pm | Permalink
tvd, so was Will Herberg doing theology when he talked about a Judeo-Christian religion — very pro-family, mind you — that had all the theological fortitude of Leave it to Beaver? You can’t simply resort to yelling “theology” when you’re losing the argument.
And we were talking about your courage. I like cats. Everyone knows I’m a wimp. But you beat up on cat lovers and think you’re the second coming of Eddie Dane.
DGH, I’m probably the only outsider who understands even half of your idiosyncratic socio-theological Esperanto. Or bothered to learn. That’s why you love me. Sort of why God created man, I guess. Must get boring with nothing but all them angelic yes-men around.
And actually, we were talking about your courage, not mine. Mary Eberstadt’s thesis poses no threat to your religion, as Called to Communion does. Why punk her?
And you didn’t really get very close to “reviewing” her thesis. You just went off. If you want to live in your r2k cave, fine. But I don’t see how you can be sure you have your theology right enough to punk her like that, and why you would pick her for your victim in the first place, when there are so many more worthy ones out there.
Who hit back, champ.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 23, 2014 at 9:19 pm | Permalink
The interesting thing about the culture war is that the only way to win it, if there is such a thing, is to live in an appealing way so that others might desire to emulate you and live that way themselves. If the culture I embrace involves worshipping on Sundays, working hard, caring for my children, loving my wife, being sober, and helping my neighbor I’m going to be very busy doing that.
The guy, meanwhile, who is not worshipping, not working hard, ignoring his children, not marrying the mother of his children, getting drunk and using drugs, and being selfish, could care less about my protests of his life choices. He’s not asking my opinion.
Maybe, just maybe, if God gets a hold of him, God can use me to influence the guy in a positive way.
I don’t see how my speaking out, supporting one political party over another, or doing anything else on a “macro” really impacts that other guy’s bad choices.
Maybe the best thing I can do is support a church that is there for him if and when he comes around.
Culture is by no means independent of the people who live in it.
You got the last part right. Good men doing nothing.
LikeLike
Tom – Good men doing nothing.
Erik – O.K. Tell me how this fits your definition of “nothing”:
“Worshipping on Sundays, working hard, caring for my children, loving my wife, being sober, and helping my neighbor.”
If that’s “nothing”, tell me specifically what your definition of “something” is. You’ve never really defined that in all your time here, which makes me think that you mostly just like to argue, which is o.k., I guess.
LikeLike
Tom,
You don’t want to get the Sowers rule invoked against you. That’s pretty lonely.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 23, 2014 at 9:07 pm | Permalink
Tom – I don’t know either. But my working theory is that his is only a change in tone, not in message. And that change may make it easier to echo his message.
Erik – It’s a fool’s game, though. If you’re against homosexuality just say you’re against it and MAYBE people will respect you. If you act like you’re maybe not against it, only to reveal later that you were against it, are against it, and will continue to be against it you’re just defrauding people and they’ll end up hating you more than if you were just honest with them from the beginning.
They know. The Bayly approach makes it easy for them to say to themselves that the problem is you, not the problem itself.
I really do recommend this article, which I’ve now read several times for its rigor and how Christians got intellectually lazy.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality
Living a proper Christian life is but the first necessary step. You have to be able to hit a baseball before you can teach someone else how to do it, but then you’ve also got to be able to explain it.
The problem is that good Christians have handed over the rhetorical dirty work of saying unpopular things to some very dirty people, say Baylys, Swaggarts, etc. So too, even the good ones–say a Francis Schaeffer [a pro-Machen Presbyterian, eh?]–weren’t up to it. It was the lack of intellectual rigor that undercut his witness. He had the tune right but screwed up the words.
There are some pretty good singers out there. Who know all the words.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 23, 2014 at 9:45 pm | Permalink
Tom,
You don’t want to get the Sowers rule invoked against you. That’s pretty lonely.
Say it ain’t so. Farting Sowers in my general direction*? Talk about an admission you’re losing. Brother Sowers is the Godwin’s Law of OLTS!
[Plus, you never beat him, even when he was taking 3 or 4 of you on at once. He KOed himself is all. Strangled himself in the ropes.]
_
*For extra credit, name that allusion, EC!
LikeLike
Tom,
I think your mistake is a consequence of what I would consider bad theology — you’re not a Calvinist.
You seem to think that people do bad things, make bad life choices, rebel against God, and commit heinous sins because no one has reasoned with them in a winsome and intelligent way.
People do bad things, make bad life choices, rebel against God, and commit heinous sins because – get this – they’re bad people.
The only thing that makes them cease being bad people is God intervening in their lives. And that entails hearing the gospel, repenting of their sins, Christ living in them, and them living a new life.
So really the “action” we need to take is preaching the gospel. Which is what we do and what we argue the church should do. This is the point of 2K that you can’t or won’t get.
Your problem is spiritual, which is why I bear with you.
LikeLike
TVD, we could not possibly be on the same page because you have only the dimension of this world to consider. You have no spiritual dimension – your pearl of great price is this world.
I never know when, if ever, to take your questions at face value, but have a stupid impulse to be helpful that sometimes overrides my better judgment. Accordingly I will assume that you really are confused about election and are not really mocking it for sport. And here’s my advice on that: don’t look at election until it is in the rear view mirror. It is not a doctrine meant to paralyze, excuse, or to create causative conundrums. Consider that you are a sinner and there is a holy God; confront that tension in its full force. If you then come to faith, look in the rear view mirror and be encouraged by God’s election. If you apply the numbing agents of works and ceremonies when you apprehend that tension, election will continue to be nonsense to you.
LikeLike
“*For extra credit, name that allusion”
Monty Python, The Holy Grail. The Frenchman on the fortress wall speaks thus to the Englishmen below.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 23, 2014 at 10:10 pm | Permalink
Tom,
I think your mistake is a consequence of what I would consider bad theology — you’re not a Calvinist.
And vice-versa, that you are? 😉
You seem to think that people do bad things, make bad life choices, rebel against God, and commit heinous sins because no one has reasoned with them in a winsome and intelligent way.
The Gospel itself reasons in an winsome and intelligent way. It’s just words and thoughts, afterall, Erik. That’s the point of it. Otherwise the content of the Bible itself is unimportant.
People do bad things, make bad life choices, rebel against God, and commit heinous sins because – get this – they’re bad people.
We are all sinners. All. I don’t know what “bad people” means, Erik, because that says there are “good” people, and that means that Jim is somehow “better” than Helen, who’s not as “bad” as Xerxes.
The only thing that makes them cease being bad people is God intervening in their lives. And that entails hearing the gospel, repenting of their sins, Christ living in them, and them living a new life.
Well, that’s where the argument falls off the rails, even according to your theology as I understand it. By your definition of a “bad person”–I take that as synonymous with being a sinner–I shall be a “bad person” all the rest of my life.
It’s only a question of how bad.
So really the “action” we need to take is preaching the gospel.
Why? Whoever you talk to is already Saved or not. Might as well stay at home, or in your church or in your Reformed Drinking Smoking and Theology Club and wait for God to send someone to knock on the wrong door. And why “preach”? Mix him a drink, give him a cigar, and hand him a Bible. Your work is done.
Hey, this sounds like a pretty good religion afterall. Not as good as Rastafari, but in the zone.
Which is what we do and what we argue the church should do. This is the point of 2K that you can’t or won’t get.
Your problem is spiritual, which is why I bear with you.
Now that I’ve quit smoking, it’s probably a sure sign I was never Elected anyway. Dang.
LikeLike
Whoa, blog bloat (ie many comments since last my cell phone wandered here).
Tvd still is churchless for all we know, right? Just making sure he’s sticking to script and still not attending church.
That would be a shocker otherwise.
Peace out.
LikeLike
I’ve suspected from the first that one cannot understand the American Founding without understanding Calvinism…
But, Tom, Father Murray would have us understand the U.S. was exceptional among all the modern states because it was founded on principles in Catholic political theory. So–get ready for a bit of your own medicine–whose America is it? But 2kers are less concerned about drawing straight lines from the things westerners prize back to their favorite religion and more interested in Paul’s take on the civil polities that be:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.”
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted February 23, 2014 at 10:36 pm | Permalink
“*For extra credit, name that allusion”
Monty Python, The Holy Grail. The Frenchman on the fortress wall speaks thus to the Englishmen below.
Dude. props.
mikelmann
Posted February 23, 2014 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
TVD, we could not possibly be on the same page because you have only the dimension of this world to consider. You have no spiritual dimension – your pearl of great price is this world.
You don’t know anything about me. Robert Johnson right back onya.
I never know when, if ever, to take your questions at face value
Please do. The rest of ’em are afraid to answer because I they know I have a hammer behind my back. But I never hammer on the sincere, only the sophists.
but have a stupid impulse to be helpful that sometimes overrides my better judgment. Accordingly I will assume that you really are confused about election and are not really mocking it for sport.
I don’t think I’m confused, nor is this sport. My challenges to the election theology are not just jerking you around, they’re also consistent with the historical challenges to that theology ever since Calvin came up with it.
And in less debating moods, I’ve noted that Aquinas also flirted with the logic of predestination, that an eternal and all-knowing God couldn’t help but know how the whole thing comes out on Judgment Day, eh?
So it’s not all that, and please know that. I think my point’s exactly the same as yours, that the theology/metaphysics of predestination–that the ink is already dry on the Book of Life and we’re just playing out the script–tends to make lameasses of us all, as you say here:
And here’s my advice on that: don’t look at election until it is in the rear view mirror. It is not a doctrine meant to paralyze, excuse, or to create causative conundrums.
Well, it never has paralyzed me, for better [!] or worse [?]. I bring it up because I see this fatalism creating a laziness in actually evangelizing the Gospel, as if membership in the club is already closed anyway, so why bother?
So I’m hoping you’re following me on this.
Consider that you are a sinner and there is a holy God; confront that tension in its full force. If you then come to faith, look in the rear view mirror and be encouraged by God’s election. If you apply the numbing agents of works and ceremonies when you apprehend that tension, election will continue to be nonsense to you.
So the theology is that one’s “works” are reflections, not the thing [faith, salvation, “election”] itself. But if you have no reflection [works], you’re, I dunno, like those vampire movies where Dracula has no reflection. If you movie buffs follow the analogy and the logical proposition:
So it kind of comes out to the same thing from here.
Hanging with the OLTS Esperanto here, Mike, and thanks to you for the righteous reply. As for “ceremonies,” that’s another discussion, I think. Worship? Darryl’s all on about the psaltery but the Catholics got some wailin’ Mass music too, dude. Mozart. And me, I like the psycho-theological thesis that man is hardwired for ritual.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted February 23, 2014 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
I’ve suspected from the first that one cannot understand the American Founding without understanding Calvinism…
But, Tom, Father Murray would have us understand the U.S. was exceptional among all the modern states because it was founded on principles in Catholic political theory.
Somewhat and mostly true–but let’s slow down, Mr. Z.
If you actually want to know what I think, use a direct quote of Murray or anybody. Then I might be able to explain what he was saying.
Bad habit here at OLTS, paraphrasing, usually uncharitably.
I do the same thing when I try to explain you Calvinism to all the normal people out there, you know.
But, Tom, Father Murray would have us understand the U.S. was exceptional among all the modern states because it was founded on principles in Catholic political theory.
True. Catholicism and Calvinism. Now there’s some damn twin pillars to build a political theology on. You Calvinists underrate yourselves. You really did change the world! The Catholics provided the arguments, you provided the guts.
[And screw “The Enlightenment,” too.* Christianity created America. The Enlightenment gets the French Revolution. Whose Enlightenment is it anyway? Your call.]
___________________
*https://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/which-enlightenment-1288
LikeLike
vd,t, Eberhart doesn’t have a thesis. She has a long what if? Have you read the book?
LikeLike
Tom, some of us don’t engage in back-and-forth with you because there’s no there there. You are TomLand — a part fantasy, part historical, part wishful thinking ephemeral republic of passive-aggressive culture warfare, amorphous slouching-toward-Rome theologizing, and American Exceptionalism with a California flair. Like trying to catch fog or wrestling with a greased fat worman — not that I know anything about that.
LikeLike
Tom – The Gospel itself reasons in an winsome and intelligent way. It’s just words and thoughts, afterall, Erik. That’s the point of it. Otherwise the content of the Bible itself is unimportant.
Erik – So would you say the reason that some do not accept the gospel is that they are not reasoning properly or they lack intelligence?
If so, what do you do with 1 Corinthians 1?:
18 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. 19 For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
20 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? 21 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. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human beingd might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
The appeal of the message and the intelligence of the hearer don’t seem to be relevant factors in acceptance of the message.
LikeLike
Tom,
Consider also Matthew 13:
That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”
10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
18 “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 22 The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. 23 But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”
What accounts for the different soils?
LikeLike
Tom,
Using your logic, why would Jesus use parables not to make his message more clear, but instead to make it more difficult to understand?
LikeLike
Erik, the parables might have had to do with election-nonelection. But according to Tom, Calvin invented that doctrine so pardon my anachronism.
Tom, the gospel is not just words and thoughts. It’s a message based on historical facts, events, occurrences which we can think about and which must be communicated primarily in word and divinely-ordained “images” (the two sacraments) which come to us by the written word.
LikeLike
Tom, on Father Murray:
http://americamagazine.org/issue/murray%E2%80%99s-mistake
But if it’s my call then I say Christianity spawned churches, not nations. And if you want to flatter and stroke the religious egos of Calvinists about having changed the world, you might have better luck at TGC. But at OLTS, Y A W N.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 24, 2014 at 7:59 am | Permalink
Tom – The Gospel itself reasons in an winsome and intelligent way. It’s just words and thoughts, afterall, Erik. That’s the point of it. Otherwise the content of the Bible itself is unimportant.
Erik – So would you say the reason that some do not accept the gospel is that they are not reasoning properly or they lack intelligence?
If so, what do you do with 1 Corinthians 1?:
18 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. 19 For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
20 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? 21 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. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human beingd might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
The appeal of the message and the intelligence of the hearer don’t seem to be relevant factors in acceptance of the message.
So the content of the message is superfluous? You’re not making any sense.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted February 24, 2014 at 8:59 am | Permalink
Tom, on Father Murray:
http://americamagazine.org/issue/murray%E2%80%99s-mistake
But if it’s my call then I say Christianity spawned churches, not nations. And if you want to flatter and stroke the religious egos of Calvinists about having changed the world, you might have better luck at TGC. But at OLTS, Y A W N.
Everything’s a yawn except smoking, drinking and Catholics.
As for engaging the bleatings of the far-left “America” magazine [your cited author is Catholic Worker], must I? Again, like Pat Buchanan’s putative “The American Conservative rag, it’s mostly of interest to people who hate conservatives, just as America mag is more of interest to anti-Catholicism.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 24, 2014 at 6:06 am | Permalink
vd,t, Eberhart doesn’t have a thesis. She has a long what if? Have you read the book?
Dr Disingenuous, you don’t have a review or a rebuttal of her argument, just a rant, so I hardly see the point of you inserting yourself into this atall.
LikeLike
BTW, this was pretty good
http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2014/02/d-g-hart-on-molly-worthens-apostles-of.html#more
although again, questioning or rejecting someone’s premise isn’t the same as rebutting that premise. Detonating the very concept of “evangelical” was OK, but it left nothing in its place but the usual scorched earth.
LikeLike
DGH, I thought that you would have been more favorably disposed towards the Worthen book than you seem to be. I came away from my reading thinking “Finally, someone has shown how big a failure (on its own terms) w_w ism has been.” Maybe you have already done that (I have only read Calvinism) and it is old hat to you , but it wasn’t to me.
LikeLike
Tom,
You’re making me repeat the questions that you’re not answering:
(1) Tell me how this fits your definition of “nothing”:
“Worshipping on Sundays, working hard, caring for my children, loving my wife, being sober, and helping my neighbor.”
If that’s “nothing”, tell me specifically what your definition of “something” is.
(2) would you say the reason that some do not accept the gospel is that they are not reasoning properly or they lack intelligence?
(3) Using your logic, why would Jesus use parables not to make his message more clear, but instead to make it more difficult to understand?
I’ll add a new one:
(4) What is the gospel?
These really get at the heart of your criticisms, which I why I sincerely ask you.
You ask me, “So the content of the message is superfluous?”
Definitely not. Jesus and Paul seem to be saying that when the simple, Biblical gospel message is presented to very intelligent, sophisticated people in a clear way, it is often rejected. I’m asking you why you think that is. I think Jesus and Paul answer the question (and Jesus throws in a twist on why he often speaks in parables), but you’re not engaging the Matthew 13 and 1 Corinthians 1 texts.
This is life-changing stuff if you can grasp it.
LikeLike
vd, t, did you read the book?
LikeLike
Tom – You’re not making any sense.
Erik – Tremendous, stupendous irony in light of the content of that 1 Corinthians 1 passage.
LikeLike
Dan, believe it or not, I don’t only look for evidence to use against my demons. Yes, she gives ammunition against w-w. But she stayed away from targets that would have made her thesis even more impressive but also more dangerous — take on the evangelical scholars in the mainstream, like Noll, Marsden, Plantinga rather than just shooting at exotic forms of w-w like Schaeffer (from the academy’s perspective).
LikeLike
Tom.
What I am asking you to do (nicely, I hope) is to take about 10 steps back and examine your own presuppositions about a lot of important things.
In the continental Reformed world we break our catechism down into Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude sections. The whole time you have been here (quite a long time now) you have been focused on what we would consider applications of the Gratitude section (what we do in light of the gospel to show our thanks to God).
You’ve never spent much time in the Guilt or Grace sections and these are the foundation of why we show Gratitude in the first place.
Let’s at least find out where we agree or disagree on this foundation.
LikeLike
Erik’s – worth repeating…
What I am asking you to do (nicely, I hope) is to take about 10 steps back and examine your own presuppositions about a lot of important things….
You’ve never spent much time in the Guilt or Grace sections and these are the foundation of why we show Gratitude in the first place.
Tom,
Without being confronted and impacted with the reality of the guilt of our sin and the gift of God’s grace (Jesus Christ crucified), gratitude is nothing more than moralistic works built on a foundation of sand. You work your butt off, but it ultimately has no lasting profit for yourself or anyone else…
LikeLike
DGH- understood. Your point about Noll and Marsden is well taken, not sure I would lump in Plantinga.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke
Posted February 24, 2014 at 7:04 pm | Permalink
BTW, this was pretty good
http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2014/02/d-g-hart-on-molly-worthens-apostles-of.html#more
Dan
Posted February 24, 2014 at 8:25 pm | Permalink
DGH, I thought that you would have been more favorably disposed towards the Worthen book than you seem to be. I came away from my reading thinking “Finally, someone has shown how big a failure (on its own terms) w_w ism has been.” Maybe you have already done that (I have only read Calvinism) and it is old hat to you , but it wasn’t to me.
Darryl’s in quite an ethical disclosure pickle.
Had the Rev. Dr. Hart actually revealed and exposed his antipathy for his fellow “Calvinist” Abraham Kuyper’s theology [“worldviewism”], Darryl would have been obliged to disclose that he’s writing as an Orthodox Presbyterian Church elder/official, not as the history prof he is accredited to be
Hart is Visiting Professor of History at Hillsdale College
or even as a theologian and religious leader that we all know him to be. Which I respect, mind you. Your religion comes first.
I thought you did a pretty good job of walking the ethical/scholarly tightrope, Darryl. Your deep theological opposition to “Kuyperism” was somewhat successfully concealed except to those who read you well and know you best.
😉
[Still, the lefties d-bagged you anyway in the comments. They’re on to you too. They are not your friends and never will be. They will destroy you the first time you actually pose a threat.]
LikeLike
Jack Miller
Posted February 24, 2014 at 10:29 pm | Permalink
Erik’s – worth repeating…
What I am asking you to do (nicely, I hope) is to take about 10 steps back and examine your own presuppositions about a lot of important things….
You’ve never spent much time in the Guilt or Grace sections and these are the foundation of why we show Gratitude in the first place.
Tom,
Without being confronted and impacted with the reality of the guilt of our sin and the gift of God’s grace (Jesus Christ crucified), gratitude is nothing more than moralistic works built on a foundation of sand. You work your butt off, but it ultimately has no lasting profit for yourself or anyone else…
Thx for taking the time to write me, Jack. I remain
every moment of my waking life, make no mistake about taht, about me.
LikeLike
Dan, why not Plantinga? I have great respect for all those guys. Is AP not a neo-Calvinist and is AP not a modern-day defender of creation?
LikeLike
vd,t, try reading a book, like Calvinism: A History and see how neo-Calvinism fares. Unlike you, some of us have actually thought pretty hard about the differences between theology and history.
LikeLike
Dan – DGH- understood. Your point about Noll and Marsden is well taken, not sure I would lump in Plantinga.
Erik – Indeed. Plantinga is Dutch, which makes the others not much.
LikeLike
Tom,
Since you won’t engage in substantive discussions on biblical texts I don’t think it’s very worthwhile going forward with you on these issues. You’re mostly just playing games & yanking chains. I don’t really want to facilitate that. If you are ever willing to fully engage, let me know. I’m not mad at you, but at some point these interactions just become a waste of valuable time.
This is what may ultimately earn you the Sowers rule invocation. Wasting people’s time.
LikeLike
D.G. – “To alleviate the suspense, readers may be interested to know that I made Worthen’s cut as a figure in this book, though as merely a graduate student with Timothy L. Smith as my advisor, while the favorite evangelical of New York City journalists, the Presbyterian pastor, Tim Keller, did not qualify for inclusion.”
Erik – A fine singer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71JlkplyviI
LikeLike
D.G. – To her credit, Worthen recognizes the diversity of her subject and employs the fissiparous character of heart-felt Christianity to propel her narrative.
fis·sip·a·rous
adjective
1. inclined to cause or undergo division into separate parts or groups.
“She was unsuccessful in holding a fissiparous membership together”
LikeLike
Tom, thanks for sharing that DG Hart article at US Religion blogspot. In case you haven’t noticed around here, the man has a fanbase.
LikeLike
Tom – Still, the lefties d-bagged you anyway in the comments. They’re on to you too. They are not your friends and never will be. They will destroy you the first time you actually pose a threat.
Erik – If Tom is referring to the comments on the book review I have no idea what he’s talking about. Lefties? d-bagged?
This is a pretty mild discussion on historiography. Not everything in life needs to be viewed through a left/right lens or paranoid antagonism.
LikeLike
DGH- I don’t criticize people until I’ve read enough of them to form my own opinion. I’ve read several books by Noll and Marsden. I have Plantinga’s latest on my Kindle but haven’t gotten to it yet. The few articles I’ve read by Plantinga have been focused on his critique of exclusive materialism. Remember, I am just a Baptist. I guess I lived for about 50 of my 63 years before I even heard of Kuyper.
LikeLike
history….I don’t think there’s much money in that
LikeLike
Note the irony of F. Murray Abraham playing that role after playing Salieri years before in “Amadeus”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ciFTP_KRy4
LikeLike
Talent (or lack therof) can be a bitch.
LikeLike
McMark, well, historians do win Pulitzers.
LikeLike
here’s how to enter, but it’s only ten thousand dollars
and the bump you get on amazon
and in speaker’s fees
http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/History
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 25, 2014 at 8:07 am | Permalink
Tom,
Since you won’t engage in substantive discussions on biblical texts I don’t think it’s very worthwhile going forward with you on these issues. You’re mostly just playing games & yanking chains. I don’t really want to facilitate that. If you are ever willing to fully engage, let me know. I’m not mad at you, but at some point these interactions just become a waste of valuable time.
This is what may ultimately earn you the Sowers rule invocation. Wasting people’s time.
Erik, I cite the Bible more than you do.* As for Mr. Sowers, he should have been easy for you to beat but you couldn’t. And he remain;s OLTS’s Godwin’s Law.
______
*You might be a TR (Totally Reformed) if…
24. You think no true evangelism has been done without at least 3 lengthy quotes from the Confession.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted February 25, 2014 at 6:19 am | Permalink
vd,t, try reading a book, like Calvinism: A History and see how neo-Calvinism fares. Unlike you, some of us have actually thought pretty hard about the differences between theology and history.
Dr. Disingenuous, send me a copy and I’ll read it. So far, after reading 1000s and 1000s of your words, you’ve not made the case you observe a distinction between history and polemics.
Not that that’s a bad thing, necessarily, but your polemical thrust is no mystery.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke – I’d say you’re invisible, huddling in your churches and little clubs—hence “preach what you practice.”
Luther – That’s what attracted me to the Reformed folks!
I grew up in a mystical Arminian tradition that claimed they will conquer the world for Jesus, using “Christian punk music” and “Christian Hip-Hop.” Divorce was treated like natural disaster, something horrible but out of our control. Men who slept around, and had multiple children, were treated like a chain-smoker. While chain smokers were treated like some major sinner.
For the record, a Doug Sowers type of dominionist brought me to my first OPC congregation. His politics sucked, but the theology of the church drew me in. I loved the fact that there were no gimmicks to attract new members, there were no attempts “to be relevant” for today’s believers. The extraordinarily spiritually healthy families drew me in, as well…but one could make that observation about Muslim and Mormon congregations.
In the end, I knew the theology to be true.
LikeLike
Luther Perez
Posted February 25, 2014 at 5:33 pm | Permalink
Tom Van Dyke – I’d say you’re invisible, huddling in your churches and little clubs—hence “preach what you practice.”
Luther – That’s what attracted me to the Reformed folks!
I grew up in a mystical Arminian tradition that claimed they will conquer the world for Jesus, using “Christian punk music” and “Christian Hip-Hop.” Divorce was treated like natural disaster, something horrible but out of our control. Men who slept around, and had multiple children, were treated like a chain-smoker. While chain smokers were treated like some major sinner.
For the record, a Doug Sowers type of dominionist brought me to my first OPC congregation. His politics sucked, but the theology of the church drew me in. I loved the fact that there were no gimmicks to attract new members, there were no attempts “to be relevant” for today’s believers. The extraordinarily spiritually healthy families drew me in, as well…but one could make that observation about Muslim and Mormon congregations.
In the end, I knew the theology to be true.
I run across a lot of ex-cradle fundies in my travels. I defend the fundies only on the grounds of religious liberty, not theological agreement.
How you “know” any theology to be true would make for an interesting discussion, LP, but to remain on topic, even though it’s a false dichotomy, I too would choose r2k-ism over “Dominionism,” would rather be ruled by Darryl Hart than Doug Sowers.
Fortunately, however, those are not the only choices.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted February 25, 2014 at 8:33 am | Permalink
Tom – Still, the lefties d-bagged you anyway in the comments. They’re on to you too. They are not your friends and never will be. They will destroy you the first time you actually pose a threat.
Erik – If Tom is referring to the comments on the book review I have no idea what he’s talking about. Lefties? d-bagged?
This is a pretty mild discussion on historiography. Not everything in life needs to be viewed through a left/right lens or paranoid antagonism.
One day you’ll believe me on these things, Erik. Comment #2 is a challenge from Randall Stevens, co-author of a bald attack on the dregs of the Religious Right called “The Anointed.”
Comment #5 links to this attack on Darryl
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/02/24/rewriting-evangelical-history-with-special-guest-d-g-hart/
the usual lefty accusations of intellectual dishonesty if not a crypto-racism/white supremacy
All pretty much as I predicted. You can always depend on these people to turn and rend you.
LikeLike
Tom,
That’s my bad. I thought you were referring to the comments below Hart’s review.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke – Bro, I hadn’t realized how much liberal/leftists animates your theological position…be careful, spite is a horrible way to construct your theology, whatever it might be.
Keep in mind, most of the Founders (AMERICA, Fnck yeah!) as far as I can see were the children of Calvinists who became proto-liberal Protestants…so as you can see, heredity does not guarantee proper theology.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke – How you “know” any theology to be true would make for an interesting discussion, LP!
Luther – Because the Bible tells me so. (That’s what that song told me, anyway.)
LikeLike
Oh yeah, for the record, I spent the late 1980s as a Liberation Theology type of guy, mixing Marxist-Leninism with the Gospel….fun times,…and spent the 1990s as a Nietzschian/Foucaultian (never know which would better describe it) Raver in the Los Angeles underground…and then started the 2000s as a Calvinist and 2Ker[?] (although I didn’t know to call it that until I found this site).
LikeLike
Luther Perez
Posted February 25, 2014 at 7:28 pm | Permalink
Tom Van Dyke – Bro, I hadn’t realized how much liberal/leftists animates your theological position…be careful, spite is a horrible way to construct your theology, whatever it might be.
Keep in mind, most of the Founders (AMERICA, Fnck yeah!) as far as I can see were the children of Calvinists who became proto-liberal Protestants…so as you can see, heredity does not guarantee proper theology.
Actually, LP, it’s more theism/anti-theism, natural law/modernity, objective moral truth vs. relativism, the metaphysical vs. the materialists. FTR.
Keep in mind, most of the Founders (AMERICA, Fnck yeah!) as far as I can see were the children of Calvinists who became proto-liberal Protestants…so as you can see, heredity does not guarantee proper theology.
Yes, there’s something to that, that the Puritans became the unitarians became today’s northeastern liberals. Fascinating, captain. Calvinism: A history, and you’re the last of the Mohicans. [Why do you think I study you?]
Tom Van Dyke – How you “know” any theology to be true would make for an interesting discussion, LP!
Luther – Because the Bible tells me so. (That’s what that song told me, anyway.)
Amazing how the Bible says so many hundreds of different things, let alone Jean Calvin. Google “list of Reformed Denominations.” [It’s long.]
Oh yeah, for the record, I spent the late 1980s as a Liberation Theology type of guy, mixing Marxist-Leninism with the Gospel….fun times
Would it surprise you to learn I have no problem with such people [except I think they have the theology wrong]? Some are sincere.
and spent the 1990s as a Nietzschian/Foucaultian (never know which would better describe it)
Nietzsche is always right, which unfortunately leaves us…nowhere.
Raver in the Los Angeles underground
Raves? Almost avant. But if you want core, that’s me on bass. 😉
and then started the 2000s as a Calvinist and 2Ker[?] (although I didn’t know to call it that until I found this site).
Well, you’re young yet. Plenty of time still to swim the
TiberBosporus.Nice to meet you, Rev. Luther. Made my day.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke – Would it surprise you to learn I have no problem with such people [except I think they have the theology wrong]? Some are sincere.
Luther – Yeah, I’m sympathetic, but I would never tolerate that stuff being taught from the pulpit. There is quite a bit of foolishness I’m sympathetic to, but would never tolerate it being taught as Gospel.
Tom Van Dyke – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlJSNwH90A
Luther – Dude,…it reminds me of some of the noise/industrial stuff I would find. I think…like The Boredoms, I think….
LikeLike
TVD, one person does not respond to Christ, excusing himself by waiting upon election. Another does not share the gospel for the same reason. Another proudly thinks of himself or his group as elect. But surely you don’t think that an abuse of a thing falsifies the thing itself.
Properly, election is a comfort to one undergoing struggles. It is a magnification of the grace of God. Rather than discourage action, it may encourage boldness and confidence. Ultimately, it leaves God as the undisputed source of salvation rather than me and my works. Which is the preferable perspective, that I emerged from fallen humanity by my own merit or that I was the recipient of gracious election? Properly, election is a doctrine that engenders humility and thankfulness before God.
LikeLike
mikelmann
Posted February 25, 2014 at 10:01 pm | Permalink
TVD, one person does not respond to Christ, excusing himself by waiting upon election. Another does not share the gospel for the same reason. Another proudly thinks of himself or his group as elect. But surely you don’t think that an abuse of a thing falsifies the thing itself.
. Ultimately, it leaves God as the undisputed source of salvation rather than me and my works. Which is the preferable perspective, that I emerged from fallen humanity by my own merit or that I was the recipient of gracious election? Properly, election is a doctrine that engenders humility and thankfulness before God.
Thx for the sincere reply, Mike.
Properly, election is a comfort to one undergoing struggles. It is a magnification of the grace of God. Rather than discourage action, it may encourage boldness and confidence
Not in evidence. Boldness in attacking fundies and catholics and baylys and kellers.
Another proudly thinks of himself or his group as elect. But surely you don’t think that an abuse of a thing falsifies the thing itself.
Actually, I don’t complain or even observe that self-congratulatory smugness as much as I might have referred to it. It’s the inertia, the impotence. The fatalism? Frame said much the same of the former, Chauncy of the latter. If it’s all about election, evangelization is almost superfluous, no?
God as the undisputed source of salvation rather than me and my works.
I believe I’ve quoted that near-infidel Ben Franklin in his letter to George Whitefield that “salvation by works” is preposterous.
If Franklin could get it…
So this “salvation by works” thing is so played out, man, strawmannish. It’s so pagan, like the best ballswinging heroes go to the Elysian Fields and Valhalla, and all the good men go to hell.
Why do you guys talk this same [bullspit] over & over? That’s what’s so smug and stupid.
Properly, election is a doctrine that engenders humility and thankfulness before God.
I’m thankful He gave me life, and for every scrap of joy and beauty he hath sent my way. The Psalms are a fine starting place. Then He sent His only Son to die for me, to atone for my imperfections, my sins.
I get the gist of it, pls don’t get me wrong. It’s the greatest story ever told.
LikeLike
If Franklin could get it…
Luther – Ewww, Tom, Franklin does not impress me. He should of been a man and resigned himself from his church. In his diary, he admits to electing church officials who were hostile to predestination, on top of all that, he practically denies Jesus is God. Nope, Ben Franklin will not do, it’s like the colonial church was drenched in all kinds of weird ideas that gave birth to liberal Protestantism…then again, it allowed all those new fandangled ideas new spaces to leave the elect to themselves.
Tom Van Dyke – So this “salvation by works” thing is so played out, man, strawmannish. It’s so pagan, like the best ballswinging heroes go to the Elysian Fields and Valhalla, and all the good men go to hell.
Luther – And a Catholic apologist would know from Pagans! Bu-dum-bump! But seriously, I suspect God knows more about “good men” than we do….why are you so worried about what you have no control over. God decides, we don’t get that choice, and thank God for that!
LikeLike
That’s not to say Ben Franklin wasn’t a genius in other fields, (you know, I’m 2k, and stuff), but I’d rather go to Nietzsche for spiritual insight than pimp daddy Franklin.
LikeLike
Luther Perez
Posted February 26, 2014 at 1:11 am | Permalink
That’s not to say Ben Franklin wasn’t a genius in other fields, (you know, I’m 2k, and stuff), but I’d rather go to Nietzsche for spiritual insight than pimp daddy Franklin.
You do not want to go Nietz. And I think you got brother Ben all wrong. If I were a betting man—and I am—I make it he was a better Christian than all of us put together because he loved God, and his neighbor as himself.
Not that any of us want to compare how much we love God, but how much we love our neighbor is pretty palpable. Can you hear me on this one?
LikeLike
vd,t, wrong. You’ve already admitted that I wasn’t polemical about neo-Calvinism in the Worthen review.
Face it vd,t, you don’t love me.
LikeLike
Tom’s latest given name has me thinking of insect repellent, ( must be DG’s arrangement of his initials).
Cheerio.
LikeLike
Tom Van Dyke – You do not want to go Nietz. And I think you got brother Ben all wrong. If I were a betting man—and I am—I make it he was a better Christian than all of us put together because he loved God, and his neighbor as himself.
Luther – He didn’t like his German and Indian neighbors. But he certainly fetishizes his ability to make choices.
LikeLike
vd, t, the switcheroo isn’t so far fetched (it may not even qualify as one):
LikeLike