Doug Wilson says no way to Huckabee.

Noel (my daughter) is selling more of my library. There are some real bargains on the Anchor Bible Dictionary and The New International Commentary on the New Testament set.

Check out the links at ebay and Half.com to see all the books I’m selling,

How about some 2008 Predictions? More »« Less

Here’s a good article on why modern pop recordings usually don’t sound as good as older ones.

Alan Jacobs writes wistfully of the demise of Anglicanism.

John, who is going to administer the sacraments? I’m not even talking about the ritual that you as a Lutheran or me as a Methodist are used to. Who is going to be the one to take someone into the waters of baptism and baptize them? Who is going to tell the story of the Last Supper, break the bread and pass the cup? Even if they take turns, who decides whose turn is next?

I’m very sympathetic to what Brant is doing, but I see nothing romantic about the inevitable necessity for some type of leadership/authority. I noticed that someone commented that the idea of an eldership was something Paul gave the church and that they want to be like the church before that. Great, but before that the apostles were the leaders and authority. Some day someone in the group is going to defend modalism or Arianism. What are they going to do then? Doesn’t someone need to say, “Hey, that doesn’t jive with a Trinitarian understanding of God.”? Who has the authority to say that?

From the comments in Brant Hansen’s “we quit church” post:

Brant, you have described a gathering of Christians who meet regularly here, but at least from what I have read, you simply have not described the Biblical understanding of a local church. No authoritative teaching (“sermons” is one word for such teaching) from appointed elders? No formal church membership (that is, as indicated from 1 Corintians 5)? No practice for formal exclusion from the church, after following the Biblically mandated processes (again, 1 Cor. 5)? Then, there is simply no church, at least not in the Biblical understanding of the word.

What a depressing (and vaguely fascistic) vision of the church: “authority + formal membership + excommunication”.

Give me the ecclesiology of the Augsburg Confession (and the Thirty-Nine Articles) any day: the church as “saints + gospel + sacraments”. If you have Christians gathered together, hearing the gospel proclaimed to them (which is the true essence of preaching, rather than the fetish for “authority” displayed by some Christians), baptising and receiving the Lord’s Supper together: there is the true church, regardless of whether you also have a membership database installed on the pastor’s PC, a formal excommunication process, a specially-constructed building, a seminary degree certificate on the pastor’s office wall, or any other trappings of “churchly” existence.

A Brant Hansen Christmas Cartoon.

If you haven’t read his latest epistle describing what’s happened after he gave up what we usually call church, you ought to. Esp the comments. People who call ME post-evangelical….ha ha ha.

This sort of rhetoric is going to work for Obama. Hillary shopping at Target is impossible. Now Bill trolling for moms at Target….that’s imaginable.

[name deleted] has a good post on Athanasius and “tradition.”

Oh good grief. “My daddy died in Iraq” is the newest con.

The Exorcism Squad is back.

A new Lutheran blog recommended.

You should have Poetry Foundation on your blogroll, and you should subscribe to the podcasts.

Baptist Theologian Fisher Humphries reviews B16s book on Jesus.

“Loving God and Neighbor Together” is the Christian response to the the Muslim “Common Word Between Us.”

I think I’m going to have to read the Howard book on Catholicism. I’ve been spared the apologists in my area, and my good RCC friends and I respect each other’s Christianity. It’s always good, though, when there’s something that helps people understand each other’s terms and perspective. The worst theological arguments I’ve had are usually a result of not using terms the same way.

I dearly love my RCC friends and consider them brothers in Christ, but Rome has never been a temptation for me. The deal killers for me have always been Infallibility, Magisterium, Mary, and holding things other than scripture at the same level as scripture.

All ye oil consumed, didn’t ye know that a major source of US oil is The Great White North (mostly Alberta, and some Saskatchewan :) )? Currently the known reserves in Canada are second only to that of Saudi Arabia. So what’s the hullabaloo all about then?

It is very interesting to view the RCC from the Orthodox perspective. Then one does not only see the problematic innovations and additions, as well as the centralisation of power, but also the deep philosophical presuppoaitions that accompany these things. Tim Enloe’s deleted post at Ref Cath some weeks ago was actually brilliant in highlighting some of these things, and sparked a debate at Energetic Procession (maybe somebody already mentioned that – I forget). Of course, they go further to a critical analysis of all of the Western Tradition, but it is helpful nonetheless. I’ve also discovered to my interest that the Protestant Tradition that the Orthodox are least antagonistic/most complimentary of is Lutheranism … ;)

Jason: It’s rather remarkable when you consider what progress could be made with the deletion of Rome’s claim to infallibility. It’s also remarkable how essential infallibility is to the entire Roman Catholic case. And, of course, it’s quite appealing to Protestants who have just had enough of hearing voice after voice, author after author, preacher after preacher, on and on and on, all contradicting one another. The relative calm (and I say relative because Howard has searing words for many liberal Catholic bishops and theologians) in the RCC is remarkably attractive.

Face it. No one joins the RCC for preaching or Bible teaching. Howard makes it plain that to be a Catholic is to be the church, the people of God and to participate in all that God is giving to his people by virtue of the sacramental system. Protestants get lots of things right, but when it comes down to it, what Jesus Christ is giving the world is given by way of the RCC, and only overflows secondarily to those related to, but not in communion with, the true church.

It seems to me that the loser here is the Holy Spirit. If I understand Howard correctly, the Catholic view is that the Holy Spirit is almost- almost- exclusively tied to the RCC as an infallible institution and as a dispenser or sacraments. The work of the HS outside the RCC is vaguer than vague. Of course, don’t we all see the appeal of that? TBN is full of people who say they have the Spirit, but it looks mostly like they are crazy, among other things. To say that the HS works in communion with Apostolic succession and through the sacraments of the church- which do not include preaching or the reading of scripture per se apart from mass- is to locate the work of the Spirit in unmistakable ways.

Of course, it’s right there- the freedom of the Holy Spirit to bring people into Christ, establish and gift the church, empower the church for the Gospel, etc- that I feel the most distant from the claims of the RCC, and no amount of good language about the Spirit’s work in Protestantism is going to solve these problems. Christ isn’t building up the church. Christ is building the Roman Catholic church, and the Spirit’s work outside of the bounds of the institution must be referenced to the institution eventually to be valid. I thought both Kreeft and Howard made this plain in ways that are very helpful.

Those of us who had been gloomily awaiting the demise of Thomas’ Endlessly Rocking blog can now relax: his wife talked some sense into him, finally. (sw)

Michael: “I’m left with the irony that the RCC has held on to everything i believe is of value, but added to those things critical- not insignificant- additions that I believe are wrong. The RCC is the church, but it’s contention to be the only church on earth while the rest of us are separated from her- and the many things she has added to tradition and doctrine in the name of infallibility- is a deal breaker for me.”

The contention that a group is the “one true church” based on some addition or faulty interpretation must be the error that defines the ditches in Western Christianity between which the Church lies. (I may be wrong, but I think my analogy breaks down when I add Eastern churches into the mix.)

Phillip: That was a far better way of saying what I was rambling about yesterday.

Jim: That people who hold political opinions that differ from mine are wrong is a given. That does not, however, mean that some of them can’t also be crazy!

People so misunderstand the idea of ad hominem attacks. It makes me sad.
I hate politics and which candidate I loathe the least isn’t something I come to the BHT to contemplate. There are excellent reasons—deal-killers, really—for me to reject every single candidate in the race, and I don’t think that’s ever happened this early in the race before. Maybe I’m just being more realistic this time around.

I’m almost finished with Thomas Howard’s book On Being Catholic. It’s part of a small library of materials sent to me by RC friends in hopes of clearing up my misunderstandings and/or bringing me into the fold.

On Being Catholic is the single most helpful book on the subject that I’ve read- and I’ve read quite a few. It’s extremely personable and well-written. It’s not written in the tone of the polemical, but is quite devotional and “warm.” Howard is a fine writer, easily comparable to a Lewis or a Chesterton in many ways. (He’s also Elizabeth Elliot’s brother, for those who didn’t know.)

Howard chooses an array of topics of common interest to those observing Catholic practice and looks at each one from the standpoint of “being” Catholic, i.e. how do Catholics themselves look at this. So there is some apologia, but not much argumentation. In many ways, Howard seems to say that instead of arguing, why not just stand in the shoes of a Catholic believer and see how the same thing looks. More »« Less

Joel, I hear ya, but I’m not convinced that Iraq’s production capabilities for oil would really amount to all that much for the US. Saudi Arabia produces a lot, as does Russia, several places in South America, etc. For that matter, we pump a lot of it out of the ground. I agree that getting it doesn’t equate to cheap prices directly, but there is some effect. I understand that refineries are producing at max, and we haven’t built a new one in a gazillion years, though one group is trying to get one going near my home town. Even so, I’m not only not opposed, but actively in favor of developing as many other means of energy production as possible. I’m a big fan of solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and yes – NUCLEAR power. Between nuclear energy and even hydrogen (if the technology gets good enough) it would be better in the long run. I’d miss the idea of burning rubber in a sweet muscle car, but perhaps they could even stick around in a specialty market if not every bloody other thing wanted to run on oil-based fuels.

Beyond all that, even if oil is a nice byproduct of a “successful” Iraq mission, it isn’t the only reason to have gone there, right or wrong, which is why I get irritated when it’s trotted out as the one and only reason for blowing things up over there. That said, I do come at all this from a point of view that says launching a conventional military force at an ideology (terrorism) is a screwy strategy at best, with the most likely outcome being lots of pain and suffering.

Bill, I’m with you on the “you break it you own it” idea. It’s too bad we broke it in the first place, but now that it is, we better try damn hard to make it better, even if it is most likely a fools errand.

(See, this is why I don’t like politics. I try to be a good conservative, but sometimes my “team” does things that make me feel like the weird uncle in the family, and the thought of going to the other side makes my stomach churn. I used to have a profile somewhere that described my politics as too conservative to be libertarian, too libertarian to be conservative, and too Christian to be either. It’s a poor description, but it’s as close as I could get.)

Greetings from Jollyblogger-land. I’m overlooking Baltimore’s delightful inner harbor as I blog about how the APA stole Christmas. At 4:00 am this morning, I got up for a 5:20 am flight from Kentucky, which, if measured in geological time, was eons ago. I arrived at the conference and immediately stood in registration lines until my knees buckled. Enjoyed a 3-hr philosophy of physics seminar featuring Sheldon Goldstein. I appreciated Tim Maudlin’s effort to have an actual physicist interact with philosophers.

Thankfully, I do have a few interviews lined up whilst here (tho’, it should be pointed out, not with Calvin, which sent me a PFO letter and is not granting on-site interviews, not that I’m bitter about it at all).

(*) APA = American Philosophical Association

Jason, but it is about the oil. I don’t understand why conservatives recoil from that. Our economy (and the global free market) must have dependable oil production, refinement, and distribution. Because of the economic foundations of our society, it simply is not permissible to allow groups or unstable leaders and regimes to screw around with it. No one, not president, prime minister, emir, priest, or king, can violate the fundamental Laws of Nature. If they do, they must atone. What else can account for the expenditure of trillions of dollars on the war in Iraq, except what is needful to enforce the Law of Nature? (I should point out that it’s not to secure Iraq’s production and refinement of oil, but to sheriff and stabilize the main oil-producing region of the world; Iraq’s contribution to the world’s oil will come later). So no, it’s not about lining the pockets of Exxon, Chevron and Texaco (although record quarterly profits in the billions of $US are certainly a “nice” side effect, at least for Exxon, Chevron and Texaco). Why on earth would you expect securing the production and distribution of oil to result in cheap gas? That is not the point of having a secure flow of hydrocarbons to their point of use. A small part of that includes instant availability of fuel for your personal vehicles. The market “knows” that it is more important to you that that fuel be there when you want it than the price you pay for it (up to a point). Everyone will complain about the price of gas, but no one will change their life over it as long as they don’t have to wait for it in things like rationing lines or at service stations with empty tanks.

Our entire “civilized” economies require enormous quantities of energy to fuel. No energy, no free market. No free market, no “freedom.” No “freedom,” chaos. Conservatives should be unapologetic about going to war for oil, because the only thing conservative political theory abhors more than chaos in the supply of energy for the economic engine is that you might change your life. Just to be clear, I mean ‘should’ in the sentence above in the sense of “for the sake of logical consistency.” The question of right, of moral legitimacy, is an entirely different matter. It only muddies things up when conservatives conflate their fundamental political principles—realpolitik—with ethical justifications based on right, duty, virtue, or some other transcendent value. I mean it’s fine to weave a nice mythology around it for decoration, but don’t start actually believing your mythology or, like our current President, you end up with clouded judgment and make very bad decisions.

Only a slight (jn) through all that. :-)

Jason: I’m not sure it’s all about oil either.  But the “where’s the cheap gas” argument only refutes the “all about oil” argument if we were actually capable of rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure to the point where they could produce it.  We can’t, or at least haven’t been able to yet.  I’m sure oil was at least one of our objectives.  But like all the other objectives, we just haven’t met them, and may never meet them.

I’m not really a “get out of Iraq immediately” advocate.  I think if you break it you own it.  We quite literally broke the country of Iraq.  I think it would be irresponsible to leave it broken.  The problem is that this administration is either unable and/or unwilling to fix it.

I don’t know why I’m doing this, as I am utterly tired of political discussion, but I have to throw this one out there for the populist argument lovers.

I’m no fan of what the US presence in Iraq has become. I believe there are arguments to be made for doing something over there, as there are arguments to stay the hell out. But for my conservative lovin’ peeps out there, I have to call BS on the “it’s all about oil” argument. If our presence in Iraq is all about oil, then someone please tell me where the cheap gas is, because I haven’t found it. And don’t go telling me it’s all about lining the pockets of a few oil company execs in Texas, either. The only groups I see making any kind of money off the situation are ammo producers and construction companies.

For the record, I think the idealistic arguments for going over there have been worn out by a poorly articulated strategy that puts our military people in a crappy position. It’s time to figure out a way to come home that doesn’t involve letting the whole region devolve into a bigger killing field than the one we replaced. That’s not so simple as some political junkie on the campaign trail telling us how much faster they can bring home our troops than the next goof who wants the president’s chair.

As for the presidential race, I’ll participate, but not without wishing a pox on all their houses. Christ have mercy on us all.

My favorite line of 2007:

The narrative of atheism pretty much sucks.

Ron Paul is saying what many want to hear? About the constitution, and our borders, and smaller government, and protect our country?

Gee….I guess he’s right. I need to go with a straight talker like Huckabee. “Let’s take America back for Christ.” “Quarantine AIDS patients.” etc.

I agree that there are people out there who hate us (the US).  I’m positive that there are many more of those people than when Bush took office.  I agree with Bob that we missed an opportunity to elect someone better than Bush.  I have my opinions about the field of candidates for the next election.  Some I like better than others.  Some I dislike a great deal.  I cannot imagine a single one of them, Republican or Democrat or third party,  that I would not support if they were running against Bush.  That some people (as I read in a blog comment recently) consider Bush as perhaps our greatest president ever makes me despair of our species.
Ron Paul may be a little too idealistic.  But the rest only offer various degrees of status quo.

Bob, I could response by arguing that it’s hard to tell what’s more insane: to believe that our presence in the middle east has any more altruistic motivation than a desperate attempt to protect foreign oil interests, or to believe that we will have any meaningful, measurable success in that endeavor.

I could respond that way, but I wont. Unlike Armstrong, I don’t hold that those who hold differing opinions are crazy. I just think they are wrong. Unfortunately, in some cases, they are also often mean-spirited and disingenuous; they fear that they cannot defend their position, so they vilify their opposition as ‘crazy.’ It’s not that I’ve forgotten that there are forces out to destroy the US, Bob. It’s that I no longer can accept that the Bush doctrine – which, put baldly, is “give those who hate us some other place to fight us rather than the streets of our own cities,” is effective.

In Iraq, we are now engaging people who, by and large, would never have the resources or opportunity to pull off hostile acts against us within our borders. We are doing so at the considerable risk and expense of ignoring those of our enemies who have proven that they have both the will and the resources to hurt us at home. We have deployed our vast, powerful military forces on a mission which no longer primarily involves killing people and breaking things. We are trying to perform delicate dentistry using a jack hammer. It doesn’t work.

   John Armstrong, as usual, makes a lot of sense. 

 We want peace but we do not understand that it comes at the price of vigilance. We tend to take our eye off the ball unless we are actually being attacked directly, as on 9/11. So most of us do not understand why Iraq and Iran really matter that much to America and the world. The media, and the liberal elites, tell us we are just meddling in a place that we ought to abandon as soon as possible. And now we even have a Republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul, who is just wacky enough to promote such a crazy idea.

 Walter Russell Mead rightly concludes: “The next American president, regardless of party and regardless of his or her views about the wisdom of George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, will necessarily make the security of the Persian Gulf states one of America’s very highest international priorities.”

I hope he is right. This is, in my estimation, the most important issue before us in the coming presidential election. I think that whoever is chosen will likely be forced to stay this course or face a world that devolves into chaos rather quickly. I just wish more Americans understood these hard realities. The inane perspective of many on this issue is frightening and disturbing, none more so than those who rally around a candidate like Congressman Ron Paul. 

So long as we are a nation of free speech we will have people like Ron Paul saying what many apparently want to hear.

Get me an application.

Priests fighting in Bethlehem? That’s just sad.

Welcome to the light, Michael.

Capitol Hill Baptist (Mark Dever) interns being silly 

Benazir Bhutto is dead.

Update: the comments on this Karachi blog give a flavour of the mood in Pakistan at this moment.

I scored 79% Evangelical/Wesleyan Holiness, 68% Reformed Evangelical. which makes me 147% Evangelical, plus I get an extra 53% for being an Evangelical Free Church pastor which makes me twice the evangelical you are. (jn)

Recently I told my kids in morning devotions that when they left home and looked for a church they weren’t to look just for a Bible church, but for a Gospel church.  That’s my definition of evangelical.

John, I can’t comment extensively as I’m without Internet and thus left to use my iPhone which doesn’t lend itself to quick typing. You are right about the pietists. Wesley’s primary teacher of justification was a Moravian, Peter Bohler. Wesley even made a trip to Germany to spend time with the Moravians.

How many prime ministers of Great Britain in the last two centuries have been convinced, practising Christians? By Matthew Parris’ reckoning: two.

On Global Warming: Adding to the confusion most people feel when they are asked about global climate change is an assertion that the climate has stopped changing. The comments pretty much rehash every argument ever made on the subject, so you can ask there instead of here in the future. :-)