What? Tuesday?

Ah, I forgot to make a post yesterday. Will you ever forgive me.

Anyway, in the meta from another post, a visitor who's calling himself "Isaiah" wanted to talk about the topic of mean-spirited TR bloggers. Since I am certainly one of those, I thought I'd give him a chance to make the front page. Here's the deal.

Isaiah said this at his own blog:

So despite the fact that many Fundamentalists would act like spiritual slaveholders by attempting to bind my conscience and the consciences of those I love with human commands, I must not allow them to make me hate them.

I admit I have lifted this quote out of context and have not linked back to Isaiah's blog. The reason is this: I want Isaiah to do a little work on this statement here in the meta to see what comes of it. Then the rest of you snarling hounds can do what you do best.

I think this will be a fine topic, and it will allow me to go about my business today without having to babysit you-all.

---

Other notes:
if iMonk can podcast, so can I -- but I need some tech assistance to get the feed working. If you know how to do this, e-mail me at the link in the sidebar.

I was reviewing the sales in the salesbar to the right, and guess what? You people buy more t-shirts than you do books -- and the books are cheaper than the shirts and junk. Now, don't get me wrong: a sale's a sale and all that. But are my t-shirts really that much more intriguing than the Dever book? Sheesh. I thought we were anti-anti-intellectuals around here even if we are not actually intellectuals. Now I find our we're actually pomos who wear slognaeering t-shirts.

double-secret technorati tags:Slice of Laodicia

Unity

One entry found for unity.

Main Entry: uni·ty
Pronunciation: 'yü-n&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English unite, from Anglo-French unité, from Latin unitat-, unitas, from unus one -- more at ONE

It's been almost a year since we took the polling data and ignored Dave Armstrong, and let me admit that I have betrayed you, my readers. I stopped ignoring him this week, but it's all Phil's fault for mentioning ol' Dave in a TeamPyro post. See: I thought Dave was not not-interacting with “anti-catholics” again, and I went over to see what the hub-bub was about.

What I found was a discussion about how disunited Protestantism was, and how that's an affront to the statement Jesus made about unity, and of course some hoopla over some things Phil's Pulpit Live article (which is a reprint of old material) got (in Dave's words) wrong.

In the mix of things happening in Dave's meta, the matter of unity somehow continued to be the topic. In fact, I was chastised for not understanding what “unity” is (and therefore I am, apparently, unable to understand what “disunity” is), so I thought I'd do a little thinking out loud here at the blog for my own benefit and the benefit of you faithful readers who share my utter fascination with the English language.

m-w.com has 6 major headings under the noun “unity”, and we're going to think about them in reverse order.

6 capitalized : a 20th century American religious movement that emphasizes spiritual sources of health and prosperity

While I hesistate to say that anything in this discussion might be clear – especially without a magisterial decision on the matter – it seems clear to me that when DA and his current bevy of meta-readers use this word, they do not mean the abberant pseudo-religion of Unity. I could be wrong, but since the Pope doesn't belong to Unity, this is probably not their point.

Thus, the next definition:

5 : any of three principles of dramatic structure derived by French classicists from Aristotle's Poetics and requiring a play to have a single action represented as occurring in one place and within one day

I'm pretty sure DA and JPrejean aren't talking about French lit aesthetics, either, although I am sure they would have something absolutely rivetting to present on the subject. Maybe we'll have a seminar next year or something.

Next:

4 : a totality of related parts : an entity that is a complex or systematic whole

Seriously now: this one actually has some potential. They might actually be saying that Roman Catholicism has “unity” because it has a complex or systematic (I would argue for “and” not “or”) totality. It is an assembly of parts which all fit together, and therefore it has unity.

So for example, when Dave says, “Doctrinal contradiction of any sort is absolutely at odds with biblical teaching, which repeatedly urges unity and forbids divisions of any kind among Christians,” Dave may in fact be thinking that the Bible says unless every doctrine fits inside the “totality” of doctrine in “relation to” the rest of the parts, the doctrines which do not fit must be false. Keep in mind that the texts he's using to get there is John 17:22-23, Acts 4:32 and 2 Peter 2:1-2.

The really odd thing is that systematic theologies exist inside Protestantism. Charles Hodge wrote one; Robert Reymond has written one; Wayne Grudem has written one. So there is clearly at least one systematic understanding of the Christian faith from outside of the Catholic paradigm, and those systematic theologies have, by a long shot, more in common than not. So if the objection is that Protestants don't have a systematic understanding of the faith, that's just not true.

It is also possible that Dave means that we don't have “just one” systematic understanding of the faith – for example, there are some differences between Grudem and Hodge which cannot be resolved except to say that one of them must be wrong. In Dave's view, that's simply poison: you mean Grudem and Hodge do not agree to the efficacy and acceptable modes of baptism? Why – that's devastating! You cannot be in Christ if you don't have a systematic theology of baptism which can correctly outline every possible effect of baptism on the belief and on the church! You must be wrong! And disunited!

The problem with that view of what Dave is trying to say is that Dave doesn't think that it's the beliefs of the layman which is the measuring stick of unity or disunity. So if someone – as he has mentioned on his blog just recently – doesn't have the same view of the Eucharist as the Magisterium, that's not disunity but ignorance or rank disobedience and sin. If that's true, then the same ought to be true of the ranks in Protestantism. You know: Wayne Grudem is a guy with a Ph.D. – not a pastor. So his Systematics may be academically interesting, but they are not necessarily binding, and you can't actually judge all of Protestantism by the views of one layman, or even two or three laymen. Because laymen aren't the measuring stick, right?

But to get clarity on what Dave means, he takes that and applies it in this way: “Virtually nothing is more strongly and repeatedly condemned in the Bible than divisions, sectarianism, and denominationalism. The Bible teaches that there is one Church only, with one truth and one unified apostolic tradition.” So unity is not just about having one systematic reference point, but it is actually about having a “unified apostolic tradition” and also having “one Church only”, and also about being forbidden to have “divisions”.

So ultimately, Dave doesn't mean definition 4, it seems.

Let's try #3:

3 a : the quality or state of being made one : UNIFICATION b : a combination or ordering of parts in a literary or artistic production that constitutes a whole or promotes an undivided total effect; also : the resulting singleness of effect or symmetry and consistency of style and character

Ah, yes! Yes! “being made into one”, especially “the resulting singleness of effect”. I am certain I could not have said it better myself.

So having one leader, or one institution – that's unity! So for example if there is an Eastern Orthodox branch and a Roman branch there's ... not ... um ... there's not any, uh, there's a lot more unity than, say, in Baptist churches where we count every Baptist church as its own denomination because they technically have local polity and not a global corporate network. All those local Baptist churches are schismaniacs – joined together as they are to send out missionaries and form the largest relief organization in the world.

But priests who don't deny the Eucharist to practicing homosexuals are inside unity, professors who teach liberal doctrine from tenured positions in Catholic institutions are inside unity, and the various and sundry “apostolates” run by lay-Catholics which seem to have discovered they aren't all reading out of the same play book: all inside unity. Because there's only one Pope, after all, and that's what we mean when we are being made into one and have a resulting effect of singleness.

Yeah. Number 2:

2 a : a condition of harmony : ACCORD b : continuity without deviation or change (as in purpose or action)

I asked Dave a question about baby baptism on his blog, and he didn't answer it as of this writing, so we'll come back to this one. My question was, “Roughly speaking, what percent of, um, Catholics in the second century were baptized as infants? I'd settle for really rough percentages -- less than 10%, 20, 40, 60, 80, more than 90%, or 100%?” Given that today roughly 99% of all Catholics are baptized as babies (the other 1% are adult converts), the issue of continuity can be quickly reconciled based on this critical piece of faith in practice.

We'll come back to that one. Last but not least:

1 a : the quality or state of not being multiple : ONENESS b (1) : a definite amount taken as one or for which 1 is made to stand in calculation (2) : IDENTITY; ELEMENT

Well, I have to give them this one: there's only one person who – in all seriousness – can really lay claim to the Papacy today, and if the Papacy if the cornerstone of unity, then that's that. If there's no question that there was a Pope in the sense that today Benedict is a Pope back in the first 3 or 4 centuries of the faith, then it's all over.

But you just can't find a guy like that prior to Gelasius in 492-496. For example: how did Peter the Fuller take the see of Antioch as Bishop in ~470 if Simplicious was Pope the way Benedict is Pope? Why did Martyrius (the guy Peter deposed) go to Constantinople to complain to the Emperor Leo rather than to Simplicious to get recourse for being deposed? Doesn't the Pope appoint all Bishops? Doesn't he have that kind of authority?

So if we're going to talk about Unity, let's do it. It is a great topic, and it gets so many people riled up.

double-secret technorati tags:apologeticschristianity

He asked

I answered. Not very complicated, but a coupla good things in there.

double-secret technorati tags:emergent

Internet Security tip #66-6

I just received an e-mail from a reader who shall remain nameless, and they have alerted me to an insideous plot on the part of Blogger to make all people servants of the devil. It turns out that if you enter your birth date in your blogger profile it assigns you a "Zodiac sign".

My Internet Security tip for you is to NEVER GIVE ANYBODY YOUR BIRTHDATE OVER THE INTERNET. That's a key piece of data used in identity theft, and giving it out is better for scoundrels than giving out your SS#.

Jesus doesn't care about the zodiac sign Blogger puts in your profile: Jesus cares whether or not you have a heart humble to God. I am willing to bet he doesn't want you to get stung in an identity theft scam, either, but I don't have a proof text for that one.

double-secret technorati tags:humor zodiac stupid religion

Especially to spite i-monk

Read this, and then ask yourself: "could this be a post at TeamPyro?"

I'm not inviting Mark Driscoll to be a member of the team (I don't have that kind of authority), but I am saying that he's right, he's struck the right tone for speaking to apostates and the people who love them, and if his 7-yr-old and my 7-yr-old ever got together, it would prolly be for the best.

Knuckle-busted booyah on that, yo.

double-secret technorati tags:Mark Driscoll liberal theology Christianity

Prayer warriors: ho!

here are all kinds of blog carnivals out there for all kinds of meta-disasters and whatever. I have something else I'd like to try.

Libbie, our English Muffin, is sick. Without divulging more than she already has on her blog, she's sick and will be sick until about Christmas, and she has 3 little ones and a loving husband who need her the way all of us need the wife and mom in our own houses.

As is the custom of the blog, we'll ask for prayer for Libbie. Right now, bow your head and tell God that in spite of our sinfulness, He's faithful and in that faithfulness we trust; and we are counting on His faithfulness to comfort Libbie -- with healing and with emotional and spiritual fortitude.

But I'm also asking you to blog for prayer for Libbie. You -- whoever you are, whatever false, non-baptistic counter-reformational cult you belong to (sorry: just kidding) -- pray, and then ask others to pray.

Can you be serious about prayer? Can you ask others to be? If you're tongue-tied, just track back to this post.

And, as a side note, I'd also ask for prayer for my wife today for (as we say in Baptist circles) unspoken requests.

Go on: don't be a slacker about this.

Ah. Content.

I’m a little dry this week as I have a couple of life-adjustments going on (for example: we lost our van in the T-Storm yesterday, and I’m trying to be primary bread-winner and head chauffer; at work I am in the peak of “peak season”), so if there’s going to be content, it’s going to have to be derivative.

Thus, from the BHT:

Does anyone ever feel like this? I’m loved by the greatest being in the universe. I’ve been given the most valuable gift imaginable by the greatest being in the universe. I’ve been given the privilege to share this gift with untold millions of believers, past present and future. Given all that:

Why is everything negative in my life church-related? (note that I didn’t say that everything church-related was negative) Seriously, if I were to walk away from church right now (something I have no intention of doing), I would be dispensing with nearly all the stress, sorrow, and fatigue in my life.

I’m imagining that Bill from BHT is talking about all his relationships and all his ministry/service at church, so to start with charity, Bill, if I read you wrong please correct me.

I don’t know Bill, OK? I have no idea who he is, and I don’t have the TR secret police following him (they’re on assignment, and my work order got lost in the magisterial bureaucracy), so my suggestion is based on the only shred of evidence I have: this particular post.

My suggestion is this: Bill’s focus is in the wrong field of play. Last night I was listening to Piper’s archive of biographical surveys, and I got through Machen and Bunyan (I’m not listening to them in order). One of the astounding things about both of these guys – as different as they were – is how much both of them were able to persevere through without a lot of kvetching.

It made me take a hard view at me, personally, who can be a little bit of a snit when I don’t get to serve the way I want to serve. You know: I’m loved by the greatest being in the universe. I’ve been given the most valuable gift imaginable by the greatest being in the universe. I’ve been given the privilege to share this gift with untold millions of believers, past present and future.

But oddly, that’s not how Bunyan and Machen saw things. When they spoke of God and God-work, they sounded like this:

For by this scripture, I saw that the man Christ Jesus, as He is distinct from us, as touching His bodily presence, so He is our righteousness and sanctification before God. Here, therefore, I lived for some time, very sweetly at peace with God through Christ; Oh, methought, Christ! Christ! there was nothing but Christ that was before my eyes, I was not only for looking upon this and the other benefits of Christ apart, as of His blood, burial, or resurrection, but considered Him as a whole Christ! As He in whom all these, and all other His virtues, relations, offices, and operations met together, and that as He sat on the right hand of God in heaven.

It was glorious to me to see His exaltation, and the worth and prevalency of all His benefits, and that because of this: now I could look from myself to Him, and should reckon that all those graces of God that now were green in me, were yet but like those cracked groats and fourpence-halfpennies that rich men carry in their purses, when their gold is in their trunks at home! Oh, I saw my gold was in my trunk at home! In Christ, my Lord and Saviour! Now Christ was all; all my wisdom, all my righteousness, all my sanctification, and all my redemption.

That is: their perspective is Godward and God-from, and God-centered.

It sounds picky, I know, but it’s not a burden to serve God when we know that the righteousness of our work in in Christ and not in my effort. That is not an encouragement to be slack at the plow, but to see that whether the soil is rocky or sandy or black and rank with fertility, God has given us the work for his sake and his glory.

So in that, Bill, grace and peace to you, man. If church service is wearing you out – and it wears a lot of people out, so don’t take this personally – maybe it is because you have your eyes fixed on the wrong goal. I’m not calling you a sinner or a fool or a dummy: I’m saying we’re men, and as men we tend to lead on “I – I – I” and not “Christ Christ Christ”.

No offense, OK? No blog war. I’m saying that Christian service is a burden when we are doing it for reasons other than the joy of serving God.

Take that for what it’s worth.

---

UPDATED: iMonk has been gracious enough to saith thus --

How do I keep my eyes on Jesus in a way that takes away the disappointments, weariness, wear-downs, burn-outs of this life?

Which, I think, is an excellent question -- because it's one we all face. Seriously now: who hasn't been sick to death of the trouble of one day -- which is always enough, amen? But I had trouble yesterday and the day before which I haven't really worked all the way out yet, so the trouble for today suddenly seems like a bit much, Jesus.

As memory serves me, iMonk is a lifer -- he's been a Christian for almost as long as he can remember, and that's something to give credit for. But let me offer something in that: those of you who are lifers have a hard time discerning the worldliness in ourselves from the holiness.

I'm not better than you: I'm different. I wasn't saved at bible camp; I didn't walk the aisle when I was 7 or 13 or whatever. I was of the world when you were learning (rightly) your books of the Bible and trying to win Bible drill. I was an atheist in deed until I became an atheist in fact, and God fished me out of that cess pool. And in that, may I say that I know the way the old man feels -- and he feels like God owes him an answer.

You know: I just worked 60 hours in the last two weeks on this church blahblahblah, and Jesus -- why didn't we get any people coming forward? Why are my elders such jerks? Lord, I've sacrificed my relationship with my wife to serve your hard-hearted people, and they are still hard of heart -- why don't you just kill me and get it over with? Why did my baby die, Jesus, if you really care about me?

The wrong answer is this: I blindly trust Jesus. The Bible really doesn't say that our faith is blind even though it says we walk by faith and not by sight. It says that because God has always been faithful, and that we are made to glorify Him, we can trust that whatever is happening to us is right and ... now get this:

PURPOSEFUL

I'm not Rick Warren, OK? I'm not advocating a PDL here -- because this is not about discovering or knowing what the immediate purpose of one's life is or ought to be. What I am saying is this: God does not only have purpose in short-term, tangible, easily-recognized "wins". God doesn't only love the mega-church pastor, or the praise band that wins a dove award, or (heaven help us) Paul Crouch. God loves us who are ... how did Paul say it? "we (who) have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things."

The idea that God has a purpose in the universe can only be meaningful if it is meaningful when we are prone to doubt it but could reap the greatest gain from it. This greatness of God is only meaningful if it has substance when we are in the valley of the shadow of death.

Let me get back to my point about the old man here: the old man thinks, "God, when I do this for you, I know you will pay me back just like you paid back David and Abraham and, um, Job, right? All of these things will be added unto me, and that'll be great." And in that, the old man strives to do all the work himself.

But the new man thinks first, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner," and "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but if you say the word it shall be done because I understand authority, and yours makes mine look like horsefeathers."

The old man, because of what he wants and how he works it out -- which is really a kind of barter (or worse, an atheism which thinks God only works in natural ways and not by supernatural means) -- will be prone to bitterness, and burn out, and wearing out, and disappointment. The new man is waiting on the Lord. That's both "patient for the Lord's timing" and "giving service to the Lord".

If I can answer Michael's question, it is in this: you must know the difference between God's economy and the world's economy in getting things done. You must not see things as the old man would see them, but with the knowledge that up to now, God hasn't ever failed to work out his plan, and he won't fail ever. Even if today you didn't get a free iPod from that spam you opened.

UPDATE II: And before you say, "ya ya ya, I've heard all that before," read this.

double-secret technorati tags:Boar's Head tavern

No Loose Ends

I got an e-mail this evening from this quarter's chairman of the Truly Reformed non-conformist pseudo-presbytery, and it seems I am remiss in linking to an important and reasonably-new work.

It's an e-book by Steve Hays refuting the latest in a series of books by alleged atheist advocates regarding the historical reality of the resurrection. When I got the e-mail, I started searching my site for a review of this book because Steve linked me to it back in January, and I remember reading the w-h-o-l-e thing in order to write a critique of it. I am sad to say that my critique is not on the blog, and it's also not on my primary computer.

That's prolly good news for you people as having to read my 5-7 pages of toadying praise for Steve's meticulous vivisection of the current iteration of atheist historical hypotheses about why there was no tomb (empty or not), no Jesus to walk out of it, and certainly no honest believers in such a thing would be excessive.

Suffice it to say: if you need to stay current on the state of the art of counter-atheist apologetics, this would be a good book to review.

The book is called This Joyful Eastertide: A Critical Review of The Empty Tomb. It's a free service of the TR blogosphere -- something, by the way, the Emergents never consider doing. Because they're not polemicists, you see.

double-secret technorati tags:atheism

The Kind of Christian

If you want to pick a fight today, first read this link, then ask yourself: do my arguments include the real sense that I will die for this faith -- both me and my children?

double-secret technorati tags: martyrs persecution

Before we let out for the weekend ...

... I was just watching one of Tim Keller's videos at DGM for the DGM fall conference, and he said something that everyone should remember: there is the Gospel way, the moralist/religious way, and the way of the irreligious, and if we are not careful we will preach by default the moralist way to the irreligious -- it is what they will equate the Gospel to by default.

May it never be so for you, or for me. This weekend, be in God's house with God's people on the Lord's day. Don't do it because it makes you a better person: do it because you are a sinner in need of grace.