A-Ring's Place in the Sun

2003-09-26T12:08:00.000-04:00

I thought this was hilarious.

2003-09-15T10:39:00.000-04:00

I have a ton of friends who have spent time in Sweden, and who are always harping about how Canada needs to be more like Sweden. How refreshing, then, to read this article in today's National Post.

2003-09-13T17:30:00.000-04:00

My roommate is one of those people who really looks down on people who watch a lot of TV or who haven't read a lot of great literature. We have tendencies to get into arguments about things like the artistic merit of the Backstreet Boys. You see, years ago, I decided that I just don't care what sophisticated people tell me what to like and what not to like.

How refreshing, then, to see this article by Tom Utley, finally admitting that, following a fateful encounter with Leonardo's Madonna of the Yardwinder, he didn't really like it, or most of other high culture.

2003-08-13T13:14:00.000-04:00

You may have gathered from my lack of posting that I am currently on my huge one-month vacation.

Reasons it’s great to be back in Saskatchewan:

-Sunsets like this every night.
- My friends here actually show up when they say they are going to show up – not 1-2 hours later.
- The fine products the Columbia Brewing Company of Creston, British Columbia. Also, the fact that liquor stores are open 24 hours a day is a nice touch.
- The nonstop summer events here in the City of Bridges : I have been to the Saskatoon Exhibition , the Fringe Festival and will soon be at Folk Fest and Shakespeare on the Saskatchewan.
- Ground beef is incredibly cheap because of Mad Cow Disease, so I've been eating a ton of it.
- Great summer fun at the Kenosee Superslides and assorted beaches throughout the province.
- Jogging here.

2003-07-27T16:57:00.000-04:00

PART V OF MY HUGE POST ON ACADEMIA

Well, I’ve been typing for a few hours now, and am really only scratching the surface of the issues here, but since I don’t want to write an entire book on this topic (at least not right now – maybe someday during my career as an academic), let me sum up on my thoughts about where we as Christians should stand in this entire debate. A few observations:

1. All Christians must be essentialists in the sense that we believe that human beings do have an inborn nature.
2. However, unlike the world, which takes the existence of an essential human nature as a justification for human behaviour, Christians can never do that. All people are born with original sin, sinning is in accordance with our nature, but this does not mean that sinning is right.
3. I also think that structuralists and post-structuralists can teach us a lot about how to confront essentialists, especially evolutionary psychologists, in a compelling manner.
4. I feel that a lot of the post-strucuralist arguments about how opinions are formed and how behaviour is created in our society need to form the basis of an effective theory of evangelization.
5. I think we need to wrestle with questions about how we can create a society that doesn’t exclude people in the course of defining normalcy.

Well, again, I could go on and on, but I think I’ll end there

2003-07-27T16:56:00.000-04:00

PART IV OF MY HUGE POST ON ACADEMIA

The post-structuralists took this to the next level, focusing not only on static linguistic structures but on the power relationships that go into creating language in the first place. (Post-structuralists are more likely to speak of “discourses” than “languages”: languages are fairly constant over time, whereas different “discourses”, or ways of talking about something, can change much more frequently.) Thus, there is a focus on not only what is being said, but also on who is doing the talking and why. We need to realize that the most powerful person in a society is the one with the authority to define what is considered “normal”. People will then modify their behaviour in order to conform more closely to what they are told is normal. Thus, the evolutionary psychologist who claims that promiscuity is a natural part of being a man is in fact indirectly the cause of men being promiscuous; the theologian who told a woman she was naturally weak and submissive is indirectly the cause of women being weak and submissive; and so forth. This prompts post-structuralists to says things like (“Discourses produce the behaviours they contrive to explain.”)

A second concept closely related to post-structuralist thought is that of “otherization”. That is to say, a behaviour can only be defined as “normal” in relationship to an “abnormal” behaviour, an “other”. Thus, post-structuralists see the “abnormal” as playing a crucial role in constructing behaviour and have conducted studies on the “other” within and without society: defining who is insane is a crucial part of defining what is reasonable; determining who is a criminal is a crucial part of deciding who is a good citizen; deciding what is abnormal sexual behaviour is a crucial part of deciding what is normal sexual behaviour; and so on. However, just as “normal” behaviour is “called into being” through its definition, so too is “abnormal” behaviour. At the same time that the majority in a society is trying to reach the point of “normal” (even more explicitly, in order to reach that point), they need to create the abnormal behaviour in a certain segment of the population so that they can define their behaviour against that standard. Thus, post-structualists will say things like “Our society must produce criminals in order to produce good citizens.”

2003-07-27T16:55:00.000-04:00

PART III OF MY HUGE POST ON ACADEMIA

Put another way, essentialism ultimately becomes a question of freewill. If my nature is a given, if I have an inborn tendency to behave in a certain way, then that is a prescription to act a certain way, isn’t it? How can you fight your essence?

Anti-essentialist positions, therefore, take an entirely different starting point. Having questioned the source of the essentialists’ authority, they end up by seeing any essentialist description of human nature not as a real description of human nature so much as a projection of society’s values.

Let’s start with the structuralists. Basically, the structuralist position came down to this: human behaviour is governed not by what human beings are but by what human beings believe and think. All human thought is governed by the conceptual tool of thought: language. Thus, in order to understand and explain human behaviour, we need a thorough understanding of the underlying structures of language. What this structural analysis reveals is that human beings get boxed in to various modes of behaviour depending on the various languages available to them. (Language, of course, being defined not merely in terms of English, French, Chinese, and so forth, but also in terms of the “languages” available within each of these languages, such as the “language of theology” or “the language of the law” or “the language of politics”.) Thus, we are left with linguistic structures instead of an innate human nature, with a set of “social constructions” viewed through the prism of language instead of an inborn essence.

2003-07-27T16:54:00.001-04:00

PART II OF MY HUGE POST ON ACADEMIA

The great attraction of the essentialist position is that it makes it easy to explain human action. The great danger is that it provides simplistic explanations of complex phenomena. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the twentieth century saw a reaction against a number of old essentialisms. For example, the old “scientific” racialism, which explained the differences between the races by explaining that people of different races had different inborn characteristics (the “blacks are naturally lazy” school of thought) has been totally decimated in the academy, and will, thankfully, never again rear its ugly head. Similarly, the school of thought that women are naturally less intelligent or morally sound than men, have been thoroughly discredited.

However, the twentieth century also saw the establishment of a new, more academic brand of essentialism. Freudianism and Jungian psychoanalysis, in particular, strove to explain human behaviour in terms of innate drives: the sex drive, the power drive, the maternal instinct, and so forth. This type of explanation, though, is ultimately question-begging: “If all people have a sex drive, why have so many throughout history opted to remain lifelong virgins?” “If all women have a maternal instinct, why have so many had abortions or even committed infanticide?” Freud’s great breakthrough was his idea of repression and sublimation, which sought to explain how the basic human drives can be channeled into seemingly unrelated areas.

The most important essentialists in the academy today are probably the evolutionary psychologists. They have advanced a number of suggestions that human beings have an essence which can be analyzed by looking at the Darwinian reasons for human action. The functional properties of human nature have arisen because of natural selection in response to the set of concerns faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors: finding mates, avoiding predators, and so on. Evolutionary psychology is an amazingly sophisticated essentialist theory but still suffers from the reductionism inherent in all essentialisms.
The twentieth century has also been notable for its challenge to essentialism (including evolutionary psychology). The main criticism which can always be leveled at essentialist thinking is: How do we know that what you are describing is really human nature? Are you really explaining human behaviour or are you just justifying a set of behaviours of which you approve? After all, everybody loves to be told that their particular behaviour is natural. The old scientific racialism was very comforting because it said to white people, “It’s not your fault that black people are so poor. It’s just part of their nature. It’s the natural order of things, and can’t be helped.” It’s very comfortable for a man to hear, “It’s natural for you to want to have sex with a lot of women. It’s your Darwinian nature to want to spread your seed.” But is it right?

2003-07-27T16:54:00.000-04:00

PART I OF MY HUGE POST ON ACADEMIA

Well, I for one am sick and tired of non-academics making fun of academics for using “language nobody can understand” and “getting involved in pointless debates” and whatnot. As a student in the humanities (specifically history), I am profoundly interested in these debates, and I think it very odd that more people aren’t absolutely fascinated by this debate. So, in order to pique your interest, here is my brief overview of the extremely important debates happening today in humanities, social sciences, and human sciences faculties across the country:

Although these debates may sometimes appear to turn on pretty small or irrelevant points, these points all feed in to a bigger set of questions: Why do human beings behave the way they do? What motivates human behaviour? Does human nature exist? What is the role of society in shaping the individual? Or, as the Psalmist succinctly put it: What is man?

I will start by dividing the academy into 2 groups: essentialists and anti-essentialists. Basically, the difference between the two comes back to the old nature vs. nurture debate. An “essentialist” is someone who believes that there is an innate human nature, that we are born with a set of drives which will eventually play themselves out in the social sphere, but which remain basically universal, and thus constitute the “essence” of being a human being. An “anti-essentialist” (a.k.a. a “social constructivist”), on the other hand, believes that most (I don’t know any scholar that goes so far as to say all) human behaviour is determined by the social arena and the socialization process.

2003-07-25T17:17:00.000-04:00

Well, after his tearful apology on the floor of House of Representatives, I guess I can forgive Bill Thomas.

2003-07-23T21:32:00.000-04:00

I don’t often blog about history books I’m reading, but I just came across a footnote in Giovanni Levi’s Inheriting Power that I think is very smart stuff. I quote:

The current explanations of the rise of the modern state are often based on a broad perspective that tends to undervalue the role of local society and local realities in conditioning the political characteristics of nations as a whole. This is not exclusive to explanations based on notions of ongoing development that see the formation of the state as a stage present in all instances of modernization… Some positions, although they accentuate the progressive extension of state monopoly of authority and social control, consider the central power able to exercise a uniform dominion, hence to impose uniformity. Change in the role of the various social classes happens within a substantially static framework [e.g. Lawrence Stone]…Still other positions view the development of a worldwide capitalistic market as the fundamental reality that explains the position of the various nations at the center or at the periphery of the overall system of exploitation. They tend in this manner to annul all local differences that are not determined by variables completely extraneous to the social structure of the society in question [e.g. Wallerstein]…

What I think should receive greater emphasis is that the structure taken on by the newly forming states in the transition phase between feudalism and capitalism was to a large extend determined, in its successive political aspects, by the way in which the actual individual local peasant situations reacted to the development of both a market economy and the central power’s system of procurement, distribution and control. [e.g. Tilly, Moore]… What resulted from the interplay between centralization and conflict within the various social groups becomes the fundamental mechanism for the differentiation and characterization of political systems. The strength of the state derives from the controlling role given to it, perhaps unwillingly, by the dominant groups, according to their abilities, the power they wielded, and their economic orientations. However, when the enormous diversity of peripheral situations over which the state must exert its own power is undervalued, the conditionings that derive from this are underestimated as well.

2003-07-21T17:54:00.000-04:00

A prayer to say while putting on our clothes:

Most gracious and merciful Saviour, Jesus Christ, thou knowest how we be born, clothed and clogged with the grievous and heavy burden of the first man, who fell away unto fleshliness through disobedience. Vouchsafe, therefore, I beseech thee, to strip me out of the old corrupt Adam, which, being soaked in sin, transformeth himself into all incumbrances and diseases of the mind, that may lead away from thee.
Rid me also quite and clean of that his tempter, the deceitful Eve, which turneth us away from the obedience of thy Father. Clothe me with thuself, O my redeemer and sanctifier, clothe me with thyself, which art the second man, and hast yielded thyself obedient in all things to God the Father, to rid away all lusts of the flesh, and to destroy the kingdom thereof through righteousness.
Be thou our clothing and apparel, to keep us warm from the cold of this world. For, if thou be away, by and by all things become numb, weak, and stark dead: whereas, if thou be present, they be lively, sound, strong, and lusty. And, therefore, like as I wrap my body in these clothes, so clothe me all over, but specially my soul, with thine own self. Amen.

2003-07-21T01:22:00.000-04:00

A third prayer for as soon as we get out of bed:

I thank thee, O holy Lord, Father almighty, and everlasting God, that thou hast vouchsafed to keep me this night through thy great mercy. And I beseech thee, of thine unmeasurable clemency, to give me grace, so to pass this day now coming in all lowliness, meekness, chastity, charity, patience, goodness, fear, and wariness, as my service may please thee through him, which shall come to judge both the quick and the dead, and the world by fire. Keep and preserve me from all evil, from all stumbling, and giving of offence, from all wilful sinning, and from all the crafts and assaults of wicked fiends and enemies, seen or unseen: through our Lord Jesus Christ, thine only-begotten Son, to whom be praise and glory with thee for evermore. Amen.

2003-07-20T01:41:00.000-04:00

Does this analogy hold?

We know that mankind is created in the image of God. Therefore, we are, in fact, "transcripts of the Trinity."

I would propose we are created in God's image in the following way: within the Eternal Godhead, The Father begets the Son, and then, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as the natural expression of their love for each other.

Similarly, the first man gives matter to the first woman, and then, the two of them of their love for each other produce a third, a child. Thus, the "nuclear family" of father, mother, and child, is in fact a direct correspondence to our image of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

2003-07-20T01:26:00.000-04:00

Sadly unable to tell if this is a joke or not.

2003-07-19T11:47:00.000-04:00

A world without bananas?

Say it isn't so.

2003-07-19T02:17:00.000-04:00

As a huge fan of parliamentary procedure (I used to chair my university's student council, so I at one point had pretty much memorized Robert's Rules), I must say that I am absolutely appalled by the actions of Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee. The media coverage today tended to focus on the intervention of the sergeant-at-arms, but let me go through what I consider to be this honourable gentleman's flagrant miswielding of the gavel:

The original bill (concerning pensions I believe) was a 200-page document presented to the House. This bill was distributed to all members of the Ways and Means Cmte.in advance. In the course of committee work, a 91-page substitute to the bill was prepared. The Democrats on the committee felt that they had not had enough time to review this 91-page substitute. Therefore, they withheld unanimous consent to waive the reading of the bill of the substitute. This is normally a routine procedural motion, since nobody really wants to hear a 200-page document, then a 91-page read out during a committee meeting. However, the committee's standing rules require unanimous consent to waive reading of the bill, so the committee Democrats withheld their consent as a way to buy some time to discuss strategy. Chairman Thomas refused to allow the 200-page document read, since everyone had it in advance (this was, to my mind, almost certainly the correct ruling - a motion to have the original bill read, IMO, would have to be ruled dilatory), but was not able to justify not having the 91-page document read. Whereupon, all of the Committee Democrats retired to the Ways and Means Committee Library to plan strategy and whatnot, leaving behind only Pete Stark (D-Calif) to make sure that the entire 91-page document was read. Soon, however, Chairman Thomas again asked the Committee if there was unanimous consent to waive the reading of this document, and then, in what I'm sure he thought was a super-sneaky feat of procedural legerdemain, banged his gavel before Rep. Stark had time to object. Stark then said he objected, but Thomas responded by saying that Stark's objection was "too late."

What a jerk this Thomas is! The entire point of the rules is to protect the rights of the minority. In this case, the committee's standing rules specifically protected the rights of even a minority of just one member (by requiring unanimous consent to waive reading), and here's Thomas steamrolling across the rights of the minority and blatantly disregarding the committee's own rules!

It gets worse. Thomas then called on Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), the bill's sponsor, to make an opening statement, but Stark rose on a point of parliamentary inquiry. And Thomas refused to recognize him. Yes, that's right, THE CHAIRMAN REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE A MEMBER ON A POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY! This is absolutely outrageous. I thought the United States was a country of law and order and rules and whatnot, but apparently according to Chairman Thomas, the rules don't apply to him, and he doesn't have to play by the rulebook.

Now, I don't think that Stark handled the incident particularly well in what followed, and I think that offering to fight Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.) and calling him "a fruitcake" probably wasn't the most diplomatic way to handle the entire situation.

But then, Chairman Thomas calls the sergeant-at-arms office to despatch the Capitol Police to deal with the situation! He tells them that 1. Stark was threatening McInnis with bodily harm; and 2. the Democrats were using the committee library without permission and that they should be removed. Now, I wasn't in the room, but I somehow doubt that Stark was ready to go all Taiwanese-parliamentarian in the committee room. But, laying that issue aside, trying to remove the Democratic members of the Ways and Means Committee from the Ways and Means Committee Library has got to be one of the pettiest things I have ever heard. Who does this Thomas thinks he is? Just because he's the chairman, he thinks it's his library and the committee members need to supplicate him to use it?

So, Bill Thomas is now firmly on my list of bad, bad parliamentarians. And, although I support Republicans generally, I really hope he fails to win re-election in 2004 because he is a huge jerk.

2003-07-17T01:23:00.000-04:00

A second prayer for as soon as we get out of bed:

I thank thee, O Lord Jesus Christ, that it hath pleased thee to give me good rest this night past: and I beseech thee, likewise, to prosper me all this day following, to the glory of thy name, and to mine own soul's health. And thou, which art the true day-light, that never knoweth any eventide, and the everlasting day-sun, which quickeneth, cherisheth, and cheereth all things, vouchsafe to shine into my mind, that I may not stumble into any sin, but by thy guiding come to eternal life. Amen.

2003-07-16T01:12:00.000-04:00

Many years ago, I became very confused by the different genealogies of our Lord presented by Matthew and Luke. Luke 3:23 says that Joseph was the son of Heli, but Matthew 1:16 says "Jacob begat Joseph." Thus raising the weird question of how Joseph could be Heli's son if another man begot him.

I think that initially I found my answer in one of those simple lists entitled something like "Countering Bible Contradictions" which our CCC staff felt would assist us in our evangelism work. Their answer, which seemed reasonable enough at the time, was essentially that Joseph was Heli's son in the sense that he was Heli's son-in-law and the genealogy in Luke was really that of the Virgin Mary.

And that was that, I had my answer. But I've recently stumbled across the opinion of the Fathers on this matter, and have discovered that it is somewhat different, and in fact probably a little more biblical. In fact the story about the genealogy actually being Mary's was probably invented by Annius of Viterbo in the late fifteenth century.

So, although I'm sure that you, Most Learned Reader, have heard this all before, allow me to present the Fathers' argument. (I'm thinking specifically of St Augustine [Retractions 2:7], St Jerome [Commentary on Matthew 1:16], Eusebius of Caesarea [Ecclesiastical History 1:7], John Damascene [Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4:14], etc.)

Heli son of Matthat was descended from David's son Solomon; Jacob son of Matthan from David's son Nathan. The Fathers claim that Heli and Jacob were in fact half-brothers. According to tradition, their mother Estha first married Matthat and had Heli; then after Matthat died, she married Matthan and had Jacob.

Now, when Heli grows up, he marries a woman (tradition doesn't assign her a name as far as I can tell) but dies before they have any children. Then, in accordance with the levirate law in Deuteronomy 25:5, Jacob married Heli's widow, and "raised up seed for his brother." Thus, Jacob was physically Joseph's father, but Heli was accounted his father in accordance with the Law.

Can't you just imagine St. Jerome sticking it to Annius of Viterbo if he knew what had happened? Here's a brief Jerome impression:

"O Annius, you ought to have turned to the glowing pages of the Scriptures for your answer; and instead you turned only to your own wretched and miserable fantasies. Where, Annius, where, in the entire Bible is a father-in-law called a father? Where is a son-in-law called a son? You have never bothered to study the Hebrew language; never bothered to consult the glorious traditions of the most holy Church; never bothered, in fact, to consult any authority outside your particularly ungifted intellect! And yet, you, an unlearned ass, dare to pronounce on the genealogy of Our Lord and Saviour! Repent of your presumption, Annius and meekly on your knees beg Him Whom you have offended for forgiveness for besotting His splendid forebears!"

Etc., etc. And again, Jerome would be a little overbearing, but he would always be entertaining, and would try to be scriptural, and what not.

2003-07-15T23:46:00.000-04:00

A prayer for as soon as you get out of bed:

Our first father Adam, being tumbled down from most excellent and glorious highness into the dungeon of shame, and sink of all sin, was releved, and lifted up again, by thy hand, O Saviour Jesus Christ. And we, likewise, should lie wallowing in the same plight for ever, if we were not raised up by thee.
Wherefore, O most merciful Redeemer of mankind, like as thou of thy goodness hast raised up this heavy and burdensome body, even so vouchsafe to lift up my mind to the knowledge and love of thy highness.
Amen.

2003-07-14T01:18:00.000-04:00

Well I'm in love.

With Fox TV's new zany show, Banzai. We've been reading about how crazy Japanese TV is for years, (especially the game shows, so sadly marred by misfortune of late), and now, we have a spoof of Japanese TV right there on America's Own Network, Fox. (Please disregard the Australian connection.) Ideally, I would have preferred original Japanese game shows dubbed into English a la Iron Chef, but I have to admit that a spoof of something that is so wacky to begin with ends up being totally insane. Who will win the contest between the one-legged soccer player and the one-armed goaltender? (Answer: soccer player.) What happens when a priest, a rabbi, and Lou Ferrigno compete for the soul of a baby named Danny by riding exercise bikes in a Speed-like contest where they can't let their speed drop below 20mph? (Answer: The former Hulk narrowly edges out the rabbi and proceeds to pose with the crying toddler.)

I didn't play along online this week, but I definitely will next week. I get the sneaking suspicion that the contests are all rigged anyway, but it still seems pretty fun. According to the official Fox website: "As the network’s first weekly interactive television program, Banzai is going to break the variety show mold, put it together again, then break it once more for good measure."

And for those of you who have been waiting, I'll post a new 16th-century prayer tomorrow.

2003-07-12T15:31:00.000-04:00

A second prayer for as soon as we wake up:

Much better is the light of the soul and the insight of the mind than the light, or eyesight, of the body. The eyesight of the body every silly beast hath: but the sight of mind none hath but man, yea none have it but wise men.
Thou, therefore, O Lord Jesus Christ, which art the greatest of all lights, the only true light, the light from whence springeth the light of day, and the sun: Thou light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the word: Thou light, whereon there cometh no night nor eventide, but continuest ever bright and clear, as at mid-day: Thou light, wherewithout all things are deep darkness, and whereby all things are made lightsome: Thou mind and wisdom of the heavenly Father, enlighten my mind, that (being blind in all other things) I may see nothing, but that which belongeth to Thee, and that I may thereby walk in Thy ways, without fantasying or liking of any other light else. Lord, I beseech Thee, enlighten mine eyes, that I may never slumber in darkness, lest my spiritual enemy say at any time, "I have prevailed against him." Amen.

2003-07-11T19:59:00.000-04:00

I've recently come across a book from 1578 entitled A Booke of Christian Prayers Collected out of the Auncient Writers, and Best Learned in Our Tyme, Worthy to be Read with an Earnest Mynde of all Christians, in These Daungerous and Troublesome Dayes, That God for Christes Sake Will Yet Still Be Mercyfull Vnto Vs. (Like all 16th century books, it has a very long title.

So, since a lot of these prayers aren't available elsewhere on the web (to the best of my knowledge), I thought you, dear Reader, might enjoy them. So, each day I'll be posting one more in a series of prayers that are designed to lead us throughout our entire day.

The first one is a prayer to be said as soon as we wake up:

O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom no man knoweth but by Thy special gift, grant, that unto the rest of Thine exceeding great benefits towards me this, which is the greatest that can be bestowed upon mankind, may be added also, namely, that as Thou hast raised up my body from fast and sound sleep, so also Thou wilt deliver my mind from the sleep of sin and from the darkness of this world, and after deathe restore the same body to life, as well as Thou hast called it again from sleep: for that, which is death to us, is but sleep unto Thee. I pray and beseech Thee, that through Thy goodness this body of mine may be a fellow and furtherer of all godliness to my soul in this life, so as it may also be partner with it of the endless felicity of the life to come: through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Lord, for Whose sake, and by Whom, Thou givest us all good and wholesome things to our welfare. Amen.

2003-07-07T01:48:00.000-04:00

Well, I guess I really have nothing to blog about except what I've been reading, as always. This time, it's Le Passe d'une Illusion by Francois Furet (available in English translation if you are one of the troglodytes who still hasn't learned to read French). I've read part of it before, but now I'm going to read the whole thing. I'm only about 50 pages into it so far, but it really has me thinking a lot.

Furet (who is a historian of the French Revolution but nevertheless wrote this book about 20th-century communism) argues that both fascism and communism were responses to bourgeois capitalism. The reason is that there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the capitalist system revolving around the question of equality:

Il faut encore que l'idee d'egalite-universalite des hommes, qu'elle affiche comme son fondement, et qui est sa nouveaute, soit constamment niee par l'inegalite des proprietes et des richesses, produite par la competition entre ses membres.

There is also the problem of the reduction of all concerns to the inidvidual level. In a purely bourgeois capitalist society, people are mainly concerned about themselves and are thus disconnected from anything bigger than themselves. Both fascism and communism derive their primary psychological appeal from their attempts to provide modern man with something bigger than himself to believe in and fight for. In the case of fascism, it is the nation which assumes this psychological role; in the case of communism, it is the working class (thus, communism is transnational which explains its greater appeal).

All of which necessarily got me going back to a series of old cliches about North American society being little more than crass consumerism, that few people seem to be or want to be a part of anything unless it's going to directly benefit them. With the death of communism, there are no more big ideas to believe in, just look out for #1 and that's it. As a Christian, of course, this is very disturbing, but I think in lots of ways an accurate picture of society. So often, I meet people and they're just nice, normal people but the more you talk to them, you realize that they're really very selfish and not concerned about anything really besides their own lives, and, if they're atheists or agnostics, really wy should they be? (And then I go home and read things like Matthew 7.3 and feel like, who am I to complain about these people? Aren't I part of the same culture? Don't I also want a big house and a nice car and have I really made any sacrifice that's worth anything to help anyone besides myself?)

So, I don't know what I'm trying to say. I know communism is evil and killed a lot of people, and what's worse it was an atheist system. And yet, there's times when I see pictures on TV, or just encounter people down on their luck in my daily life and I catch myself humming L'Internationale and wishing that somehow there could be a better world being born. And, of course, the Soviet anthem has been stuck in my head for like 3 years now (in the English-language, Paul Robeson version). And it just seems that, as the 20th century was beginning, there was so much hope in the world (and I guess that was a big part of the 60s too?), but now everyone is just content to avoid changing anything, just play the system, life will be fine.

You know, maybe this year living in the US really is starting to make a socialist out of me (perish the thought, I know). And when I'm all alone all I really want is to go back to Canada where people are nice and things make sense and you don't have to put up with selfish people all the time. (Some of the time, yes; all the time, no.)

2003-07-06T05:00:00.000-04:00

By the way, I've been Internetless for a while, so thanks for bearing with me.

2003-07-06T04:58:00.000-04:00

Well, my last, "BIG POST" was going to be a commentary on and an edited version of the 15 O's of St Bridget of Sweden. Too bad - stupid Blogger. Anyhow, here's the Catholic version. Please use your own Protestant sensibilities to envision the editing and expunging I would have done. I trust your judgment not to go Roman on me.

2003-06-28T17:36:00.000-04:00

Personal pet peeve: I hate it when I'm having a discussion with someone, either in person or via email, and they end up saying I "really have to read" a specific book. It's such a cop-out. It's like saying, "Instead of providing you with a well-reasoned, cogent argument of my own, I'm just going to let my favourite author do it for you." I especially hate it when it is during a theological discussion, and especially when it's a pastor. Isn't one of the reasons we have full-time pastors so that they can read books on difficult topics and then explain them? Isn't just referring people to books more suited to a library proctor than a minister of the Word of God?

2003-06-23T00:28:00.000-04:00

Well, as you may have noticed (assuming anyone still checks this blog – it’s been so long since I posted), I am now sans Internet at my residence, and reduced to slinking in and out of the departmental computer lab.

My desire to post tonight comes because I was reading a collection of cultural studies articles called Hop on Pop. I think cultural studies is an absolutely fascinating branch of academia right now, and from time to time I like to lay aside my own reading and turn to something a little more modern and will just randomly pick a book. Also, it had a new Sharon Mazer article which turned out to just be an excerpt from her book. So, tonight I was reading an article about zines and they reminded me of blogs, and then I said to myself “Self, didn’t you used to have a blog?” So, here I am.

Let me tell you a story about the tension in my life. At the end of May, I finally said good-bye to dorms. (I lived here for 4 years and here for 1) and moved into my new apartment. I’m living with 2 other grad students, A. and S. S., however, is spending his summer in lovely Australia, so he decided to sublet his room. He wasn’t able to find anyone, though, mainly since he started looking pretty late. So, A. and I were all happy because we thought we were going to have all this extra space for the summer. But then, with S. safely down under, we get a knock on our door and are introduced to T., who will be staying with us for the summer. And not only T., but also Z., her sister. And her mother also moved in for a week. So, overnight, we went from having tons of extra space to being overrun by a Bulgarian family. Not fun.

So, A. and I were pretty angry with S. I, of course, being A-Ring, eventually decided “Oh well, whatever. Forgive and forget. Life goes on.” Etc., etc. Unfortunately, my roommate A. is not so forgiving. So, we finally got a phone call from S. yesterday and there was a lot of yelling on the phone, and I think that A. pretty much crossed the line, and called the Bulgarians a lot of unkind names while talking to S., even though they were in the next room. So, as of tonight, nothing is resolved. T. came to me virtually in tears asking “Why does A. hate us so much?”, Z. is afraid to come out of her room and there is just this air of tension hanging over our apartment. I’ve tried to be nice to everybody, but it’s one of those situations where people expect you to take sides, and I, as always, am not certain whose side I should take. I hate conflict so much.

2003-06-08T20:59:00.000-04:00

Are souls created at the moment of conception?

If so, does this mean that human procreation is different from procreation in other animals, since in all other animals, procreation involves only natural processes, whereas with human beings procreation involves supernatural intervention?

2003-05-27T03:25:00.000-04:00

As most of you know, I'm a huge fan of professional wrestling.

Bizarrely enough, while I should have been studying for finals, I took an afternoon off to read Sharon Mazer's Professional Wrestling: Sport and Spectacle. Mazer is a professor in the Department of Theatre and Film Studies at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, so she has an interesting take on the subject. Mazer's book, published in 1998, provides a very interesting take on pro wrestling, utilizing concepts from gender studies, performance studies, and kinetics to provide a reasoned, sympathetic, and scholarly portrayal of a phenomenon which plays a role in the socialization of probably a majority of adolescent males in North America. Mazer is of course building on the work of Roland Barthes, the most influential scholarly interpreter of pro wrestling (and no doubt far more well-known within academia than that guy with the same name that used to bother evangelicals and is now ignored by all), but I think Mazer takes Barthes' interpretation in an exciting new direction. (For those interested in learning more about pro wrestling from an academic perspective, you may also want to check out this site).

One of the most interesting things Mazer did was to actually go to the gym and watch the training process, which is generally a little more involved than what we know from MTV's Tough Enough. On this point, I really found indy wrestler "Dangerboy" Derek Wylde's story about breaking into pro wrestling interesting. (On his site, go to "Specials", then "Breaking In".)

(By the way, should anyone be intending to post that "wrestling is fake", let me once again remind you that telling a wrestling fan that wrestling is fixed is like telling a movie buff that films are scripted. Everybody already knows that, and it in no way diminishes from the entertainment value.)

2003-05-22T02:36:00.000-04:00

Is anybody else ever angry that they weren't raised in an evangelical family? It must be so much easier to fit in with evangelicals if you were just naturally like that.

2003-05-13T01:39:00.000-04:00

Well, having just finished studying for my final in History of the Reformation, I see that John has posted an article about Luther which totally upsets my view of Luther's intellectual development (which, thankfully, isn't a major part of this course, but all of this has got me thinking (which is, of course, never good for anyone)...

So, I don't really know if David S. Yeago's article is altogether right or wrong. I guess I would summarize Yeago's argument as follows: 1. Luther experienced a dramatic break in his thinking about justification by faith in 1518. 2. This dramatic break was linked to his sacramental thinking. 3. This sacramental thinking was pretty much identical to traditional Catholic thought. 4. Thus, the only issue where Luther really disagrees with Roman Catholics is over the role of the papacy. 5. Therefore, Luther's teaching on justification really isn't outside the bounds of the Roman Catholic teaching.

Traditional narratives have explained that Luther pre-1517 was still essentially Catholic in his doctrine, and it was only after 1517 that his Protestant ideas clearly emerged. Yeago reverses this schema, and paints Luther as moving not from a position of Catholic to Protestant, but rather from mystic to Catholic:

"After 1518, Luther is quite clear that it is in and through the public performance of the sacramental signs in the visible Church that grace is bestowed on those who believe. His mystical theology of uncreated grace, the purifying encounter with God in His very Godhead, is henceforth anchored to the preaching and ritual of the Church as the concrete locus of God's certain, undialectical presence. Indeed, it becomes an explicit theological axiom for Luther that inward and spiritual grace is given only in and through the public, bodily, sacramental practice of the Church."

The implication of this is quite clear, and one which we've heard from certain other contemporary scholars: that the Reformation was all a big mistake.

To which, I have three comments:

1. If David S. Yeago's reading is correct, then I am very glad that I am Reformed and not Lutheran: I never realized the bullet we all dodged at the Marburg Colloquy of 1529.

2. This argument really just leads to a different type of Lutheran triumphalism, since Luther's sacramental system really has much more in common with pre-Lateran than Tridentine Catholicism. Thus, according to this argument, the true Catholic eucharist is preserved in Lutheran churches. (But of course, we all know that it is no good to return to the eucharist of the 400s - rather, we need to return to the eucharist of the period prior to 100, and only Calvinism does that.)

3. It's pretty clear that Yeago is arguing in favour of recent ecumenical moves which stress the similarities of Lutheran and Catholic teachings on justification. Now, I'm sure that there aren't any Reformed Christians out there who are going to fall into this trap, but invoking the name of Luther does still have a bizarre hold over Lutherans. I think we all need to remind our Lutheran friends that the real break with Rome did not come in 1517, 1519, or 1521, but rather in 1541, at the Colloquy of Regensburg. At Regensburg, both Lutherans and Catholics were deeply committed to resolving the issues dividing Christendom, and for a time produced a "compromise formula" that was ultimately rejected by both sides. What was at stake was the issue of justification, which, as developed by Luther was radically different from the justification as sanctification model believed by the Catholics and ultimately enshrined as dogma at the Council of Trent. Thus, Yeago's work ultimately fails in its attempt to justify ecumenism with Roman Catholics.

2003-05-11T16:20:00.000-04:00

My favourite Christian music site is one at the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia's site which has some nice a capella metrical psalms.

I also sometimes like Old Fashioned Christian Radio, though it has a lot of instrumental garbage and is rarely a capella. Also, you have to use blechy Netscape Communicator. (Actually, I don't mind Netscape except that you can't use the Google toolbar with it.)

2003-05-08T03:15:00.000-04:00

Job had boils, St. Paul had a thorn in his flesh, and I have retrocalcaneal bursitis.

2003-05-05T01:08:00.000-04:00

Well, after taking a week off of blogging, it appears that certain individuals (Valerie, Kelly, The URL-less Squalid Wanderer, Sarah, and Jessie) have been talking about me, following a "charming" post about me on Barb's blog.

Well, I do appreciate the attention, kids. Let me just once again explain my rationale for running an anonymous blog, and possibly somebody can talk me out of it:

Now, when I set up this blog, I did want to be free to talk about things like, say, how I'm sick of my pastor constantly preaching about the Tabernacle, or how I'm not really that fond of certain praise choruses, which I think are a little inane. At the same time, I just didn't want to be some jerk who is badmouthing my congregation to the whole World Wide Web, and I especially didn't want members of my church coming across my blog and getting upset.

So, I anticipate three possible responses to this line of reasoning:

1. "A-Ring, you shouldn't be saying anything bad about your congregation period."
2. "A-Ring, you shouldn't say anything about a person that you wouldn't say to their face. If you're seriously concerned, go talk to your elders; if not, quit whining."
3. "The Internet is a unique social environment where we can discuss personal matters in a semi-anonymous way. Keep up the good work."

So, basically, it's not like I just set up this blog to complain about my congregation (I probably love about 90% of things about them), but I wanted to be free to speak my mind about things too.

For those of you who are curious about my biography: you have pieced things together pretty well. My name is Adam, I'm 23, just starting grad school this year, non-stop fun. I did a post about my denominational background on March 29.

So, that's it, any other questions, please let me know, etc, etc. In the meantime, maybe we can pick somebody else to talk about...

2003-04-28T01:30:00.000-04:00

Today's service was nice.

Our intern started service, and, prior to the Comfortable Words, had a nice phrase: "Christ, who was with God, became alienated and estranged from God, so that we who are by nature alienated and estranged from God might find peace with God."

Our sermon was on Exodus 38.21-31, though our pastor didn't stick too closely to the text, rather using it as an entryway to preach about Christian leadership. I was particularly impressed with a section my pastor had on the humanity of Christ as a call to servant leadership. Let me try to summarize:

Many people in the Church today (even evangelicals) are really Eutychians (i.e. Monophysites) since they fail to recognize that God entrusted His entire plan for salvation to the Christ's human nature. However, the Scriptures teach there are two wills in Christ, with the human will following the divine (i.e. the human nature following the divine). Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God has committed the leadership of His Church to other human natures, that is to say men who today exercise His purpose in the church.

2003-04-26T18:09:00.000-04:00

I was at a Bible study a couple weeks ago where one of the participants told us about a theological dispute he had been having with one of his friends. The question was: when a person becomes a Christian do they immediately receive a new nature (with sin then being a residual but foreign substance in our lives) or do we retain our old nature, just purged of sin?

My initial response was to say that the first view, that Christians receive a new nature probably comes out of a supralapsarian soteriology, so holding this view could easily lead us on to the errors of hyper-Calvinism or even antinomianism. However, since moderate supralapsarianism is consistent with the Westminster Standards, a Presbyterian could hold the view, provided that they don't cross the line into full-blown hyper-Calvinism or antinomianism.

Now, though, I'm starting to wonder if I wasn't being a little too charitable and have been questioning whether the view that Christians immediately receive a new nature is compatible with the Council of Orange or the Synod of Dort. I say this because the implication of Christians having a new nature would seem to be that after conversion a Christian is capable of doing good works by his own nature. I strongly disagree with that, and feel the Scriptures teach that grace is still necessary to produce every good work in the redeemed, and that to give God all the glory for the good things that happen in our lives, we need to reject the view that we receive a new nature at our conversion.

So, I'm not absolutely sure that I'm right on this, but that's my view.

2003-04-20T15:30:00.000-04:00

I may have noted this earlier but my pastor follows an expository preaching pattern. "We must," says he, "preach not what we want to preach, but what God wants us to preach." And, apparently, what God wants is exclusively sermons from the Book of Exodus. And, you know, the Gospel can be preached well from any part of the Bible, so normally, no big deal, I am learning a lot about Exodus, and the sermons are usually pretty informative.

However, on days like Easter, I really wish he would just briefly break from the expository sermon path to give us a sermon on what people want to hear. There were a lot of visitors and guests in church today, all itching to hear about the Resurrection of Our Lord, Saviour, and God Jesus Christ, the end of His humiliation and beginning of His exaltation which shall culminate in His coming again in judgment at the Last Day. Our pastor was well aware of this, spoke briefly of the Resurrection, apologized that he was constrained to preach from Exodus ("but, we do celebrate the Resurrection every Sunday after all, so there is no need to set aside one specific day for preaching on it"), and then proceeded to deliver a sermon on Exodus 38.9-20 . Now don't get me wrong, it was a fine sermon on a lofty topic, just not really the one I wanted to hear this morning.

At any rate, briefly, here is his exposition on the Court of the Tabernacle:

1. The Court of the Tabernacle represents the boundary between Christ's Church and the rest of the world. The north-east-south-west orientation of the Tabernacle calls to mind God's promise to Jacob (Genesis 28.14) as well as St. Luke 13.29: thus the boundaries of the tabernacle are always increasing in size.
2. The Tabernacle is knit together in such a way that the only way to enter is through the Gate. First, we note that the Tabernacle represents Heaven, and there is only one gate into that Heaven, the Man Christ Jesus. This led to a discussion of St. John 10.1-18, and allowed the pastor to briefly touch on the Resurrection while expounding vv. 17-18, "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." (BTW - this would have been an ideal sermon text for Easter.)
3. Christ, as the Gate or Door into Heaven, exercises this function on earth through His Body the Church. (He didn't mention St. Matthew 16.19, though this was implied.) Thus, we are bound to come to faith in Christ within the Church, and to join ourselves to the Church. There followed an exhortation to pray for the Church and all Her ministries.

Interesting observations made in the course of the sermon:

1. When Jacob said "this is none other but the house of God" (Genesis 28.17), he was in the wilderness, just as the Tabernacle was to be the house of God in the wilderness.
2. The knitting together of the Tabernacle reminds us of the knitting together of God's people in the Church (Colossians 2.2).
3. The colours of the Court of the Tabernacle would have reminded the people of the Tabernacle of a great chieftan or king. Thus, they are a testimony to the Kingship of God.

An issue I would have like to see explored more:

During the first part of the sermon, about boundaries, he discussed the significance of Christ being executed outside the walls of Jerusalem, instead of within the Holy City, which shows how far Christ was removed from God. It was an interesting thought, but not fully developed.

2003-04-18T01:53:00.000-04:00

I've never been the type to believe that people become Christians in dramatic conversion experiences. In my own life, things were a lot more gradual. But there was one day, when I really realized that Christ was my Saviour and that I loved Him and would serve Him forever. That day was Good Friday 1998, and the moment was when at service we sang this hymn:

My song is love unknown,
My Saviour’s love to me;
Love to the loveless shown,
That they might lovely be.
O who am I, that for my sake
My Lord should take, frail flesh and die?

He came from His blest throne
Salvation to bestow;
But men made strange, and none
The longed for Christ would know:
But O! my Friend, my Friend indeed,
Who at my need His life did spend.

Sometimes they strew His way,
And His sweet praises sing;
Resounding all the day
Hosannas to their King:
Then “Crucify!” is all their breath,
And for His death they thirst and cry.

Why, what hath my Lord done?
What makes this rage and spite?
He made the lame to run,
He gave the blind their sight,
Sweet injuries! Yet they at these
Themselves displease, and ’gainst Him rise.

They rise and needs will have
My dear Lord made away;
A murderer they saved,
The Prince of life they slay,
Yet cheerful He to suffering goes,
That He His foes from thence might free.

In life, no house, no home
My Lord on earth might have;
In death no friendly tomb
But what a stranger gave.
What may I say? Heav’n was His home;
But mine the tomb wherein He lay.

Here might I stay and sing,
No story so divine;
Never was love, dear King!
Never was grief like Thine.
This is my Friend, in Whose sweet praise
I all my days will gladly spend.

2003-04-17T23:43:00.000-04:00

Well, I hate to just copy a link I found on somebody else's blog, but I found this quite impressive.

2003-04-17T14:36:00.000-04:00

We can put a man on the moon, but we can't make a single version of the Next Tetris available on the World Wide Web! Outrageous!

I've spent the past two hours trying to find a playable Tetris game to download. Heck, I was even willing to pay. But, I have to conclude that there is nothing but Tetris detritus on the web.

Oh, I long for the days when I had the Next Tetris. I want cascade action. And don't forget about the dastardly fusion. Or the joy that comes from spinning your opponent's screen around. But (O dear Blog Reader) the grass is always green on the other side of the fence, and I traded my Play Station One to my friend Steve for a Nintendo 64. How could I be so stupid? Woe is me.

2003-04-16T23:28:00.000-04:00

Well, it appears that my new congregation doesn't hold Good Friday services, which has left me somewhat distressed, since Good Friday service is usually one of the most moving of the year. So, I have decided to come up with my own special form of worship for my private devotions on Good Friday. It's based around the traditional Good Friday practice of meditating on the Seven Words (i.e. the Seven Sentences) that the Lord Jesus spoke while He was on the cross.

I have inserted a series of standard prayers / canticles before and after each of the 7 meditations, mainly because I don't think I could sustain an entire hour just in meditation, and these time-honoured prayers will help me to recentre during the course of prayer. I've always felt that a composed prayer can be repeated several times and yet not be a mere "vain repetition". If you keep your mental focus on the words you are praying, I find that every time I pray even a very common prayer like the Lord's Prayer it can take on a different meaning. So, although I don't often use composed prayers for personal devotions, I have decided to include them in this form of worship for my Good Friday.

Should anyone be interested, here is the form:

Kneel down and recite:

The Nicene Creed

1. The Lord's Prayer
Good Friday Verses
Meditation on the 1st Word - "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." -- St. Luke 23.34
The Salvator Mundi
2. The Lord's Prayer
Good Friday Verses
Meditation on the 2nd Word - "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." -- St. Luke 23.43
The Salvator Mundi
3. The Lord's Prayer
Good Friday Verses
Meditation on the 3rd Word - "Woman behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother!" -- St. John 19.26-7
The Salvator Mundi
4. The Lord's Prayer
Good Friday Verses
Meditation on the 4th Word - "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" -- St. Matthew 27.46
The Salvator Mundi
5. The Lord's Prayer
Good Friday Verses
Meditation on the 5th Word - "I thirst." -- St. John 19.28
The Salvator Mundi
6. The Lord's Prayer
Good Friday Verses
Meditation on the 6thWord - "It is finished." -- St. John 19.30
The Salvator Mundi
7. The Lord's Prayer
Good Friday Verses
Meditation on the 7th Word - "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." -- St. Luke 23.46
The Salvator Mundi

The Nicene Creed

And that's it. I trust it will be a fruitful afternoon. In case you want to follow along, here are the Good Friday verses:

Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world.
He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.
The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.
Herein is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and blessing.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be world without end. Amen.

And here is the Salvator Mundi, a prayer sadly overlooked on the rest of the Internet:

O Saviour of the world who by thy Cross and precious blood hast redeemed us: save us and help us we humbly beseech thee O Lord.
Thou didst save thy disciples when ready to perish: hear us and save us we humbly beseech thee.
Let the pitifulness of thy great mercy loose us from our sins we humbly beseech thee.
Make it appear that thou art our Saviour and mighty Deliverer: O save us that we may praise thee we humbly beseech thee.
Draw near according to thy promise from the throne of thy glory: look down and hear our crying we humbly beseech thee.
Come again and dwell with us, O Lord Christ Jesus: abide with us forever we humbly beseech thee.
And when thou shalt appear with power and great glory: may we be made like unto thee, in thy glorious Kingdom.
Thanks be to thee O Lord: alleluia. Amen.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be world without end. Amen.

2003-04-14T00:42:00.000-04:00

My new church doesn't celebrate Palm Sunday, which left me a little disappointed. I've been humming "Ride On, Ride On In Majesty" most of the day.

I did get an okay sermon, by an intern, on Colossians 1.21-22. I think he divided the text perfectly:

1. That from which we are saved - alienation and enmity with God, v. 21;
2. That by which we are saved - the death of Jesus Christ, v. 22a;
3. That to which we are saved - so that we can become holy and blameless in the sight of God, v. 22b.

He wasn't the most polished speaker (that will come with time), but he did do his best to discuss the need for hope in our lives, the absolute certainty we can have in Christ's promises, and the primacy of God's grace in our salvation. All in all, a noble effort, and some beautiful doctrines.

I was speaking with one of our deacon's today, and I'm starting to feel bad for not having memorized the Shorter Catechism, since apparently all of the 10-yr-olds in our church now have it memorized. So, I think I'm going to do my best to rectify this embarrassing situation (either by memorizing the Shorter Catechism myself or by taking out the 10-yr-olds - I haven't decided yet).

2003-04-12T03:49:00.000-04:00

You may have noticed, along the side of my blog, I have a series of sermons that I consider my absolute favourites. These are a series of sermons that have meant a lot to me, and I think have really helped me to grow as a Christian.

Does anyone else have a sermon or a couple sermons that they consider especially important in their lives?

2003-04-09T02:49:00.000-04:00

As many of you know, I am currently working on a term paper (thankfully, this will be my last term paper before I start work on my Ph.D. dissertation), and my topic is the English clerical response to the Glorious Revolution in 1688-89. So, I've been reading a lot of pamphlets by 17th-century churchmen about obedience, allegiance, "non-resistance", legitimacy, "passive obedience", and so forth.

All of which got me to thinking...

The U.S. government for quite some time has been calling on the people of Iraq to overthrow Saddam. Now, a 17th-century churchman would argue that, even under a tyranny like that of Saddam, people have no right to take arms against their rulers, and would cite passages like Romans 13.1-7, the example of the early Christians who didn't take up arms against persecuting emperors, Christ's own example of not resisting the Roman government.

So, are we really advocating that the Iraqi people commit a sin by calling on them to resist Saddam?

2003-04-08T02:40:00.000-04:00

If there are still Reformed Christians out there in cyberspace who haven't read Phil Benedict's Christ's Churches Purely Reformed, (the definitive history of Calvinism), shame on you!

2003-04-08T01:09:00.000-04:00

For those of you poor naive fools who might still have been taken in by the 1986 flick, Flight of the Navigator, please let this link debunk your foolish delusions.

2003-04-08T00:53:00.000-04:00

Once, about seven or eight years ago now, I was in the mall in Minot, North Dakota, and I saw a set of identical triplets. They were male and about 15 or 16 years old. It was easily the most exciting experience of my entire life.

Today, though, I just found out that experts (by which I mean the creator of this website) believe there are probably only 9 sets of identical male quadruplets in the known world. And, apparently, one of the sets, the Arnold quads, live in North Dakota and were born in 1981. So, this got me to thinking, what if, instead of seeing triplets, I actually saw quads and one of them was just not there because he was ill or doing his own thing because he's not all in to "quadding it up" like his brothers. How awesome would that be! So, I might have seen quads.

If anyone knows of any more identical quads, please send me their photos.

2003-04-03T02:07:00.000-05:00

I don't understand the concern which certain people seem to have about "individualistic" or "experientialist" hymns.

From my perspective, the ultimate hymns are the psalms, and a hymn should really just be a psalm "imitated in the language of the New Testament" (in Isaac Watt's memorable phrase). Not that all hymns have to be paraphrases of psalms, but that hymns should try to do the same things that psalms do - which is, ultimately, to praise God in accordance with His Word. Now, the psalms often have first-person accounts of religious experience. No one would feel any qualms about singing these, right?

The one limitation I would place on this is to say that hymns which describe Christian experience must strictly limit themselves to normative Christian experience - that is to say to experience which is common to every Christian believer. So, if the Bible lays out a certain type of experience as normative, we can sing of it.

I don't see how singing these types of hymns violates a covenantal theology, either. On the one hand, simply using the first-person-singular does not mean that a hymn is not covenantal or corporate - just think of how many psalms that would exclude. And the fact that you are singing with other believers is the confirmation of that. What a glorious thing to join your voice with other believers in this type of hymn - I and the person next to me are both singing of our individual experience with Christ, but the blending of our voices is a aural representation of the fact that our individual experiences are shared by all members of God's covenant family.

2003-04-02T02:28:00.000-05:00

Well, I feel I have now expressed my thought on this topic fairly completely. However, I feel the desire to sum up my beliefs one more time.

I believe that the Scriptures teach that, from the time of the Crucifixion until now, Christ's church has been growing in the earth, and that it will continue to grow and prosper, and finally, when Christ's work in the earth is complete and full, He will return to earth to judge the quick and the dead. I long to see the day when Christ's work shall be complete, when Satan shall be completely destroyed, and when sin shall be entirely banished from the earth, and Christ's saints shall reign with Him forever. I believe this present age in this life, we only have a foretaste of what Christ has prepared for those that love Him, and the sooner Christ completes His work, the better. I join with the martyrs in heaven, who ask, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" I join with the Spirit and the bride, and say, "Come, Lord Jesus."

I believe also that, in teaching us to love and long for this future state, the Word of God teaches us also to think lowly of our present state, which is, after all, but a vapour, but grass. I emphatically do not believe that boldly proclaiming this in word and in song in the assembly of the faithful is pessimistic or premillennial. Nor do I believe it is to make light of Christ's power in the earth at the present time. Because the reason why this present age is so unbearable is because of our sin. It is an unbearable age because it is polluted with the foul stench of man's iniquity. What I am looking forward to is a day when sin will have no dominion in the earth - when the reprobate will be swept away because of their sins, and when the elect will have their sin totally swept away by the righteousness of Christ.

How could anyone possibly love this present age? Why should we not pray that God, who alone has the power to end this age, to wipe away sin and tears and death, will do so as quickly as possible?

2003-03-31T04:07:00.000-05:00

While I can appreciate Sarah's zeal for the postmillennialist cause, I nevertheless feel the need to defend the reputation of Horatius Bonar. Sarah seems to bristle at Bonar's premillennialism. Fair enough., I guess. But let's be very clear, that he was never a dispensationalist nor a pre-trib, and remained an orthodox member of the Free Church of Scotland his entire life.

And I think that it is very important that as Christians we try to understand the spirit of Scripture, not just approach it, with our postmil blinkers on. Now, as for the hymn, "Come Lord and Tarry Not", it is very difficult to see where Bonar departs from the Scriptures. For example, the verse

Come, Lord, and tarry not;
Bring the long looked for day;
O why these years of waiting here,
These ages of decay?

Sarah says: "The church is already victorious. Phrases like "Bring the long looked for day; O why these years of waiting here, These ages of decay?" are dangerous. The long looked for day has already come; Satan was defeated at the resurrection. These are not ages of decay, they are ages of victorious work, work that has to be done for the Kingdom"

I think this line of reasoning is wrong. If "The long looked for day has already come", why do we pray every day, "Thy kingdom come" (Matt 6.10)? Why does St. Paul write about Christ's second coming and say "Comfort one another with these words" (1Thess 4.18)? Why does he commend the Corinthians for "waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1.8)? Why does St Peter commend those Christians are "looking and hasting unto the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved and the elements shall melt with fervent heat" (2 Pet. 3.12)? Why is the entire last chapter of the Bible dedicated to Christ's second coming, and St. John's final plea to Christ "Even so, come, Lord Jesus" (Rev 22.20)?

Conclusion: the Church is still longing for a day in the future when Christ shall come.
Therefore: we ought to sing about it.

Sarah also complains that the hymn is too pessimistic about the present age. She writes:"'Come, for creation groans, impatient of Thy stay...' When Christ died and arose, everything was brought under his dominion. While we are just at the beginning of exercising Christ's dominion over the earth, that dominion applies to the Church and to creation as well."

But Bonar's entire expression here is modeled on Romans 8.22-23:

"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."

How can you possibly criticize Bonar's verse when it is pretty much just a paraphrase of the Scripture?

So, as for Sarah's claim that "The problem with this hymn is that it was written from a defeated point of view" and "[Christ] has also promised us an optimistic eschatology, an eschatology of hope, not of groaning, dispair, and of counting the minutes and hours until we're done with this earth." I think this characterization is somewhat misleading. I don't think it's despair to long for Christ's return.

This isn't an "age of decay"? St. John wrote "The world passeth away" (1 John 2.17)? Doesn't St. Paul say that Christ "gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world" (Gal 1.4)? He was writing after the Resurrection, but he still talks about being delivered from the present evil world.

So, in conclusion, I am not at all convinced that this hymn has departed from the Scripture in any substantial way.

2003-03-30T02:09:00.000-05:00

Well, since Sarah has thrown down a gauntlet, I am willing to publicly challenge her to a duel. (Note to Sarah: you can take that literally or figuratively - I like my chances either way.) Assuming we are talking figuratively, it seems that we have a bit of a disagreement on what constitutes a good hymn. Thus, I list for you my favourites (no pslams, though, since I love them all):

Abide With Me
Rock of Ages
The Church's One Foundation
We Rest on Thee
How Great Thou Art
My Saviour First of All
Take the World, But Give Me Jesus
Love Divine, All Loves Excelling
And Can It Be, That I Should Gain
Let the World Their Virtue Boast
It Is Well With My Soul
Jesus Saves
Alas! And did my Saviour Bleed
Hark, the Herald Angels Sing
O For a Heart to Praise my God
O For a Thousand Tongues to Sing
Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus
Lo, He Comes with Clouds Descending

Sorry, that list was a little longer that in ought to have been - it's so hard to choose though.

So, hopefully we only disagree on minor hymns. If you take exception with any of these hymns, I will have to take exception with you. Ma'am I await your response.

2003-03-29T03:25:00.000-05:00

I know it's late, but I've been trying to make my way through Presbyterian and Reformed blogs on the web. Why, why must all roads lead to Grande Prairie, Alberta? Admittedly, I've never been to GP, but it's really just a second-rate cross between Lethbridge and Fort McMurray, isn't it? In the immortal words of Bill O'Reilly, "Show me where I'm wrong."

2003-03-29T00:43:00.000-05:00

My term paper this semester involves studying how the bishops and clergy of the Church of England justified switching their allegiance from James II to William III in 1688-89. All of which has had me wondering about the questions of the loyalty we owe to bad leaders, etc, etc. Thus, for your pleasure, let me present a theological dilemma which has perplexed me for many years now, and let me attempt to justify my actions to you, the world.

I was born and baptized into the United Church of Canada, an ultra-liberal church. (They've gone the whole nine yards, from homosexual ordination to removing "patriarchal" references to God the Father from the latest hymnbook.) I became a committed, conservative Christian around 1997 or 1998, and yet I insisted on remaining within the UCC until 2002, and even then, it was only the fact that I was moving to the United States, where there were no UCCs, that convinced me I could leave the United Church in good conscience. This decision always seemed to vex my evangelical friends, and I think it sorta bothers some of the people that I've met at my new PCA congregation. So, let me explain my actions...

In my opinion, the crucial biblical text here is Matthew 23.1-3, which reads "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisess sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." I take this to mean that, as a Christian, even though I was born into a denomination which makes some errors, I'm not free to leave it at will.

Let me put this another way. The church has agreed for a long time that the sin of the priest/pastor does not invalidate the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The reason is that the sacrament belongs to Christ, and not to the minister who is giving it. Similarly, the United Church of Canada still belongs to Christ, and all the sins committed by its leadership will never be able to make it a false church, so long as there are faithful members inside of it. (The Reformers did, after all, believe that the medieval Catholic church was still a true church.) Thus, the sins of the leadership can never provide a valid reason for separating from the United Church of Canada. To separate would be to commit the sin of schism. Rather, we ought to remain within the church as faithful witnesses of the Gospel.

This doesn't mean that we can never separate from a church. There are two situations where separation is necessary: if, as a member of a specific denomination, you are obliged to do something contrary to the Word of God; or, if your denominational leadership prevents you from doing something required by the Word of God. (Note, the Reformers separated from the Church of Rome on both grounds, since they were obliged to participate in an idolatrous mass, and prevented, by excommunication and worse, from preaching the true Gospel.) The UCC never obliged me to do anything contrary to my conscience nor prevented me from doing something I felt I had to do (e.g. they weren't about to excommunicate me for proclaiming my faith to the members of my congregation.) Thus, I committed neither a sin of omission nor a sin of commission by remaining within the UCC, whereas I would have committed the sin of schism if I had removed myself from it.

I try to be charitable when I meet evangelical Christians who left the UCC, though I admit I am extremely wary of what I consider a shopping-mall, pick-and-choose attitude to religion among many Christians today. I have a lot more respect for those who choose to stay behind, a faithful remnant, praying and fighting for the cause of Christ in the denomination, and longing for the day when this church shall be reformed and recalled to orthodoxy. After all, the 20 Articles of Faith remain the only doctrinal standard for the United Church. If many ministers have cast aside the 20 Articles, they are the ones who are untrue to the United Church, not those who continue to fight for our traditional doctrine. And those ministers' sin and errors can have no negative reprecussions on anyone who remains in the UCC and holds to the true faith.

Anyhow, that has been my thinking for the past five years. I invite comments.

2003-03-27T03:17:00.000-05:00

While reading through blogs on my linked list (only half of which seem to be updated regularly - don't worry, I'll remove them eventually), I came across a recent entry by Josh, wherein he discusses some of the differences between Lutheran and Reformed eschatology, and in the course of this discussion, touches on the issue of their different views about discipline. I have recently been thinking about Luther and Calvin's various opinions about the role of the secular authority, which of course ties in to the issue of church discipline, since Luther and Calvin both saw the issue as totally interrelated. So, I'll post my musings for you to muse over.

Luther presented all laws and discipline as lying entirely outside the sphere of the church, and are to be used entirely to restrain the wicked:

"If all the world were true Christians, that is, if everyone truly believed, there would be neither need nor use for princes, kings, lords, the Sword or law. What would there be for them to do, seeing that [true Christians] have the Holy Spirit in their hearts, which teaches and moves them to love everyone, wrong no one, and suffer wrongs gladly, even unto death. Where all wrongs are endured willingly and what is right is done freely, there is no place for quarrelling, disputes, courts, punishments, laws or the Sword. And therefore laws and the secular Sword cannot possibly find any work to do among Christians, especially since they of themselves do much more than any laws or teachings might demand. As Paul says in 1 Tim. 1:9: 'Laws are not given to the just, but to the unjust.' Why should this be? It is because the just man of his own accord does all and more than any law demands. But the unjust do nothing that is right, and therefore they need the law to teach, compel and urge them to act rightly."

Calvin, on the other hand, doubts that even Christians have the degree of moral perfection needed to render laws superfluous:

"But if it is the will of God, that while we are aspiring towards our true country, that we be pilgrims on the earth, and if such aids are necessary to our pilgrimage, they who take them from man deprive him of his human nature. They plead that there should be so much perfection in the Church of God, that its order would suffice to supply the place of all laws; but they foolishly imagine a perfection which can never be found in any community of men."

Thus, law is needed to restrain the Christian as much as the non-Christian, since Christians are not perfected in this life.

Calvin's view strikes me as more realistic.

2003-03-26T03:00:00.000-05:00

I saw my first-ever NHL game last night, at the Fleet Centre in Boston, where the Bruins defeated the Maple Leafs 3-2. Here are a few random yet numbered comments on this trip:

1. I was happy to note that my heart can still well with pride when I hear the Canadian national anthem sung by a man where an American flag tie.
2. I knew a lot of folk at home who were diehard Maple Leaf fans, and yet, they would always get disappointed. I guess it's because Toronto is usually good enough to be in contention (so they would get their hopes out), but never quite good enough to win. Last night, with the Leafs letting me down after leading 2-1 early in the game, I finally understood a bit of their pain. Also, my residual anti-Tranta attitude came out.
3. The Fleet Centre is the biggest homage to capitalism I've ever seen. Ads everywhere, food everywhere. It was fun. My favourite part about capitalism is how colourful it is.
4. Apparently the Fleet Centre has a rule that if you have an out-of-state driver's licence, you have to be 25 to buy beer. Caveat fanaticus.
5. I was disappointed there were no fights.
6. It was Mats Sundin's 1000th game. The Boston fans booed when they announced that.
7. It's crazy that the organ has survived at the hockey game but not in the average church. I love the organ.

2003-03-20T02:13:00.000-05:00

I just got finished reading that classic historiographical work, Zakhor by Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi. It addresses the issue of how Jews deal with their history. Central thesis: Jews have tended to emphasize their biblical history at the expense of their post-biblical history. (Big surprise, eh?) The word, Zakhor, by the way, is a Hebrew word, meaning "remember" and is used 233 times in the Old Testament.

Of course, all this make me a little annoyed. (Not incredibly so. I'm not a really excitable person.) I mean, Christians are the real heirs of Abraham, the Church is the true Israel of God, therefore, it's like they're stealing our history. On the other hand, I suppose it's really more a shared history. Whatever.

I do think, though, that most Christians don't really feel very invested in our biblical history at all. For most Christians, I'm afraid that most Old Testament history especially, is either regarded as wholly detached from Christianity (as if the NT Church and the OT Church were totally unrelated) or else, it is even a cause of minor embarassment ("Yeah, David did bring Saul 200 Philistine foreskins (1 Samuel 18.27), but...", "Yes, Elijah did organize a little bit of a slaughter of people with different religious opinions (1 Kings 18), but...") .

I think that as Christians we should: 1. identify with OT history, since it is really the history of the One Church, the Body of Christ; and 2. celebrate God's victory in His saints instead of apologizing for it.

All of which brings me to the question which is on everybody's mind on this momentous night: war. I think that, as Christians, we should exult in the triumphs which God has given His people in our history: "Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy" (Exodus 15.6), and pay more attention to that glorious martial history, since it is, after all, the history of God fighting for us in history.

Just in clarification, I'm not saying that this means we have to exult every military adventure. In the current war, I can certainly see valid Christian arguments on both sides of the issue. I happen to side with the pro-war side, but I would never want to question the Christian principles of those who oppose war, since I think that they can also make a pretty strong case, and I am somewhat divided myself.

But I do strongly object to the ultra-pacifist line which some Christians sometimes take. My home church (albeit heavily liberalized) no longer sings the great songs of spiritual warfare ("Onward, Christian Soldiers", "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus", "The Son of God Goes Forth to War", "Lead On, O King Eternal", etc.) because they are "too militaristic". As if militarism is always wrong. The Bible teaches us emphatically that militarism is sometimes the only Godly option. (Even if it weren't, the hymn controversy has to do with using warfare as a metaphor for the spiritual life, which is, of course, a metaphor employed by the Bible (Rom 13.12, 2 Cor 6.7, Eph 6.11, etc.), and as such those anti-Onwarders have no leg to stand on, in my opinion.)

And, of course, at a time like this, I hope that we are all praying in the words or the spirit of the BCP's Prayer in Time of War "ALMIGHTY Lord, who art a most strong tower to all them that put their trust in thee : Be now and evermore our defence grant us victory if it be thy will; look in pity upon the wounded and the prisoners ; cheer the anxious; comfort the bereaved ; succour the dying; have mercy on the fallen; and hasten the time when war shall cease in all the world ; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

2003-03-12T10:50:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, headline writers get it right.

2003-03-10T18:26:00.000-05:00

"It is no small irony that during the period of America's greatest prosperity, in the decades following the Second World War, we put up almost nothing but the cheapest possible buildings."

I've been reading a fair amount of architectural history and I too must say that I find the state of architecture in North America is for the most part disgusting. For example, in the second half of the nineteenth century, Vienna was developing its Ringstrasse. By most accounts, Vienna is now one of the most beautiful cities on the planet. What US city development plan post-WWII even comes close to approaching Vienna's beauty?

Now, don't even get me started on modern church architecture...

2003-03-03T19:50:00.000-05:00

I'm re-reading Van Til's A Christian Theory of Knowledge.

I love Van Til since he is the most circular Christian thinker since Anselm of Canterbury.

Anselm: 1. God is the most perfect being. 2. The most perfect being is a being that must exist. 3. Therefore, God is a being that must exist.
Anselm 2: 1. The perfect being has all perfections. 2. Existence is a perfection. 3. Therefore, the perfect being has existence.

All the philosophers of the world pound their heads trying to debunk the saint's logic and shall never succeed.

Thus, Van Til teaches that the Scriptures are the highest point of logical predication, and, as such, cannot possibly be challenged by any other since criterion, since all critiera must be judged by Scripture and not vice versa. Logic, shmlogic. Where would logic be without the Bible? Pchaw. Intellectual stubborness as the ideal of faith. "The Bible tells me so: QED." The man's faith is mind-boggling.

So, sleep on, Anselm; sleep on, Cornelius. The self-contained circularity of your faith will no doubt be rewarded, and I have little doubt that it can be said of these two what Donne said of the early martyrs:

"Their death was a birth to them into another life, into the glory of God; It ended one Circle, and created another; for immortality, and eternity is a Circle too; not a Circle where two points meet, but a Circle made at once; This life is a Circle, made with a Compasse, that passes from point to point; That life is a Circle stamped with a print, an endlesse, and perfect Circle, as soone as it begins."

2003-03-03T18:49:00.000-05:00

I resolve that next time I try to update my template, I'm going to save a copy of the old template first. What a disaster.

2003-02-28T12:40:00.000-05:00

So, to continue my ramblings from last Wednesday...

If salvation is a state of the soul, as I posited, then how do we know when we are saved. We can contrast the soul of the unregenerate with the perfect soul of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Intellectually, Christ believed perfectly in all of God's revealed Word (being Himself the Word made Flesh); the unregenerate does not believe in God's Word. Emotionally, Jesus felt perfect love for God and for His neighbour, and perfect hatred for sin; the unregenerate hates God and loves sin. In terms of desire, Christ desired God and not the base things of the flesh (not that He did not thirst or hunger or want to live, but in Him these desires were perfectly subdued to His desire for God); the unregenerate desires anything but God. Finally, Christ's will perfectly and consciously submitted to His Father's will in all things; the unregenerate would never willingly submit to the divine will, and wills what it wants to without respect for God.

Christians, however, are somewhere in between the unregenerate and Christ on this spectrum. Intellectually, I believe in God's Word, yet I am sometimes assailed by doubt, and I may err in my interpretation. Another problem: when believing God's Word, how much intellectual belief is enough to know one is saved? Belief in God? Belief that Christ is God? Eschewal of Pelagianism? Something further. Secondly, in terms of emotions, I do love God, but my emotions are variable and sometimes I feel love of God much more strongly in my heart than at others. On the other hand, I hate sin, but yet, I have moments where I am so in love with sin that I can totally disregard God. What degree of emotional involvement with God is needed to know one is saved? In terms of desire, I desire God, sometimes like a hart panting for streams of living waters, but at other times, my heart grows cold and I feel little desire for God, I get distracted and desire other things. I remain captive to some degree to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. How much mortification of self is needed to know one is saved? Finally, in terms of will, I sometimes find myself consciously willing in accordance with God's revealed Word, but at other times, consciously or subconsciously, I willfully choose things which are the exact opposite.

From my old days in Campus Crusade (there's another blog waiting to happen), my initial reaction is to be quite sure of my salvation, since I sometimes believe in, love, and desire Jesus Christ. But, on the other hand, I think that so many of the great Puritans exhort us to spend time searching our hearts, and making our election sure, struggling with fear and thanksgiving to come to more perfect faith, and I recall that even St. Paul was afraid that he could himself be a castaway (I Cor. 9.27). I do like what Bill Bright had to say about trusting in the promises of God and believing that He is faithful to His word, and, having that as the ground of our faith, there is no need for doubting salvation, but on the other hand, I fear that this becomes an excuse to avoid the hard work of working out our salvation with fear and trembling.

2003-02-25T14:56:00.000-05:00

Ah, to be Theodore Dalrymple, always on the verge of discovering yet another tell-tale sign of the vacuity and superficiality of modern society. According to Dalrymple, the underclass is now little better than "savages" (a term he actually uses), and Britain has no one to blame except for the middle- and upper-classes and their addiction to moral relativism and the false promise of the welfare state. Ah, Dalrymple, the last of a dying breed, blaming the poor for their own actions, blaming the system for its indifference and inhumanity. I for one intend to remain firmly within my Ivory Tower and trust that all these problems will work themselves out.

2003-02-25T02:07:00.000-05:00

"The tattoo has a profound meaning: the superficiality of modern man’s existence."

2003-02-20T00:43:00.000-05:00

In December, in an effort to get my horrible weight problem under control, I signed up for an online course at Setting Captives Free ministries. They are interested not in your average diet, but rather want to get at the root causes of sloth and gluttony. As with all sins, this requires repentence (godly sorrow and turning from the sin), and what they call "a daily feasting on Christ." It was a very good programme, but, being a weak sinner, I fell off the bandwagon over Christmas and things haven't been that good since. Last night, I was really convicted about this, but I am still far too embarrassed to go crawling back to SCF. (I know, I know, where's my godly humility?)

2003-02-19T15:48:00.000-05:00

Well, I know I've been blogging a lot today, but my internet connection was down for a couple days, so I'm really just making up for lost time.

For about a year now, I've been wrestling on and off with the issue of the soul (and, of course, the closely related question of freewill). My main source has been the first few chapters of the second book of Calvin's Institutes, though I'm not sure if I'm reading him properly or not. Anyhow, I'll just post my thoughts to show you where I am at right now, and hopefully someone will respond and tell me where I'm wrong.

I start by defining "soul" as everything non-corporeal in a human being; roughly "soul" is what a psychologist would call "the mind" and includes conscious as well as unconscious and subconscious elements.

We can divide the soul into three faculties - the intellect, the emotions, and the appetites - governed by the will, which directs the other parts. Sometimes the will has to choose between the faculties, e.g. the intellect tells you that you should do one thing, while your emotions are directing you in another direction. Other times, the will has to choose between two competing propositions within a faculty, such as two explanations presented by the intellect, or two desires presented by the appetite (for example, the desire for sexual satisfaction vs. the desire for social acceptance). At any rate, when the will decides on a course of action, it "drags along" the other faculties: by choosing the intellectual option over the emotional option, you have to suppress the emotions. Habit formation can lead to the virtual triumph of one of the faculties: always giving in to your emotions deadens the intellect's ability to resist, and so forth.

Now, the natural man certainly has to be said to have freewill in the sense that the will is free to choose and direct the other faculties of the soul in the manner it sees fit. The will is absolutely free from compulsion. The intellect, the emotions, or the appetites can all present the will with very powerful impressions, but ultimately the will is free to accept or reject their suggestions.

However, if we define salvation as a state of the soul, we have to deny freewill and see the need for grace. Because of original sin, the soul's three faculties do not naturally present the will with the options that denote salvation in each faculty: in the intellect, belief in Jesus as Saviour; in the emotions, love of God and hatred of sin; and in the appetites, desire for God and a desire to keep the flesh in subjection. The creation of these impressions in the faculties only comes about through grace, though the means of that grace is often fairly mundane (i.e. the preaching of the Word). However, even after these impressions are manifested in the three faculties of the soul, it requires an additional infusion of grace for the will to be able to choose the proper impression competing within each faculty (such as between two intellectual models).

I have a lot more questions on this topic, but maybe I'll leave them for tomorrow to avoid a ridiculously long post.

2003-02-19T01:51:00.000-05:00

In non-Iraq news...

The Christian Science Monitor (not, of course, that I want anything at all to do with Christian Science), recently published a thoughtful article about anti-intellectualism on elite campuses. I was initially somewhat taken in by the article's thesis: that students at elite schools today have grown up in a peaceful, prosperous world, and as such are less given to complaining, more deferential to authority, and generally happy with the world around them. On the other hand, the article's author, Mark Clayton, makes a comparison to the last time that a generation was raised in comparable circumstances, the immediately pre-WWI generation, and argues that while at that time elite schools were interested in providing both an intellectually challenging and character-forming experience, both of which goals are often lacking at present.

I've been thinking about this article a fair bit lately. I think that I really agree with a lot of what Clayton is saying, but at the same time, I really wonder what our options are. I don't think that this golden age when universities challenged students to reach beyond their own narrow worldviews was nearly as golden as it is made out to be, nor do I think that today's students are really any less intellectually vigorous. In fact, I would argue that most academic programmes today have much higher standards than they did even twenty years ago in lots of ways. The things that really bug people - freshmen with poor grammar or students at Ivy League schools thinking it's cooler to be outdoorsy than intellectual - are probably more than anything a failure of the intellectual elite to live up to this stereotypical image which is projected either as intellectual as nerd or intellectual as hero. Elite students are just people. Come on. As for character, most people are polite, friendly, nonjudgmental - what more do we need? Come on.

2003-02-19T01:30:00.000-05:00

Well, sitting in my warm, comfortable room (which is really neither of those things), all I can express is total confusion as to why anyone would brave the cold to protest against war in Iraq. Especially when so many of their slogans were downright shallow. I'm sure I'm not the first to comment on this, but does anyone seriously think they are making a valid political point by holding up signs like "Even my dog thinks war is a bad idea" or, next to a picture of Martha Stewart, "War - it's not a good thing"? Then, on the other hand, you had people who were absolutely shrill in comparing Bush to Hitler, calling him a mass murderer, etc., their case being made no stronger by the fact that many of them might actually believe these things. As Mark Steyn pointed out, thank heavens we don't live in some sort of Trotskyite pseudo-democracy where these opinions might actually have an effect on policy.

Also on the topic of Iraq, here's a Christian (albeit Catholic) argument that this war will in fact be a just war.

2003-02-16T01:44:00.000-05:00

Lunch: some bowtie pasta, carrots, salad. Supper: 3 slices bacon & mushroom pizza (my favourite). Nachos.

I'm kinda tired, so I hope to satiate your voracious appetite for A-Ringia with a quotation from Rutherford's letters on the spiritual marriage:

"I hope Christ is upon a great marriage and that his wooing and suting of his excellent bride doeth take its beginning from us, the ends of the earth. O what joy and what glory would I judge it if my heaven should be suspended till I might have leave to run on foot to be a witness of the marriage-glory and see Christ put on the glory of his last married bride and his last marriage-love upon earth, when he shall enlarge his love-bed and set it upon the top of the mountains and take in the elder sister, the Jewes, and the fulness of the Gentiles! It were heaven's honour and glory upon earth to be his lackey, to run at his horse-foot and hold up the train of his marriage-robe-royal, in the day of our high and royal Solomon's espousals. But O what glory to have a seat or bed in King Jesus his chariot, that is bottomed with gold and paved and lined over and floored within with "Love, for the daughters of Jerusalem!" (Canticles. 3.10). To lie upon such a King's love were a bed next to the flower of heaven's glory."

2003-02-15T05:04:00.000-05:00

Well, my fast plans fell through when I got an invite to a fondue party. Thus, I ate all day. Lunch: a lot of chicken fingers. Supper: bread in cheese dip, fruit in chocolate dip.

Without a doubt, my favourite columnist / journalist is Jan Wong. In her weekly "Lunch With..." column, she has provided profiles of politicians, activists, actors, musicians, and ordinary people, and all with high literary skill and wonderful humanity. I've never read her books, though I definitely intend to the next time I have some free time (i.e. the summer).

I was saddened last week to read that a woman who was the subject of one of the first Lunch With..." columns I read had died. The mentally challenged are a group that always makes me smile and feel sad at the same time, and it was so nice to see a journalist profile a mentally challenged woman in a way that gave her the respect and dignity she deserved. Like so many others, I have been monumentally impressed and touched by Jean Vanier's L'Arche communities which have been, to the best of my knowledge, the first sustained attempt to conduct a Christian mission to the developmentally disabled. I love to hear Vanier speak about the special relationship which God has with these men and women, and how he has watched mentally challenged people pray with a simple trust that can be all to alien to the way we "normal" people normally pray. I am reminded of Our Lord's words in Matthew 18.3 that "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." So, I think that as Christians we have a lot to learn from the mentally challenged, and also a lot of work still to do.

2003-02-14T01:46:00.000-05:00

Lunch: antipasto and bread. Supper: sausage and pepper. Second supper: 2 slices of pizza.

I've decided to do a full fast tomorrow, so, of course, I broke the crucial fasting rule and ate more than I should have today. Stupid A-Ring.

In other news, you will see that I now have links to other blogs on the side of my blog. This being a preparatory phase to when I shall strike with a flood of email intensity that will force all these people to read my blog and reciprocate the link. Or, if that strategy fails me, my Lord has provided me a model in Luke 18.2-5 and I am certain that that model shall not fail.

On the other hand, I get the impression that lots of these bloggers know each other. In fact, one might go so far as to call them a "community". And worming my way into communities is never something I've been good at. Or maybe they just seem like such a community because I just found one blog I liked and then copied all of his links, copied those people's links, etc, etc (though I was somewhat discriminatory, I hope). Anyhow, that's something I'll be working on soon, but not tonight.

2003-02-13T02:18:00.000-05:00

For supper, I had some split pea soup, and 2 grilled cheese sandwiches. 1 Brownie.

Well, it looks like I was only half right about the ending of Celebrity Mole Hawaii. Really, guessing who the Mole was was the hardest part, and I was right about that. I should have known that Kathy Griffin is smarter than Erik von Detten. I guess I was just blinded by my love for Dinotopia.

I finished Holy Feast and Holy Fast about fifteen minutes ago. It's a very good history book, and, since it also includes a lot of primary references, etc, etc, it was a good book to read for examining what images we use in our religion. For example, pp. 174-5, Bynum writes about Catherine of Siena: "Catherine..., in letter after letter, says we do not marry Christ with gold or silver but with the ring of Christ's foreskin, given in the Circumcision and accompanied by pain and the shedding of blood." Now, that's a sermon subject I would love to see my pastor tackle.

She also includes, as an epigraph to the Epilogue, this thought provoking quote from Simone Weil:

"It may be that vice, depravity and crime are nearly always . . .attempts to eat beauty, to eat what we should only look at. Eve began it. If she caused humanity to be lost by eating the fruit, the opposite attitude, looking at the fruit without eating it, should be what is required to save it. If I grow thin from labour in the fields, my flesh really becomes wheat. If that wheat is used for the host it becomes Christ's flesh. Anyone who labours with this intention should become a saint."

2003-02-12T03:12:00.000-05:00

My favourite poem is Thompson's "The Hound of Heaven".

2003-02-12T01:37:00.000-05:00

For lunch, a grilled chicken sandwich. For supper, a veggie wrap, chicken soup. A bag of peanut M&Ms.

In a great show of irresponsibility, I wasted my entire afternoon downloading songs. I've made a new playlist for myself entitled "Phil Spector's Songs to Die For", featuring the music produced by this talented, if presently embattled, man. Maybe I'm a scumbag. Heck, I was even a little annoyed when I couldn't find a copy of the Crystals singing "He Hit Me (And It Felt Like a Kiss) ".

What I should have been doing this afternoon is reading Caroline Bynum's Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women. I did manage to get through the first three chapters, though, and it's pretty good. I have particularly enjoyed her discussion of how opinions about the eucharist changed over time. According to Bynum, in the early church and the writings of the Fathers, the central motif in Communion is that of ingesting the Bread of Heaven as part of the community of believers. By the late Middle Ages, though, it was more common to focus on the consecration, the moment when the bread became the broken Body of Christ, and to focus on this as a sort of repeat of the Incarnation (this, of course, coincided with less frequent communion and the withdrawal of the cup from the laity): as a result, the act of eating God became less of a corporate experience, and more a matter of individual reflection. I wonder where she would place Protestant experiences of Communion on this spectrum.

2003-02-11T02:30:00.000-05:00

For lunch, I had a meatball sub; for supper, a chicken caesar salad, and some flatbread with hummus.

I am convinced that, in spite of it all, Wesley (see his blog here) was not only the greatest hymn-writer of all time, but also the greatest Calvinist hymn-writer of them all. (Although, of course, on occasion, we have to have recourse to Augustus Toplady's sensible adjustments to the text.) One of my favourite Wesley hymns begins "Let the world their virtues boast / Their works of righteousness / I, a wretch undone and lost / Am freely saved by grace / Other title I disclaim / This, only this, is all my plea: / I the chief of sinners am / But Jesus died for me." In spite of the ridiculous attempt to rhyme "disclaim" and "am" (this honestly boggles my mind - did people in the 18th century really go around "dis-clamming" - or perhaps they said "I aim" - poppycock!), this is pure gold.

Speaking of pure gold (alright that was a pretty weak segue, I admit it), my housing situation might be getting somewhat brighter, since today I think a third roommate came on board for our housing search. "The Son of Man hath not where to lay his head", but soon, soon, I may have a better place to lay mine. Ah, the supple imaginations of a house full of brand-name electronics and Ikea furniture. It's all within my grasp, and yet...I realized tonight as I was watching Joe Millionaire (I only kinda thought they might be ending the show tonight) that I would love to be making $19,000, and yet everybody seems to think that Evan is a bit of a schmuck for only making this much (he does, of course, have his supplemental underwear modeling income). Stupid grad school. All my friends are living it up, and I'm squandering six years of my life for a pittance. Oh well, it'll all turn out okay in the end, or something like that. Right?

So, I'm a little concerned that Roommate #2 might not get on incredibly well with Roommate #1 (maybe, maybe not - it's tough to say), so I'm going to do my best to keep them apart until both have signed on some proverbial and/or literal dotted line.

2003-02-10T01:40:00.000-05:00

So, how about this? Blog as weight-loss journal.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "A-Ring, nobody wanted to see the TV show: why would they want to read it on a blog?" Well, you make a good point. But, since this blog doesn't actually have any readers, I don't see that as being that big a deal. Thus, you will be getting daily updates on what I eat. Today: two big salads with lots of chicken, 1 bag of peanut M&Ms.

On the topic of reality shows...

Tonight, the entire nation is in tense anticipation of Wednesday's grand finale of Celebrity Mole Hawaii when we will finally find out who is the celebrity mole. Yes, I admit it, I did tune in last Wednesday, expecting to find out who the mole was, in spite of the fact that on both the original Mole and The Mole II(both hosted by the charming Anderson Cooper, now with CNN), they also pulled the old bait and switch, and stretched out the revelations one week longer than they needed to. Oh, A-Ring, have you not heard the words of Solomon the Wise, "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun"? Well, believe you me, buckaroo, I won't get fooled again. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me thrice, I'm really starting to look bad; fool me four times - No, you're not going to fool me again.

So, you ask, who is the Celebrity Mole? Well, this week, Jimmy Kimmel hinted repeatedly on his show that the Celebrity Mole was in fact his cohost, Kathy Griffin. I think, however, this might just have been an attempt to confuse me. Good one, Jimmy, but what you're selling, I ain't buying. I'm almost certain that the Celbrity Mole is Frederique and that the winner will be Erik von Detten, star of the greatest programme in the history of television, Dinotopia.

2003-02-09T14:32:00.000-05:00

Well, it's sure been a lazy week. From now on, I'm going to do my best to right everyday, and then, when this is a content-heavy blog, people will flock to it.

So, earlier this week, I decided to give blood. The entire experience was a little weird, though. First of all, it was in this gorgeous ballroom at the university. Second, someone had just stolen the Blood Services banner, so everybody was really tense. But third, my blood-taker guy, "Dr. Mark" (according to a nametag he's made for himself out of masking tape and a marker), seemed a little out of things. When he meets me, the first thing he says is "Let's get this party started - blood party that is!" - hardly what I want to hear from a man who is going to be sticking a needle. This was actually my second encounter with Dr. Mark - the first time, he insisted on calling me "Young man" the entire time. This time, though, it was "Big guy" - not much of an improvement. And then, he keeps making these bad jokes about accidentally leaving the needle inside "as a souvenir" and whatnot. I am proud to say that my blood is PERFECT, and since there's so many people out there who can't give blood because they've visited the wrong parts of the world or whatnot, I feel it is my sacred responsibility to share my perfect blood with the world. Just one pint of blood can be used to help out three people (according to Dr. Mark) since they separate the plasma, the platelets, and the red blood cells.

Most of the time when I'm giving blood, I find myself sort of humming all of those great Blood hymns, like "There is a Fountain Filled with Blood" or "Power in the Blood". Everybody must think I'm nutso when they hear me humming.

2003-02-03T02:26:00.000-05:00

Having attended churches that followed standard lectionaries for my entire life, it is odd to now be attending a non-lectionary church. Now, I think that my pastor is a very good preacher, and his current series on Exodus is very good, yet sometimes, I find myself wishing for the lectionary. I mean, I've gotten to the point where the lectionary is part of my yearly cycle - school starts and things build to Reign of Christ Sunday, and then Advent, then Christmas, etc, etc, etc.

Granted, I have been following the daily readings from the Anglican church (1922 proposed version), which includes a couple psalms and two readings every morning and every evening. We pretty much read through whole books of the Bible, except that things get confusing once you factor in the movable and immovable feasts. Anyhow, I straightened all that out for the next year in November, so now, it's all smooth sailing.

Today was the Feast of the Purification of the Virgin Mary, which is also the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord, Saviour, and God Jesus Christ in the Temple. I really think there is some merit to setting aside special days to meditate on the important days in the life of Christ. I wonder when was the last time most evangelical preachers preached about the Presentation.

Here's Aquinas to tell you more about the Presentation and the Purification. Aquinas can be very useful sometimes, but other times he's way off the mark, so be careful in reading it.

On an interesting sidenote, last night's first reading, prepratory to the Feast of the Presentation was Exodus 13.11-16. The King James Version, which I use and love, uses the strange expression "matrix" to mean "womb". Pity the poor teenager, product of today's public education system, who finds himself in a church that uses KJV and hears this passage read, and who is now pondering the Lord's concern with the opening of The Matrix.

2003-02-02T15:13:00.000-05:00

I just got back from church. After the service today, I was looking around my congregation at everybody laughing and smiling and whatnot, and was struck by the somewhat disturbing realization that after five months at my new congregation, I've barely made any friends. Sure, there are some people there who I like and who seem like the type of person I would want to be friends with, and then there are other people who I say hi to and exchange pleasantries, but it's not exactly the same.

So, having been struck by this realization, I was then plunged into some sort of bizarre quasi-social anxiety disorder. Granted, I don't do well with large groups of people at the best of time, and even going out with my closest friends in groups bigger than 5 or 6 is somewhat uncomfortable for me (except that at other times, I really like going to parties or socials and meeting lots of new people). So, anyhow, I left church quickly without even exchanging my normal pleasantries.

I feel sort of bad about all this, since I think that it is very important to cultivate Christian friendships. On the other hand, I worry that that attitude is somewhat unfair to people: I mean, you should be friends with someone because you want to, not because you feel an obligation towards them.

The proper course of action would probably be to try to meet people in a more intimate setting, like a Bible study. But all those studies have been going on for months and I think that they are all already friends with each other, and I just feel like a little brother tagging along with his older brother and his cool friends. It's so weird that moving to a new church should feel so much like moving to a new high school and produce the same set of social anxieties and concerns about acceptance. One would think that I had moved beyond this type of emotional adolescence by now ("When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"), and yet...

I wonder if this anxiety isn't some sort of repressed fear of sin. I publicly confess that by Christ's blood, I am accounted worthy of coming into His presence, and yet, in truth, I know that I am not even worthy of approaching the least of his saints in the congregation of the faithful. Not that people at church are judgmental, but rather that their confession condemns me in some way.

One more thing: Christians really aren't that different from everybody else. We all go to the same classes, watch the same TV, etc, etc. Yet, I think when I meet a Christian I tend to have higher expectations, and might tend towards judgmentalness myself.

2003-02-01T23:42:00.000-05:00

Sorry I didn't post much this week. I've been mainly working on my Template, which I think is now pretty much finished.

One thing that has been on my mind lately is the song "Family Portrait" by Pink. (You can see an excerpt of the video here.) In this era where pop songs are often either overtly sexual/violent or else totally vacuous, this song is powerful and emotional, while also being really catchy. I really have to confess that I get a lump in my throat everytime I hear it.

The song's lyrics are sung from the point of view of a child whose parents are fighting and really express the child's pain and innocency, etc, etc. The refrain "It ain't easy, growin' up in World War 3 / Never knowin' what love could be / You'll see, I don't want love to destroy me / Like it has done my family" is probably the saddest line ever sung on a pop song. Although the song only peaked at #20 on the Billboard charts, I really think it was an artistic triumph. I hope Pink continues to make this type of poignant, intelligent music, and doesn't sell out and start performing pop drivel.

2003-01-27T23:40:00.000-05:00

In today's National Post, the University of Toronto's Clifford Orwin has an article condemning the position which the bishops of the Catholic Church in Canada have recently proclaimed as regards war in Iraq.

As Orwin points out, it is all well and good to be opposed to war in principle, but simply being anti-war is hardly a well-reasoned position. The Catholic bishops, like so many other people pressing for peace in Iraq, have failed to provide a workable alternative. Would the world be better off if we now ended the sanctions against Iraq and brought all US troops in the Persian Gulf home? I don't think so: pursuing that policy would mean that we would have a dictator with lots of dangerous weapons who has free rein to do whatever he likes (which, judging by experience, is invading other countries).

If complete disengagement is impossible, then is there some reasoned middle ground? Should we continue the current regime of sanctions and no-fly-zone enforcement indefinitely? Does anyone out there have a better plan for containing Iraq? I for one have not heard such a plan made yet.

2003-01-24T02:28:00.000-05:00

Comments?

2003-01-24T01:09:00.000-05:00

I am a recent convert to conservative Calvinism, presently attending a congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America after spending years attending one of the most liberal churches on the planet. As such, I have been scouring the web for other Presbyterian and Reformed blogs to find out what are the "hot issues", so that I can be on the cutting edge, a member of the in-crowd of the Presby/Ref community. In truth, though, this is all pretty new to me, and I might make some mistakes. I'll do my best.

The first hot issue that is burning up the blogs is the recent controversy aroused by the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors' Conference, and the Call to Repentence issued by the Covenant Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States in response. The issue seems to centre around the orthodoxy of New Perspectivism, (here's a set of articles claiming it is clearly heterodox), a movement centred around a series of new interpretations of the Pauline Epistles offered by several scholars, most notably N.T. Wright.

I have two comments to offer. First, in my opinion, it is absolutely wrong to accuse a member in good standing of a Reformed denomination of heresy (or even error) without following that denomination's proper judicial channels as outlined in its Book of Order. I simply don't buy the claim that the principles of Matthew 18.15-20 can be tossed aside in cases of public controversy. Maybe it would be different if we were dealing with non-Reformed Christians, but in this instance, it seems to me that public disunity in the Body Christ without following proper biblical methods for determining controversies is committing the sin of schism.

Second, it seems to me that the most troubling thing about New Perspectivism is its reliance on historical context. (After all, advocates of New Perspectivism claim that their conclusions do not violate the Westminster standards. I don't necessarily agree, but I do think that even if that were the case, there are still crucial problems with this methodology.) Now, after a semester spent studying the theoretical works of Quentin Skinner and J.G.A. Pocock, I am perfectly willing to admit that contextualist readings (and especially linguistic contextualist readings) are absolutely crucial to understanding the meaning of a historical text. However, I am not at all convinced that we ought to treat the Bible in the same way that we treat other historical documents. Two problems spring immediately to mind: (1) Theology is condemned to a life of perpetual uncertainty. The phrase "scholars agree that..." is practically oxymoronic; in any lively academic discipline, such as History, there will always be disputing schools of thought around central issues. The Christian faith must be built upon a solid rock, not the shifting sands of historical scholarship. If we accept the principles of New Perspectivism's contextualist hermeneutic, we are left in a postion where the average Christian layman cannot reasonably be expected to fully understand the historic context of the Scriptures, and, as such, becomes beholden to one or another group of academic elites who are alone capable of interpreting Scripture properly. In my mind, this is not really all that different from submitting to the doctrines of papal infallibility, or at least conciliarism. (2) The central presupposition of New Perspectivism is that the Scriptures must be read in the light of the historical context in which they were written, whereas the Westminster Confession concluded, in an oft-quoted phrase, that "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself" (WCF 1.9). Thus, New Perspectivism subtly undermines the Word of God, by claiming that the Bible really needs an interpretive matrix to be understood, in contradistinction to the characteristically Reformed perspective that the Scriptures are self-sufficient, and the final court of judgment in any case.

So, those are my initial reactions to this controversy. I'll keep you updated if and when a new A-Ring perspective on New Perspectivism emerges.

2003-01-23T16:49:00.000-05:00

Well, upon reading yesterday's announcement that blogger now has a million registered users, I said to myself, "A-Ring, why should everybody out there have a blog except for you? These people are no better than you, and yet there ideas are out there, in the sun, soaking up rays, changing the world. Meanwhile, your ideas are just festering in your head like a bowl of rotting fruit." Convinced by the impeccable logic of this case, here I am.

I am not absolutely sure what I will use this blog for. Probably, I'll just write about whatever happens to be on my mind. Since I'm not sure what this is going to be like, I don't think I'll advertise my blog yet. And, since I want to at least have the option of making this a sort of online diary, I'm going to retain anonymity, at least for the time being. (Everybody wants their diary to be read, but nobody really wants their mother stumbling across their diary either, now do they?)

So, I'll try to post something later tonight. I'll see you then.