| current | >< | archive » | >< | Site Feed | HSC Home Page |
|
Thursday, August 28, 2003 posted by R.C. 10:18 AM link |
Culture-seizing Neo-Cons I remember attending the Cambridge meeting of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. We were gathered to put together some sort of statement affirming the evangelical faith. The room was filled with Reformed folk and Lutherans. I felt out of place. These were all good folks, but as I told one friend, “I feel like the lone Constitution Party member at a Republican fundraiser.” Just as Newt Gingrich used to make Democrats sweat, while disappointing real conservatives, so my friends at ACE seem like right-wing monsters to the folks down at Christianity Today, while I kept thinking, “What are all those Lutherans doing here? Didn’t we get in this mess in the first place because we made nice with Arminianism?” There is much the same dynamic, however, in the hard-core Reformed world. Everybody covets an image, and a place at the table. But the neocons in this crowd are those who want a place at the big table, those who can, with a straight face, refer to the President as “Our president” and who can, with a straight face, daydream about how glorious it will be when we take back Harvard. Just as “Big government” in “Big Government Conservatives” cancels out conservative, so to does “Theology of Glory” cancel out the glory. That is, we will never make manifest the reign of Christ on earth until we, ironically as the Lutherans have been telling us, pick up the theology of the cross. The kingdom of God doesn’t belong to muckety-mucks in suits. It belongs to children and babies in diapers. And our call is to change those diapers, to raise those children, not to seize control, but likewise to pick up the cross. The way to seizing cultural leadership, Jesus told us, is to sit in the back of the bus. I love the zeal of my neo-recon, neo-con friends. I love it that they hunger to see Christ’s rule manifest. I just wish they’d try Christ’s pattern. ... [comments] |
|
Tuesday, August 26, 2003 posted by R.C. 9:36 AM link |
The Courage of the Weaker Brother On my desk is a bumper sticker a friend gave to me. It has a picture of Benjamin Franklin, and a few of his sage words, “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” What strikes me is that Mr. Franklin, in writing this, was trying to say something about God, rather than about beer. It is a theological rather than an ethical statement. Of the most telling weaknesses inherent in my weaker brothers is this—they either know nothing or care nothing about history. Once I applied to teach a class at a classical Christian school. After going through the interview process, after visiting the school, after being approved by the board I received a contract. It explained how much and how often I would get paid. It explained my hours and my duties. And there at the bottom it said words to this effect: “While we certainly would not want to take sides on these kinds of issues, we do recognize that Christians disagree on these kinds of issues. For the sake of unity, we ask that in signing this contract, you agree, for the duration of the contract, not to watch any R- rated movies, and not to drink any alcohol.” I sent the head administrator an email, with words to this effect: Dear J—,I received an email back letting me know that I had the old version of the contract, and that they would email me the new one, with no such clause. Recently my friends at Oakdown Books published a revised and expanded version of the underground Reformed classic by Jim West, Drinking with Calvin and Luther!, an immoderately joyful defense of the moderate enjoyment of alcohol. I had the privilege of writing the Foreword. One of the additions to this version was some reviews of the old version. One such review said words essentially like these, “Reverend West does indeed make the case that the Bible allows for the moderate enjoyment of alcohol. What he fails to grasp is that we Christians are called to a higher standard.” It seems to me that my weaker brothers ought to have their own bumper sticker, one that says, “The Bible says it’s okay. Church history says it’s okay. But my recent innovation says it isn’t.” And I’ll get another one, one that says, “Weaker brothers are proof that God saves sinners.” ... [comments] |
|
Thursday, August 21, 2003 posted by R.C. 8:44 AM link |
Who Moved My Cheese…Fondue? There are two things that nearly always capture my attention—ponderings on cultural shifts, and food. This morning the two got married as I began to wonder what happened not to my favorite foods, but to the foods I used to eat, some happily, some begrudgingly. The thinking process began when someone asked me Tuesday night if I still had any Quisp cereal. Quisp was my favorite growing up, and when I stopped seeing it on the shelves twenty years ago, I nearly became premillenial. But Google came to my rescue, and I discovered you could still get it, on the web. I ordered a case for my birthday. There are, however, many other fine foods I used to eat that I no longer eat. The same is true for you I suppose. Many of you remember chipped beef on toast, also known by the more coarse “barnyard expletive on a shingle.” But when was the last time you had it, or even heard someone else mention that they had it? Time was you couldn’t cross a suburb without getting the stuff stuck to the bottom of your shoes. Or the fowl version of the same, chicken a la king. I suspect that if I went to the Morrison’s in Piqua, Ohio I could probably find some. But no where else. While you can still find them in the store if you look closely enough, most school kids no longer eat Ho-Ho’s at the conclusion of their fluffer-nutter sandwich. Little Debbie’s swiss cake rolls are fine and everything, but they don’t come in the shiny silver tube of tin foil. Don’t you remember looking at it, as you ate the last few fritos in the single pack, the one with the Frito Bandito eraser inside? Why don’t we put a stack of bread on the table anymore? What about foreign food like swiss steak, or city chicken? Does anybody eat pineapple upside-down cake anymore? Or the gigantic plastic pixie-sticks, with the colored sugar inside? Twenty-years ago every newlywed couple went home with half a dozen fondue pots, and no one had even heard of espresso. Now it’s just the opposite. Once, only New Yorkers ate bagels. Now, only old people and homeschoolers eat oatmeal. What I want to know is, what causes this? And what might we lose in the not too distant future? And where do these foods go? Maybe this stuff is what they eat on the island of misfit toys. And maybe one day I’ll live there too. |
|
Wednesday, August 20, 2003 posted by Rick 2:38 PM link |
Men's breakfast. In attendance: R.C., Jonathan, Dakota, Rick, and new resident D.J. Hammond. Not sure that the old-style breakfast reports will be revived, but there is a bit of breakfast news that insists on being reported—Bonnie's is back in business. The waitresses are as friendly as ever, the food as mediocre as ever, the whole affair as local as ever. One pleasant new feature is that, since the space is much larger, there is a no-smoking section that is more or less free of smoke. |
|
posted by Rick 2:31 PM link |
Tuesday night Bible study. Last night was the fifth teaching in the series, on the third of the nine facets of the fruit of the Spirit, namely peace. The study was well-attended, with a good mix of St Peter parishioners, other locals, and visitors. The complete twelve-part series will be available from Draught Horse Press towards the end of the year. One particularly tasty observation needs to be shared now, though. R.C. pointed out that the modern-day evangelicals understanding of the sabbath has dwindled to the point that it is viewed now as the day when you're not allowed to play with the devil's toys. And when the inevitable whining about the sabbath begins, those evangelicals made of sterner stuff will answer "Yes, that's right, you're not allowed to play with the devil's toys ... today." |
|
Monday, August 18, 2003 posted by Jonathan 3:59 PM link |
Sold Out. Our Fall Camp for Couples is again sold out. This time almost two and a half months early. We are putting together a stand-by list for any couples who would like to join us in case a couple cannot make it. Let us know if you're interested and we will include you on the list. But you're going to have to play fair. I don't want to hear of any stand-by campers harassing our Fall Campers. You'll get your turn. Alright? Alright. Call me at 276-475-6064 or e-mail at jd@highlandsstudycenter.org. |
|
posted by Rick 2:00 PM link |
Dance. When a church dances, it is a joyous event. |
|
posted by Rick 1:40 PM link |
Third Sunday report. We enjoy visiting with visitors as much as they enjoy visiting with us, and so we've tried to make it easier for everyone involved by setting aside the third Sunday of every month for a church picnic. Directly after morning worship we retire to a city park a short drive down the road, with the locals bringing enough food to share that no visitor will go away hungry. At yesterday's picnic we had well over a hundred people, many of them from out of town, and so it took two long picnic tables to hold the dinner fixings. Eating of said fixings commenced shortly after noon, and it wasn't until about 3pm that the last of the picnickers had headed out. Not all three hours were devoted to eating; folks visited, a softball game took place, and at one point there were four guitars, a banjo, and a bass guitar having a go at some bluegrass standards. As is our habit every Sunday, we reconvened at 6pm to sing a couple of hymns, hear a teaching (this one on the Shorter Catechism from R.C.), and visit some more. You're always welcome to come and visit with us, but third Sundays are an especially good time to do so, since not only can you join us in our regular routine, at the picnic you'll have lots of extra time to get to know folks. That said, it must be noted that in September we will not be having the usual Third Sunday picnic. Instead, there will be a special celebration on the second Sunday of the month, occasioned by Russian missionary Blake Purcell's visit to St. Peter. More details on this event soon. |
|
posted by R.C. 11:08 AM link |
Outcome Based - vs. - The Principled Approach Nope, not a squib on education, at least not directly. Rather, I’m trying to get at the root of what drove me to write a few things that have already seen the light of day. In an earlier piece I suggested that those who are clucking that the sky is falling over in the Episcopal church don’t realize that they’re already knee-deep in sky. In like manner, the letter I recently sent to World magazine made much the same point politically. Joel Belz, who is a fine man, after the Supremes came out in favor of sexual perversion, wrote in his column that if the president made so much as a smidgen of a compromise on this issue, then he’d have a mess of angry evangelicals to deal with. I asked the editors why, after three years of cheerleading for a man who affirms that the state ought to protect the right of some women, the victims of rape or incest, to murder their unborn children, and who vowed to not use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees, that they want to draw a line in the sand over sodomy. In both cases folks are trying to board a train that has already left the station. In the first evangelicals have already conceded that belief in the plain-teaching of Scripture doesn’t really matter. They have already affirmed that they are willing to put up with people who deny essentials of the faith. In the second folks on the religious right have already conceded that they would compromise on the most important issue of our day. They have already struck the bargain with the president, that they’re behind him, not because he believes what we believe, but because he can win. When, however, you begin with principle, and stay with principle, you don’t find yourself in such situations. When you affirm that the refusal to discipline heretics makes you no longer a church, then the three-thousandth time that refusal is made doesn’t make any difference. When you affirm that a politician’s refusal to protect all unborn human life means he is outside the pale, that he also curries favor with sodomites is beside the point. When you support socialized schools, it makes no sense to object to socialized medicine for old folks. When you believe that the state has been given the power of the sword, and only the power of the sword, you don’t find yourself having to decide between the socialist with the (R) after his name and the one with the (D). All of which boils down to this fundamental principle—God is sovereign. If you believe that your calling is to make everything work out all right, then you are left with this nut to crack—you have to figure out what to do to make everything work out all right. You have to be as smart as God. If, however, that you are called to be faithful, and that God will determine how things will work out, then all you have to do is find out what God commands. And that is all written down in a book. Peace is found as I cease not only from worrying about outcomes, but also as I stop trying to figure out what act will bring what outcome. The only outcome I long for is to hear my King tell me, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” [comments] |
|
Saturday, August 16, 2003 posted by Rick 3:23 PM link |
Christian gangster. I remember running across the anecdote about the "Christian gangster" while reading some biography or other of Billy Graham. A quick Google search shows that it is pretty well known, and used mightily as an illustration. Here's one example:More than 40 years ago, J. Edwin Orr was chairman of the Billy Graham Crusade in Beverly Hills, Calif. The noted gangster Mickey Cohen attended a meeting and indicated some interest in Graham's message. Later, he met with a Christian worker and made a "decision" to accept Christ. But, Orr says, there was no change in his life. He continued the same pattern of behavior as before. When a friend confronted him, Cohen rebuked him saying, "You did not tell me I would have to give up my work (meaning his rackets). You did not tell me I would have to give up my friends (meaning his gangster associates)." He had heard the testimonies of Christian football players and Christian actors, so he thought he could be a Christian gangster.What interests me about this anecdote is not so much Cohen's lack of changed behavior, but Cohen's attitude toward changing his ways. He viewed a Christian life as a cost that he had failed to weigh as he made his "decision," and one that he was ultimately unwilling to pay. Would we have been able to conclude much more about Cohen's spiritual status if he had done the calculation, found that the benefits outweighed the cost, and changed his behavior so as to move it within the bounds of Scripture, e.g. confined his racketeering to activities that were at least not blatantly illegal or unscriptural? Shouldn't we expect a converted gangster—or any other sort of convert—to desire sanctification, in fact to embark on a quest for it, examining every aspect of his life and jettisoning those that will make it difficult to become more like Jesus? When we at the Study Center exhort folks to a simpler, more separate, and more deliberate way of life, we frequently get objects that aren't much different than Cohen's—"Are you saying I can't be a good Christian and still be an X?". For some values of X, the answer is a clear "No"—sodomite, drunkard, sorcerer, murderer, idolator. But the question approaches the issue with the wrong attitude. The proper way to phrase it is: "Will staying an X make it difficult for me to become more like Jesus?" This leads us to look critically at a much broader range of values for X—urbanite, government school teacher, metrosexual, social worker, Episcopalian, cynic. There's an image I'm working on, a mangling of one of R.C.'s own illustrations, that speaks to this. Let's imagine God's requirements as the fence of a pasture. Note that there are at least three groups of sheep to be observed. One group (a class, really, since they have no interest in grouping together) is jammed up against the fence, comforted by being inside the bounds of the fold, yet staring longingly at what lies outside the fence. A second group is enaged in a careful study of the fence itself, endlessly admiring the skill and cleverness with which it was built. The third group is busily munching away at the grass inside the pasture, murmuring to each other about how tasty and filling it is, and observing that it gets even tastier and more satisfying as you move away from the fence and towards the center of the pasture. These sheep will occasionally share their discoveries with the other two groups—but the response is usually on the order of "What! Are you implying that we aren't within the bounds of the fence?" |