Okay, I dug deeper, reading the comment thread on that piratey blog. From the same comment, I read this, first: Apart from Christ, the only God we can “know” is hidden, wrathful God who drives men to despair.

Wow, that’s amazing. Here I read the O.T. and see a God who is merciful and faithful to His promise from Genesis 12 on, even as His people turn their back on Him over and over again. I see a God who lays down a promise in Genesis 12 (knowing how it will be fulfilled in Christ, though that knowledge isn’t necessary to see the pattern about which I’m talking), and continually arranges things (even things that seem disastrous at first) so that the promise is always kept in from of His chosen people, and that they are reminded of it. I see a God who abstains from judgment even as His entire chosen people turns away from Him. He withholds His wrath! I see a God that responds to His people whenever they call on Him. I think I’ve said before that Judges is a fascinating picture of a recurring pattern in which God’s people turn away from Him, and yet He is always there to deliver them in His mercy whenever they finally call out to Him. I see that God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.”

But apparently I’m seeing what isn’t there, because it turns out that all I should be able to see is a hidden, wrathful God who drives men to despair.

So if we’re saying that all we know about God from the O.T. foreshadows Christ, then I’m down with that. Post-Incarnation, we should clearly see things Christologically. But if we’re saying that God was different before the Incarnation, or that God’s mercy could not be seen before the Incarnation, then somebody needs to re-read the O.T., methinks.

QotD: I shot off a quick answer in the comments, but after driving to work, I’ll say this: When talking about the Father and the Son, it is easy to arrange words to mean anything one wants them to mean. I could say that “anything about the universe that cannot be known in Christ cannot be known,” and it could easily become clear that anybody who disagrees with me simply doesn’t love God as much as I do. Or, leaving aside trite sayings, I could acknowledge that Christ didn’t come so that we might have knowledge, but so that we might have life, and that as a result, he didn’t spell out Everything I Need To Know About Quantum Physics while He was at it. Unless you believe that there is nothing I need to know about quantum Physics, in which case I guess He actually did.

Josh says: Anything about God that cannot be known in Christ cannot be known.


Amen. Although he and I probably would disagree substantially on what exactly can be “known in Christ” and how we know it, the Word Incarnate is God’s ultimate communication to us.


In the comments, Bruce wrote: I have been coming to the realization of late that God is unknowable. But Jesus (the Christ) is not.

And I agree that God is ultimately beyond our knowledge in and of ourselves. But on the other hand, Christ is God’s “perfect” self-revelation, and I worry about lurking polytheistic and gnostic tendencies if I draw a line around Christ and say, “we can’t know God, but we can know Christ.” Accepting for a moment the (I believe) incorrect distinction between Christ and God, I would submit that we can know neither God nor Christ except that God acts to reveal Himself to us, but I also believe that God ultimately can and will reveal Himself fully to those He calls his people.

Sorry for weird formatting. I’m trying out a new client.

It’s Chick Tract time…like you’ve never seen them before! What if Mystery Science Theater 3000 riffed on one? Try this on for size...

Thanks for When I am weak, Michael. I sent it to a friend of mine who’s struggling with various things at the moment, and it was a great encouragement to him.

Did Moses know God? Did David know God? Did Daniel know God? There’s your answer.

Anything about God that cannot be known in Christ cannot be known.

I want to say false because Josh is a Lutheran but he’s probably right which means he’s probably parroting some other theologian I agree with. For now, until I have a brew, I’ll agree.

I like technology in the church but it must serve a purpose outside of entertainment and aesthetics. “Does it convey the Word?” That’s my question. If the answer is no it can burn. Probably will too.

I don’t have issues with technology in church…..but I do have some reservations.

I do believe that evangelicals are quick to use technology and very, very dumb about its overall effects. They tend to believe that anything that “works” is only good. That’s idiotic.
I do believe that technology always causes change that must be accounted for, and not all that change is good.
I do believe that technology can create situations that are outside of the New Testament model of the church as a gathered community. I especially have issues with its potential effects on preaching, worship and leadership.
I do believe there were good reasons Jesus did not come during a technologically sophisticated era.

For instance, I think we are going to see “denominations,” made possible by churches networking the preaching of a single preacher to multiple churches. While there are certainly situations where there is nothing wrong with such an arrangement, I do believe it is, in general, a very, very bad development in New Testament pastoral ministry.

I think we will see larger and larger churches possible because of technology, and I don’t think that is a good trend.

I think technology will become more of a factor in why people attend a church, and again, there are positive and negative aspects of that phenomenon.

I want to be clear that there are, and always have been, good and helpful aspects of technology. I believe the internet is an example. But just as much as it can help the church and the individual Christian, there are bad uses, unhelpful uses and clearly distorted uses. I am just in favor of accounting for them all.

Now….It’s the Lutheran Statement of the Day, or the cleverly disguised Question of the Day:

Josh says: Anything about God that cannot be known in Christ cannot be known.

What do you think?

Well, I’ve heard that John Piper eats the babies of Pentecostals. It’s true!

And he’s a Baptist, and we all know that there’s no such thing as a good Baptist.

Plus, he takes this whole Christianity thing a little too seriously—except when he’s not taking it seriously enough.

And on a more serious note, it is sad that the people to embrace the power of the internet the most happen to be those people without the self-restraint to realize that they should type every darn thing that enters their brain, ‘cause this ain’t their normal circle of friends that idolizes every stupid thing they say.

And hey, Michael, you know that I happen to disagree with you on the use of technology in church, but I am simply too familiar with the emails and comments from people who are convinced they know you after reading a day’s post. Buddy, you don’t know me after reading a month or a year’s post. Sit down have a beer with me, and you’ll get a hint. Stick around for a year, and then—and only then—will anything I say start to make sense.

How much good have I said and done in the name of John Piper? How much have I behaved like a lovesick fan? Well, apparently not enough. Here’s what awaited me in the IM mailbag:

Greetings. Today I got my first intro to the Internet Monk. My question, Michael, is why do you rip Piper for the multi-site church?

This is because in an essay of unabashed fandom and admiration, I had a paragraph where I mentioned 6 areas where I disagree with Dr. Piper.

I disagree with his decision to split Bethlehem into two campuses, but use video technology to continue having one worship service.

Good freakin’ grief. People- Grow up. This is kindof mental.

Proof that I need to read more than John Piper books.

It is not my duty to vote but my delight.

It should go without saying that there is a world of difference between “the duties of a Christian” and “my duties as a Christian, aka ‘Christian duties’” I have many, many, many duties in this life which are semi-tangential to my relationship with God.

This is cool but kinda sad. I like O’Brien’s humor a bit more yet for some reason I just don’t DVR it :-/

The sentence is incomplete. The usual meaning behind that sentence is:

It is your Christian duty to vote… Republican

The duties of a Christian are to love God (whatever that means) and to love people. That should be obvious. If you vote for the love of God or the love of people, then yes, you are performing Christian duty. Of course it probably matters more to the homeless person that you offer him your extra room or couch than voting for a politician who promises to start a program to steal money from one group to built a free house for him.

Is it a Christian’s duty to vote?

No. That’s just silly.

Your duty (haha, I said duty) is to the CHURCH. Our allegiance is to Jesus, God, and the Church. We, believers, are actually apart of a Monarchy and we have a King who rules over Kim Jong-il and President Bush.

Can we agree with Jesus and say “My kingdom is not of this world”? We happen to be passing through and we have the opportunity to vote to create a more peaceful world both locally and abroad.

Ken: Interesting question. The rationale behind “it is your Christian duty to vote,” as I have always heard it, is more or less this:

1. It is our duty to be good stewards of what God has entrusted to us.
2. God has entrusted to us this society which depends on our vote.
3. Therefore, it is our duty to do what we can to ensure that this society continues in a way that allows us to live quiet and peaceable lives, as long as it is within our ability to do so.

To a certain point, that makes sense. Clearly we must be good stewards—though I think case could be made for those stewardship parables and teachings applying more directly to the deposit of faith and the hope that lies within us—and the syllogism is clumsy, but not completely screwy. OTOH, the idea that anyone can read the N.T. and come away thinking that we have no duties as Christians makes my kidneys hurt so bad I think that they’ve exploded.

I’d more impressed with a statement that said “It is your duty as an American to vote,” frankly.

I would suggest that any time the Founder of the Christian religion (or one of His chosen representatives) tells His followers to do something, and that something is distinctly tied to being a follower of the aforementioned Founder, then the answer is Yes, there are Christian duties.

In light of the graceology of BNAT, I would ask if there are any “Christian duties”?

Politics is finally served by the right demographic.

This statement in our church bulletin [It’s your Christian duty to vote], prompts this question.

Is it a Christian’s duty to vote?

An interesting…ha…op-ed peice.

Eric: Definitely praying for you and your step-bro-in-law.

Interesting: The Houston Chronicle reviews a book by a guy who infiltrated a fundamentalist Baptist church for three years to produce a documentary about those nasty right-wingers.

And then, moved by the care and concern of the people within that church, converted himself.

My step-brother-in-law is on his death bed. He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in the middle of summer, but we all expected him to make it longer than this.
He is a pediatrician in his early 40s, he has two middle-school-aged sons and a wife prone to severe clinical depression. This is and is going to be so hard on all of them and the rest of us.

Please pray for Tom and family.

Also, but less of a priority, please pray for me. This is one of those times that tests a person’s belief that God is in control of everything and that He has a reason for everything. I believe both of those truths, but I have had some very candid prayers lately. When I think of what those boys have already been through in their young lives and what they are going through and what they are about to go through…

Please pray that my faith will be strengthened.

Kent: Are you sure your trefoil picture isn’t trillium? Also, you seem to like photographing mushrooms. Do you ever eat the wild varieties? Did you ever find jewelweed?

Anybody who hasn’t seen all 100 of Kent’s photos, please do yourself a favor and check them out. They are simply breathtakingly beautiful. Out of the 100 pics he has on flickr, at least 99 of them are perfect, maybe more. :-)

This is God’s nature at its finest.

Michael: Your latest piece is simply fantastic. Thanks for writing it, Sheriff!

Best yet, Michael.

This is the real heart of the mystery, lived out. Jesus being resurrected, I can grasp. Water into wine, I can swallow.

But this almost schizoid existence, I cannot grasp. The here and now; the war that you sign up for by believing the gospel. This present life is the real mystery that we stumble on as a church.

I have probably wasted 99% of my “religious life” worrying about these &$^#ned things rather than trusting in the God who prefers the company of sinners.

two random things from the bible which blow my mind.

Remember when Jesus was preaching to the common folk and putting down the synagogue leaders? He said “do what they say, but not what they do.”

Did you catch that? Most people don’t because they focus on the 2nd part of what Jesus said. The first part was do what they say.

Another.

At some point, I may actually hear “well done, my good and faithful servant” from my master. That blows my mind.

I don’t remember whether I’ve ever plugged the [Acton Institute] on BHT ever or not, but I should have. Here’s [an article on how faith-based organizations should govern themselves] that some of you might find interesting.

Prayer: I continue to pray for Noel’s church family. I lost my father to suicide nearly thirty years ago, there is a way that it injures the loved ones left behind that is fathomless.

Michael always gets to be sherrif? I called it first.

This note in the IM mailbag this morning:

You are going to get a fat surpize in heaven one day!

Who appointed you Sheriff?

I did realize, however, that no one appointed me sheriff. So I will be laying aside my sheriff duties for the time being. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Michael: The Larry Lea story had a big writeup in Charisma magazine one month, but I no longer have that issue.

I’m still praying that this story turns out more like Lea’s, but the signs definitely don’t look good.

There, but for the Grace of God, go I.

Former Senator Mark Hatfield: Anti-Vietnam/Pro-Bush. A powerful and persuasive endorsement from a statesman whose credentials for peace are unquestioned. Read this. Memorize it.

My Lord God
I have no idea where I am going.
I do not see the road ahead of me.
I cannot know for certain where it will end.
Nor do I really know myself,
and the fact that I think I am following
your will does not mean
that I am actually doing so.
But I believe that my desire to please you
does in fact please you.
And I hope that I have that desire
in all that I am doing.
I hope that I will never do anything
apart from that desire.
And I know that if I do this
you will lead me by the right road
though I may know nothing about it.
Therefore will I trust you always
though I may seem to be lost
and in the shadow of death.
I will not fear,
for you are ever with me,
and you will never leave me
to face my perils alone. – Thomas Merton (1915-1968)

Prayers are with the developing situation.

What is the gospel?

I really like this Russell (and I shared it with you before).

The good news is: you are more sinful and flawed than you ever dared believe yet you can be more accepted and loved than you ever dared hope at the same time because Jesus Christ lived and died in your place. As the apostle Paul said, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” InTown Pres. Church

toying with this idea: The Gospel is the good guy saving the bad guy after the badguy killed him.

The Gospel is the power of God revealed in saving sinners without nullifying His righteous requirements. (Far too theological perhaps)

Maybe I’ll just quote Jesus “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. ”

Jesus will be our husband; Almighty, a King, God manifested and we get to enjoy Him forever with those who also enjoy Him without all the hangups of sin and death. An ever-lasting party where God picks up the tab.

Several members of Noel’s Church have checked in down at the original post, so I would encourage those interested to click back there.

[Edited: Comments closed. Go to this link for prayer requests.]

When I Am Weak: Why we must embrace our brokenness and never be good Christians.

And I finally updated the “Recent Essays” Page, which has most of what anyone might ever want to read. Archive clean up later this week.

This is wonderful. WONDERFUL.

*Jim/Kent:*I marvel at the work of the Holy Spirit in Jim’s life, enabling him to restrain himself. So I, too, am greatly comforted.

Mark 1:14-15
I Cor 15:1-3
John 3:16

Christ died for sinners.

In fuller form, this.

BARTENDERS: Could someone fix the scripturizer, or tell me why we can’t use it anymore?

What is the gospel? I’m trying to get a good grasp of this, but the baggage of my history is making it difficult. Would appreciate some input.

Thanks for the questions, Michael…

I just found out that his degree is a Masters of Divinity in Advanced Biblical Studies from Southeastern Theological Seminary… IMHO, that is an extremely good thing—its rare to find a youth pastor who put in the time and effort for that when he could have just gotten a Masters of Arts for half the credit hours and without the languages.

I’ve typed up a list of questions, the first few are my own questions:

•“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,” (Eph 4:11-12), so how do you plan on equipping our youth for the work of ministry?
•“Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.” (1Co 14:20) How do you plan on helping our youth become mature thinkers??
•What is more important to you, creating an environment which is attractive to non-professing youth or creating an environment in which professing youth will be encouraged to hold fast to Christ and will be equipped to serve and love those outside of the church?

Then I’m going to ask some of the questions from Michael’s post below. If there are any more any of you can think of, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

Lurker Kathleen with a note on the crisis prayer request for Noel’s pastor. Thanks Kathleen. Still praying. Such a terrible situation.

Jim with a music update.

Spurgeon quote in the bannerhead to irritate.

New IM piece is about done. But will it suck so bad I won’t post it? That’s the question.

I’m off to Southern Seminary Sunday and Monday- Al Mohler country- to study the Gospel of Mark. A thoroughly awesome bookstore. Good restaurants. High culture for this hillbilly.

I went to see these guys play for the third time last night. It’s like Sherman’s march to the sea. Scouts from other schools must be praying for a hurricane to come to Ky on their night. By the end of the first minute, they score. 26-0 at the half. Opposing quarterback with a concussion. Two other starters on the sideline. God help anyone who beat them last year and has to play them this year. Middlesboro, who knocked them out of the playoffs last year, is the last in line. It won’t be pretty. Bart would love it.

Too many years in the youth ministry biz, and my questions will seem harassing. Go for it.

1) Activities or Discipleship: How will it balance out in your ministry? (Explain the meaning of “fun” in your ministry?)
2) What do you want to produce? Individually, corporately, in the community? Be detailed.
3) What do you want to see in your students 5, and 25 years from now?
4) How will you avoid ghettoizing the youth group? IOWs, will they be part of the church and its worship or will they be a separate entity that thinks church is boring?
5) Who and what has influenced your philosophy of ministry?
6) How does your own personal spiritual life, mental health and family life balance out with ministry?
7) What will be your nights off? When should we not call because you will be with your wife and family?
8) What is the Gospel? How do you know when you are hearing it?
9) What will your ministry be doing to create praying and caring community in the youth ministry?
10) Since the only way to justify your job is 1) as an extension of the church’s overall mission/evangelism/discipleship commission and/or 2) as an extension of the family’s responsibility to raise Christian children in the faith…how do you conceive of your ministry relating to church and family? Particular in the area of authority? Will church leaders, parents and other adults be on planning and evaluation groups?
11) How will prayer be part of your ministry?
12) Will you be doing missions, or taking fun trips disguised as expensive missions trips?
13) How will you relate to the community outside of the church?
14) How will you minister to kids who have dysfunctional families?
15) Are you willing to use community resources in order to extend your ministry, such as counseling?
16) What are your personal standards on spending time with the opposite sex?
17) Will you seek out personal accountability relationships?
18) Have you read- and memorized- the works of the Internet Monk?
19) Will you kiss Rick Warren’s ring, or any other part of his anatomy?
20) What is your opinion of Guinness?

Jim, the fact that you’re not a jerk and were able to restrain yourself from actually saying that stuff you posted gives me great comfort. Of course I can’t speak for anyone else.

So my church has a potential Youth Pastor in town this weekend. I, being one of the few college students currently studying for the ministry, have been invited to attend a dinner with an informal question and answer session for this guy. I’ve come up with a few questions to ask him, because I have little faith that the others (some youth and some youth leaders/Sunday School teachers) will ask many relevant questions. So here is my question: What do you think is an important question to ask someone being considered for a Youth Pastor position at a church? If you were in my position, what would you ask him?

1. Separation of Church and Crap should be mandatory.

2. Separation of “hotties” and “dating/courting hotties” is now necessary.

3. Separation of brew and “canoe beer” is a good idea.

If I haven’t said it yet, go see “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow”. It’s kid safe and a wonderful movie (both cinematically and story wise).

FYI: I didn’t get the job :/ Russell says God still loves me so he, Russell, deserves a hug, and God deserves praise because He probably has a “reason” for this even if I don’t like it or don’t know what it is. :/

You know, it’s a good thing I’m not a jerk, because if I was, I’d probably post something like this:

Any reasonable person could go to google and type in “turkey adultery criminal” and, by looking at the first 5 or so hits, understand that the issue is that the friggin’ EU doesn’t want Turkey to make adultery a criminal offense, as it currently is not such in any EU country or in Turkey (which, following Attaturk’s views, has been extraordinarily liberal toward women and sexuality by Middle Eastern and even European standards in some aspects.)

The problem for the EU is that by now even some of the secularists see the move within Turkey to recriminalize adultery as a step toward more political power for Islamic fundementalists (and in point of fact it would be), and many within the EU are extremely skitish about that. In fact, a recently murdered outspoken gay Dutch politician was quite infamous for his plain talk about fears of an Islamized Europe.

Those of us within the US who might be inclined to either chuckle a these EU “antics” or condemn the politicians as facists/racists/whatever might consider what would happen if there was a move to, say, admit Puerto Rico into the Union, and at the same time an Islamist political faction showed every sign of winning control of the government in San Juan.

But of course, I’m not a jerk, so I wouldn’t say any of that. Aren’t you glad?

Russell, maybe the Turks see the proscription of adultery as an imposition of Christian values; their definition of adultery may differ from that of the EU.

Thought you’d appreciate that answer.

Something about this is quite fascinating, a possible model for integrating “church and state”?

Matthew: You might think that the ECUSA would realize many, many things, but you would be completely wrong.

However, the precipitous actions of these L.A. churches was pretty foolish given the impending pronouncement of the Lambeth council and so on. Of course, that’s pretty easy for me to say, since I live in a diocese whose leanings mirror my own.

After the recent judgement against the UMC in California (can’t remember the link), it seems the ECUSA would see that this is a lost cause for them.

Can anyone explain to me why Turkey doesn’t want to make adultery illegal?

I think the church should be separate from the state. For one, it should be smaller. A church should take up maybe 10 acres of land, if its big, but a state should be at least 100 miles across. Also I don’t think churches should levy gas taxes, but states definatley should, since there are state construction crews building and maintaining roads in some states. I think erosion is bad too. Just look what’s happening to Haiti because the greedy wood-mongers took down all the trees! Sheesh!

Thats what I think of not being allowed to attack the terms being used in the thesis of an argument. Would this post be considered “snarky”? (In case you don’t know what snarky means, the dictionary gives this as part of the definition: irascible. That should clear it up.)

VDH chews up the left in general and CBS in particular. A keeper.

If we wonder why CBS is in trouble, why no one trusts the universities or the U.N., or why the Democrats may soon lose the Senate, the House, the presidency, and the Supreme Court, the answer has a lot to do with arrogant hypocrisy — the idea that how one lives need have nothing to do with what one professes, that idealistic rhetoric can provide psychological cover for privilege and preference, and that rules need not apply for those self-proclaimed as smarter and nicer than the rest of us. But none of us — none — get a pass simply because we claim that we are more moral, educated, or sophisticated than most.

In case anyone needed one, here’s a reason to vote. (Warning: Not for the offendable.)

Saw Loretta Lynn last night at our arts center here in town. Incredible. And to think, I have performed many times on the same stage.
You have not heard “How Great Thou Art” until you’ve heard her sing it backed by a steel guitar.
And if any of you wiseacres don’t like Loretty, you can just keep it to yourselves, ‘cause wherever you live is not too far for me to drive to whip your a@$! (sw)

Phillip, I guess I could argue that my wife and I are fairly “diverse”, but it would be a dead end. Point conceeded.

The last part of your post was “wrapped in JN’s”, the first was not. Again, I thought your mode of thinking was interesting, I wanted to hear more.

And speaking of bulldogs, I tried (and finally succeded) to send you an email last evening, your anti-spam software is polite but firm.

All, Real Live Preacher this morning reminds me that blogging is a “gathering together”.

Kent: I wrapped it in JN! What more do you want?

The first part is in no way intended to be argumentative at all. That’s why I started with “I have no desire to convince anyone of any of this…” or what I actually said. It just helps me, is all. So I wasn’t trying to debate you on the church-as-a-verb thing, but I will still say that there is a big difference between a gathering of diverse believers over beer for theological discussion and cuddling with your wife under the stars. Both are highly recommended, but I couldn’t stretch myself to call the second one church.

Michael: In retrospect, my statement had the ring of “Christ wasn’t trying to establish a new religion, just a new sect of Judaism,” or whatever the details of that monstrous idea are. That was not my intention at all. My point was that Christ did not build a church organization, but rather only laid the foundation for one, so we can’t determine from Christ’s actions much about the shape the church is supposed to take.

If Teresa was trying to help this guy get elected, would she sound like such an idiot?

Phillip you raging bulldog (said in jest, love and respect; with a large smile and emotion in my voice), it was an informational inquiry. I’m not debating I’m trying to understand your thinking. If you can call slurping a Shiner Bock “church” I sure as Anglican he11 can call cuddling with my wife under the stars “church”.

More and more I’m starting to “think” of the ekklesia as “the people who God called forth”, I learned in the past few years that ekklesia is the word used in the LXX for Moses’ crown of complainers. I wanted to plumb the depths of your thinking, not start a debate.

T.G.I. Friday’s..I have fond memories (and distant, like 1982 or so) of splitting lanes on my BMW motorcycle while riding home on the Santa Ana Freeway after downing two of their Long Island Iced Teas. It was likely one of my stupider moves, but I was clueless as to how much booze was in one of those things. On the way home it rained like crazy and SoCal Edison popped a fuse, which gridlocked half of Orange County, adding to the “pucker factor”.

Today my trips home from T.G.I. Friday’s in Fargo in my ‘93 Escort after a steak and O’Doul’s are not quite as adventurous, except of course on icy evenings.

...between church and state is, I believe, a good thing. Both for the church and for the state. It is however, important to place Mr. Jefferson’s terminology in historic context, many people today cannot place last week in historic context.

“Separation of Church and State” is not mentioned in the Consititution of the United States nor in the Declaration of Independence, it is a concept that Mr. Jefferson mentioned in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The details and context of this correspondence are available here.

Consider his historic context.

Mr. Jefferson is writing a mere century(ish) after Oliver Cromwell’s takeover and subsequent rule of England. Merle D’Aubigne’s Cromwell, the Protector (available from Sprinkle Publications; sprinklepub at planetcomm.net) was written in the mid 19th century and is a wonderful and balanced treatment of The Lord Protector’s rule by a believer. Suffice to say that this was a bloody, bloody, civil war begun in regicide and ended with the exhumation of Cromwell’s remains and impalement upon the stakes of the fence around the Tower of London.

One can never forget that we have our origins and influence in English history, we are their political sons.

Consider also the Maryland Toleration Act and it’s historic context. It is the first document declaring religious freedom in the Americas, written by Catholics seeking protection against Puritan persecution. The Toleration Act was unabashedly “Christian”, but it boiled Christianity down to the essentials of “The Trinity”, “Jesus as the Son of God” and was quite protective of the “Virgin Mary”. It outlawed name calling, in this way it was “politically correct” before it’s time.

This was recent history to Thomas Jefferson in 1802, as recent as our own Civil War is to us. A bloody conflict had recently taken place in the mother country of the colony in which he grew up, a conflict largely fueled by religious bigotry and domination. There are of course many other factors, this period of of history is as complex as any other, but it’s important to remember that our founding father’s learned much from English history; much of which they didn’t care to repeat.

But in the end I believe it’s important to distinguish between being ruled by “the church” and ruled by “men of the church”; the first a political insitution in Jefferson’s day, the second men who bear the burden of service to their fellow man.

I need the BHT family to take a moment- right now please-and pray for Noel’s pastor at Tate’s Creek Presbyterian, Pray for him, and for his protection and for him to be helped by God and those who love him right now. Pray for his family. Pray for Noel as well, and for the TCPC elders and congregation.

[Edited: Comments closed. A TCPC prayer request board is here.]

On church and state, and the separation thereof:

This certainly is no easy question and part of the difficulty lies in clarifying the various terms that get thrown around, especially terms that are so fuzzy, like “state” and “church.”

A good provisional definition of the “state” is that body of entities which has the legal authority to exercise force, whether military, police, fiscal, etc. within certain geographical limits. A state enforces so-called “public law.” Now, the concept of “law” is also a very nebulous concept as well, and different states can enforce different public laws. For instance, in the Geneva of Calvin’s time, public law forbade blasphemy. In the Israel of Moses’ time, public law prescribed various ritual sacrifices at appointed times of the year. Both these examples are chosen in order to show that public law can legitimately include laws which we consider “religious” or church-related.

In the American system, the idea is that the state has no business enforcing laws that are considered “religious” in nature, i.e., the state ought not require worship of a particular God, in a particular way. This I would agree with. The problem arises in those fuzzy areas (so-called gay marriage, for instance).

I would be curious know what exactly is meant by the “separation of church and state.” If it means the state ought not establish an official religion then fine, if that claim means that there is some Church of the USA like there is a Church of England. If separation means that any rationale for public policy that has some religious background to it is out of line, then I would reject the separation of church and state, because then Christians could not serve in government. If separation means George Bush or John Kerry cannot spout religious platitudes or politick to their religious base, then I reject separation as incompatible with free speech.

Telford Work has been blogging the whole Dan Rather/CBS/Killian memos thing, and he makes some great observations in this piece. Read the others, too.

Instead, I see Rather as a 72-year-old technophobe and hotshot who doesn’t understand the niceties of word processing, the web, the rules of evidence, or the speed of our information culture. I think of my mother, an accomplished classical pianist who is Rather’s age and intimidated to death just by the idea of e-mailing, and I think: the poor guy. The worlds from which he is being attacked must be incomprehensible to him. Proportional fonts? Leading? Bloggers? Rather has been totally out of his depth since this whole thing broke. (A print journalist wouldn’t be so vulnerable. We know all that technical stuff cold because of the role of typesetting.) Moreover, his arrogance and ideological filters have kept him from understanding how to respond. I doubt he will ever get the dynamics of his own career’s undoing.

New academic books and other things in the new Discerning Reader flyer.

I need to start a list of perfectly simple human activities that I can barely ever do without disaster. Dressing myself is getting more difficult at age 48.

Small flys fly slow….and I cannot swat them for anything. Am I on drugs?

I talked with a girl today who would rather be called bi-polar than overly emotional. Thank you, therapeudic culture of America.

You guys that think Jesus never planned to start an “organization” need to do a couple of things for me:

1) Look up the word organization.
2) Explain why he invested so much time in leadership, rituals, and making sure they were purpose-driven. Wait….what did I say?

I have a new, 17 inch, flat screen, LCD monitor that I bought for $288. It shipped in 3 days. Today I bought two Michelin tires, and they will arrive in 3. It’s amazing, isn’t it?

Tomorrow is OBI family day. I will sit in my room and see if any parents come to talk to me. I have 13 seniors and 4 juniors. I am wagering…...6 come to talk. We’ll see.

No Russell, you believe whatever profits you most.

Ok, so the president of Iraq says one thing, and Kerry says “He’s wrong!” And as a voter I’m supposed to believe Kerry?

In a debate and argumentation class, I’m not sure attacking the terms of the thesis statement is the best approach.

Wow Phillip, I’m suprised by your answer to Danny’s question on the church and culture. Guess I had you in a box that doesn’t fit :)

This part:

I’m trying to answer the question the way you phrased, so others can jump on me afterward. Let me try this: I believe that the church can legitimately grow and develop and express itself differently, even diversely, but I draw a big red line of caution a bit before we get to the point where that expression is counter to what we see in Scripture. In fact, my statement that the church can change a bit to reflect its culture should be understood as non-imperative and non-universal.

I like your emphasis on non-imperative and non-universal, but I wonder what the practical outworking of the “counter to what we see in Scripture” idea is. You cited Paul’s Aereopagus sermon and related it to the Native American “Great Spirit” but like you said, how many evangelicals would say “The Great Spirit is the same as God Himself!”??? Or to put another one out there, how many evangelicals would say “Allah is the same as God Himself!”? Of course Paul’s example is to continue from that bridge connection point to show how the Athenians misconceived God, and a Christian, once making that bridge with a Native American or Muslim should proceed to highlight some of the more important differences between their conception of “Great Spirit” or “Allah” and God Himself.

The Scriptures have many things in them, and one could suggest that Pauls actions were contrary to commandments against Idolatry, which is what I’d expect a normal evangelical would charge against the Great Spirit and Allah. How can you draw a big red line when the Bible can conceivably both support a certain expression of church AND that expression can run counter to what the Scripture says?

Danny,

The church isn’t the Church anymore when it doesn’t have Christ. He’s the central figure, He’s what its all about.

Phillip,

I’ve appreciated Keith Green’s straightforward reading of the sheep and goats for some time. It’s amazing to me how many people, at least in the PCEFs, twist it around though, and make an excuse for their own lack of caring for others, and turn it into a “heart attitude” thing.

Noel,

So you’re supposed to analyze:
The separation of church and state is being inappropriately eroded.
?

What does that mean? Would it be appropriate to take the Russell Tactic™ and object to the term “separation of church and state” ??

Could I point out that the meaning of the First Ammendment is to protect the Church, not to protect the State?

What does “inappropriately” mean? Does this have anything to do with Constitutionality? (or the verb form, constitutionalizing)

I typed up a killer response. :-/ Dang IE.

The separation of church and state is being inappropriately eroded.

I’ll have to shorten it because I don’t want to have to type it all again.

The “church” is nothing more than a group of citizens. The citizens of this country are to give the government the rights it can exercise (ha).

The “separation of church and state,” of course, is nothing more than an attempt to remove one group’s ability to come together (peaceably) and influence the government.

We do not see a term such as “separation of church and ALCU”. The ACLU is a group, much like the church, with a social agenda. Granted they differ greatly but the result is the same. A group of citizens attempting to ensure that they can exercise “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

So if the “church” in “separation of church and state” are just a group of people with a common background/ideology how is the idea any different then the polemic “separation of blacks/muslims and state”? A group of individuals with a commonality denied influence and voice?

Liberals who think there is an encroachment of “church” on state are categorically, unquestionably, undeniably, so ignorant of what “church” means in this country, that is is almost useless to talk to them. I’ve been listening to these moonbats since the early 70’s (Baptist Joint Committee on Public affairs) and these people are bonkers. They are raising money with fear, just like Dobson, etc.

What are they talking about?

Martin Luther King standing in churches preaching HIS brand of politics? Or Jerry Falwell standing in his pulpit preaching HIS? (These people are foaming at the mouth.) Puhleeze.

Christians working to legislate the right to life for the unborn? Or Christians working to legislate the right to vote for the already born? (Arrgghh)

Are they talking about “God” being mentioned at a graduation? A football game? The same “God” that’s on the money? In the chaplain’s prayer in congress? Mentioned in the founding documents? Good grief!

Do they mean “under God” in the pledge? Christmas mentioned by public officials? Days of Prayer? Can these people explain why the old Soviet Union and the current communist China are better on the subject of church/state than the United States? Can they explain how PRESIDENT CLINTON was wrong when HE- not Reagan or Bush- signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Where is that legislation wrong? Somebody tell me.

Face it. Liberals despise conservative religious activism. Read Clinton’s autobiography. He equates these people with racism and sexism. Categorically. Liberals are sure their causes are anointed by God and the blood of the martyrs. They believe conservative activists- pro-life particularly- are working to repeal all human progress and are the minions of the devil. If it weren’t so whack, it would be amusing.

This is a country where religious participation in the public square is guranteed. No establishment of religion has nothing to do with free exercise. This is anti-Catholic, anti-fundamentalist bigotry. Liberals need enemies, and conservative religious zealots make a great target.

What did their great Satan-W- campaign for? Giving ALL faith-based groups the opportunity to get in on the delivery of public services. The big rub? Would the guy handing out a sandwich be exposed to a Chick tract at the same time. OH NOOOOOOO!!

When they started calling conservatives the “Taliban,” I knew they were off their nut. Liberal paranoia. 99.9% nut case ravings.

I’m hoping to get a discussion going on here (late in the day, I know) that will benefit me completely – cause I’m selfish like that. I’m in a class called Argumentation & Debate in which, in about a month, I will actually be debating with a partner. This class has me all freaked out because I’m scared I just can’t cut it. Anyway, our first big assignment is to analyze our debate resolution. So I’ve been thinking about it, but thought that since there are so many great people on this blog, I would open it up to you guys/gals, in hopes that you might give me some good ideas as well, or have some good articles, etc.

So let’s cut to the chase. The resolution is: The separation of church and state is being inappropriately eroded.

I see both sides of the issue (which is good for this assignment), but what are your thoughts?

Kent: I don’t have any desire to convince anyone else to think of church as I do. Certainly my post makes it clear that I do think of church in the dictionary “gathering” sense quite often, too. I simply try to shake things up in my own head by verbing nouns (like that) on a lot of different topics, and church is one.

Here’s a for-instance: After church every Sunday night, some of us, 8-10 or so, head to a local T.G.I. Friday’s for a few hours of talking, some beer and food, and the growing-famous “Danielle’s Theological Question of the Week.” Is that church? One participant said, “No, because it doesn’t include singing.” I nearly choked on my Shiner Bock, and a wasted drop of that stuff would be a criminal act. When did singing become a requirement for “church?”

I think that it is one thing to say that the ekklesia of the Old Testament had singing, or that the ekklesia of the New Testament often had singing, and quite another to say that a church simply doesn’t qualify without the singing of spiritual songs. Is participatory singing a good idea when churching? Sure it is! The descriptive examples provided to use demonstrate its importance, at least. But is it a requirement? It’s hard to imagine.

I’ll tell you this, Kent. If you’re going to try to twist my words into some sort of excuse for not gathering with anybody other than your spouse, I’m going to go back and delete my posts and deny I said a word!

Danny: The LDS doesn’t have the Gospel, period. Even on the most basic level of the Ethiopian eunuch, they don’t have the gospel. So that may be a gathering, but it isn’t the Body of Christ, or the Bride of Christ, or the Kingdom of God.

Jesus’ most common reprimands to the ekklesia of His day seemed to be related to (1) the lack of Gospel, obviously, but more specifically to (2) their reliance on pious works rather than true love. But that may be a different topic than you were starting.

Lately I’ve been considering the parable of the sheep and the goats, and thinking that Keith Green had that one just exactly right. “The only difference between the sheep and the goats is what they did, and didn’t, do.”