Acknowledging, In Loving Remembrance -

today would be our son Brian's 32nd birthday. He required, and received, our love and care - born Feb. 28, 1977, died Dec. 5, 2006.
If in this life only we have hope, we are most to be pitied.
Due to the ravages of Huntington's Disease, Brian's life was miserably conflicted. Mercifully, the latter years brought, to Brian, a diminishing awareness of the opportunities and advantages that he was never able to experience.

This has been around for years. So have I!

A funny little story about hymns and praise songs

An old farmer went to the city one weekend and attended the big city church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was.

"Well," said the farmer. "It was good. They did something different, however. They sang praise choruses instead of hymns."

"Praise choruses?" asked the wife. "What are those?"

"Oh, they're okay. They're sort of like hymns, only different," said the farmer.

"Well, what's the difference?" asked the wife.

The farmer said, "Well it's like this ... If I were to say to you, 'Martha, the cows are in the corn,' well that would be a hymn. If, on the other hand, I were to say to you, 'Martha, Martha, Martha, Oh, Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA, the cows, the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows, the white cows, the black and white cows, the COWS, COWS, COWS are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn, in the CORN, CORN, CORN, COOOOORRRRRNNNNN,' then, if I were to repeat the whole thing two or three times, well that would be a praise chorus."

As luck would have it, the exact same Sunday a young, new Christian from the city church attended the small town church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was.

"Well," said the young man, "It was good. They did something different, however. They sang hymns instead of regular songs."

"Hymns?" asked the wife. "What are those?"

"They're okay. They're sort of like regular songs, only different," said the young man.

"Well, what's the difference?" asked the wife.

The young man said, "Well it's like this ... If I were to say to you, 'Martha, the cows are in the corn,' well that would be a regular song. If on the other hand, I were to say to you,

'Oh Martha, dear Martha, hear thou my cry
Inclinest thine ear to the words of my mouth.
Turn thou thy whole wondrous ear by and by
To the righteous, glorious truth.

'For the way of the animals who can explain
There in their heads is no shadow of sense,
Hearkenest they in God's sun or his rain
Unless from the mild, tempting corn they are fenced.

'Yea those cows in glad bovine, rebellious delight,
Have broke free their shackles, their warm pens eschewed.
Then goaded by minions of darkness and night
They all my mild Chilliwack sweet corn chewed.

'So look to that bright shining day by and by,
Where all foul corruptions of earth are reborn
Where no vicious animal makes my soul cry
And I no longer see those foul cows in the corn.'

Then, if I were to do only verses one, three and four, and change keys on the last verse, well that would be a hymn."

Count me as the "hymn" advocate, but delete the last sentence. Why do we not include verse two, if not to preserve enough time for imposing a "praise song" or two? When we say "blended", don't we mean diluted? When we shift gears, don't we shift focus?

Oh, I seriously doubt that the name of the young man's wife is Martha.

In my own front yard!

The Stupefication of America

In a Dec. 8, 2008 post, Pastor Brian Carpenter writes:

The Reformed version of the Christian faith, with its emphasis on reason coupled with its humble attitude towards the abilities of human faculties of reason, makes the best education of all. Add to that the tendency towards self discipline and delayed gratification inherent in activities like Sabbath observance, and you have the basic tools that catapulted Western Culture to the pinnacle of the world's various systems.

We, in America, are faced with two situations which are barrelling down the highway of time and are almost upon us. Our nation and our culture are almost totally morally and intellectually bankrupt. A nation of dunces can only be safe in a world of dunces, and the world is emphatically not made up of dunces. Sooner or later, somehow and some way, we will fall. Perhaps very soon. Christian people must effect a strategic and selective withdrawal from this failing culture or continue to be conditioned by it and sucked down with it. Think it hasn't happened to the church already? Two words: Joel Osteen. And this, of course. (It puts one more in mind of Baal worship than Christian worship, doesn't it?)

Read the entire article here.

We might derive a fair amount of historical perspective from an article in the Oct. 31, 2008 edition of The Rocky Mountain News.

I s'pose I might as well aggravate the sensibilities of all you non-readers with an additional 'offering'. Dr. Carl Truman has written this somewhat lengthy article, Reckoning With The Past in an Anti-Historical Age. Certainly, readers rejoice!

Don’t get your theology here, but,

upon the strong recommendation of my favorite Lutheran layman, Craig Parton* (go figure!), I ordered Babette’s Feast, on DVD – paid twenty-two cents more than a typical movie theater ticket, including s&h. I viewed it the same day it arrived, on my laptop. It, to say the least, deserves the ‘big-screen’. It’s a visual feast, a vicarious culinary delight, but that’s not all.
My only reservations are in the area of the depiction of Christ as nothing more than a religious icon, having no relevance. God is made to play a prominent role, but that, with a strong mixture of positive and negative overtones.
Nonetheless, with cautious discernment [It seems to be a somewhat confused amalgamation of Lutheran pietism, Roman Catholicism, and a generous misunderstanding of Calvinistic ‘sovereignty of God’ influences], the movie is what it is, a feast of emotions, even as the sumptuous meal is prepared and served.
I think that some of the reviewers are guilty of cross-referencing other reviewers in their allegations of the setting for the movie being a “conservative (and Calvinistic)” village. In many of the reviews, Pietism is confused with Puritanism. But then, one must allow for ‘artistic’ interpretation. I don’t think I could give it a higher recommendation. I loved it, and will do so again and again.

*Read a great article by Craig Parton, from the archives of Issues Etcetera HERE. And, from The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Luther Lite and Reformation Schmooze Both articles 'pleadingly' recommended!

Read an early Washington Post review HERE.

AMG Review HERE

Dan Jardine

The sophisticated and subtle screenplay for Babette's Feast, adapted by director Gabriel Axel, is based on a story written by Isak Dinesen, the writer memorably played by Meryl Streep in the biopic Out of Africa. In the film's first half, the emotional detachment of the pious characters is mirrored in the directorial approach, which allows the narrator to explain the matters before us, keeping us at a distance. When the feast begins, the narrator steps aside, Axel's direction becomes more evocative, and our participation becomes more active. Axel plays things low-key: his camera doesn't swoop or dance, but lingers lovingly over every aspect of the meal. The soundtrack includes some beautiful period music, but Axel mostly allows the sounds of the meal to become the symphony of the feast. Made out of humility and love, the feast is Babette's supreme artistic expression, and her hedonistic present encourages the feasters to look a little more closely at their own lives, as the magical and voluptuous feast dramatically counterpoints their puritanical existence. Babette's offering is a ritual sacrifice, intended to encourage the austere characters with the possibility that their material nourishment may provide spiritual sustenance as well. The film also contains a cultural context, as the political revolutions in 19th century Europe lead to Babette's displacement and the resultant cultural blending of Babette's southern European Catholic sensuality with sober northern European Protestantism. Their pact, to say nothing about the magnificence of the feast, ironically reveals the ineffable truth that Babette's artistic expression of love cannot be properly praised with words. Like the guests' spiritual values, it exists on a higher plane, where simple acts of generosity can erase personal prejudices. The film leaves us with a haunting echo of the roads not taken, as the characters must ponder the paths they have chosen and ask themselves: have they made the most of their gifts? Babette's Feast won several major awards, including the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film and the British BAFTA Award for Best Film of 1987. ~ Dan Jardine, All Movie Guide

It Does Not Matter.

It Does Not Matter if You Don’t Like a Doctrine . . .

Truth is Not a Democracy

~ C Michael Patton ~

I don’t think that there is a more valuable phrase that I have learned than this. “The palatability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity.” I believe this is true. There are two key words here: “palatability” and “determine.”

Palatability refers to appeal, tastefulness, and emotional response to something. “Determine” according to the dictionary means, “to settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision.” This does not mean that palatability has no say whatsoever, but it is not determinative by any means. Read entire article here.

Don't care for my welfare so deeply

Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
--C.S. Lewis

You might be a Pelagian if....

Shane Rosenthal at Modern Reformation

1. When thinking of salvation you draw on the old Smith Barney commercial (i.e.,
"We get to heaven the old fashioned way.... We earn it!")

2. You think "Amazing Grace" refers to someone's girlfriend.

3. You think the whole fuss about original sin is just sinfully wrong-headed.

4. Simply hearing the name Augustine makes you break out in a rash.

5.You think "propitiation" is something that happens to your heart when you over-exert yourself.

6. The Beatles song which goes, "one two three four five six seven, all good children go to heaven" is in a continuous loop inside your head.

7. Your last name happens to be Pelagius.

8. You think the lines from Invictus "I am the master of my fate, the captain of my soul" are found in the book of Proverbs.

9. You think "self esteem" is the most crucial component of sanctification.

10. To the question, "What is your only comfort in life and death," you answer by saying, "That I am my own, and have been taught to be nice."

Don't mean to be mean, but...

it has been more than ten years since I abandoned my pentecostal/charismatic roots. That being said, I think that it is time for me to out myself, in a couple of regards. Grab an arm of your chair, or, perhaps, both arms, and let’s go.
I still, sometimes, speak in tongues. Not fluently, not prolifically, but, in short bursts. Not necessarily with conscious intent, but, nonetheless, with conscious recognition of what I’m doing. I don’t feel a strong need, or desire, to stifle this expression. I’m not afraid of the source.
Now, the real issue is, what is to be made of this? When I burst forth, (always privately) which becomes increasingly less frequent, I always make what is, I believe, a stark observation; I have no occasion to speak in tongues, except when I am frustrated. It is frustration, or a quiet desperation/exasperation, that seems to always be the trigger. In itself, that would seem to be quite problematic. It brings me to the personal assessment that it is no more or no less than a learned coping mechanism. Well, you may say, doesn’t that prove that it has its source in the Holy Spirit of God? The short answer to that question might be: Well, it does prove that case, if, and only if, all the assorted cults and pagans who speak in tongues have as their source, the same Holy Spirit to which you refer. That is to say, that what I view as occurring in/with myself, is as nearly the equivalent to biblical speaking in tongues as the gibberish and babbling of said cults and pagans. Neither has its impetus in God’s Holy Spirit.
I consider myself to be a biblically orthodox evangelical Christian. I believe in the Gospel – I would go so far as to say that I believe in the Full Gospel. I, however, hold no truck with the terminology hi-jacking tendencies of the pentecostals and charismatics. They arrogate such terminology to themselves, thereby, cleaving a broad chasm between themselves and the broader Body of Christ. Too bad! Much could be said of that, but that’s another issue.
Anyway, let me just give a short list of things that speaking in tongues did not/does not do:

1. It doesn’t inch one closer to God. Not to say that that may not be the common perception/sensation. There is a saying, perception is reality, or, perception drives reality – it may be true in this case that, sometimes, the perception may lead to the reality, but, the reality draws near via an entirely different set of wheels. Can not, could not, stones cry out in worship of God? In a coherent tongue?

2. It doesn’t increase holiness. To the contrary, it may diminish our true perception of “the Lord our righteousness”.

3. It doesn’t provide entrance into God’s heaven. There is no merit in tongues speak!

4. It doesn’t increase the unity of Christ’s body. Rather, it creates a de-facto spiritual hierarchy. Don’t think so – are you spirit-filled? If so, what’s the evidence? Oh, that means you’re just saved – I guess!

5. It does not guarantee that we will not fall away, into grievous sin, into heresy, or into apostasy. Lots of heretics speak in tongues – watch TBN, if you don’t believe that. I don’t even have to mention (but I will) the legions of fallen P/C pastors and leaders. Certainly, “non spirit-filled” leaders (and professing Christians of both persuasions) fall, but what are we to make of the supposed distinction/superiority of so-called spirit-filledness? I gotta reject that distinction, if on that basis alone.

6. It certainly does not provide proof that a person is genuinely regenerate, regardless the supposed evidence that it provides the casual on-looker, or the speaker/recipient.

I wouldn’t want to continue this, what may appear to be a round denunciation of contemporary tongues-speaking, without a clarification or two: the first clarification is that I do not believe that contemporary tongues-speaking, as it is portrayed as “prayer-language”, is, at all, the equivalent of the biblical paradigm. I believe that the most apparent realized goal of contemporary tongues-speaking is a division of the people of God. Look at the polarization that the issue produces, and then, tell me that I’m wrong.
I can, in the interest of concluding that God can do, and does, what He wants to do, concur with the outside possibility that He might, in His own supernatural power and wisdom, confer upon someone the ability to speak a (normal, known) language that that person had not formally learned. I would couch that possibility in the strictest evidential terms. Hey, I’m from Missouri! I don’t mean 42nd hand anecdotal evidence. I’ve traveled along, and observed, too crooked a road to conclude that no funny business is ever foisted upon the unsuspecting (or willfully blinded). I believe God, His Word, and few others – if they aren’t preaching the Word. Well, would you believe, no others?
Yeh, my mom was a tongues-talking pentecostal to her dying day, but, sadly, she was never able to discern the distinction between her own, hopefully, trinitarian beliefs, and those of the anti-trinitarian One-ness Pentecostals. Those folks used so much of the same terminology, and dressed so hol-ily! Mom had her own one-to-one relationship with God to the extent that, for nearly the last twelve to fifteen years of her life, she concluded that she had no need to assemble with the people of God, for mutual edification, fellowship, and worship – they just didn’t have the same revelation that she had. I know that her mystic/gnostic notions were deepened by that, “and the joy we share, as we tarry there, none other has ever known”. Much of her maintenance of that “joy” was ‘glossolalic’.
I believe in the gifts, and the grace(s) of the Holy Spirit. I believe that the continuing work of the Holy Spirit is not necessarily, or, in most cases, at all, like the posturings and pronouncements of contemporary pentecostals and charismatics. I believe that the primary, and overwhelming, emphasis of the Holy Spirit, is the drawing of men (mankind) to God, by the proclamation of the saving person and work of Jesus Christ. I believe that the Word of God, in and through the illumination of that Word by the Holy Spirit, is sufficient to the accomplishment of the will and purpose of God.
Oh, I still speak in tongues. Not often, but occasionally. I don’t believe a word of it! But then, there’s no word to believe.
True tongues are true languages.

Footnote: I wish only to indicate that my mom employed, unknowingly, elements of mysticism and gnosticism. She did not know the terminology, nor the implications. I conclude that that is true of most p/c adherents, and of their theological forbearers: higher/deeper life, inner light, entire sanctification, etc..