PDF version

THE CONTENTS OF OUR TABLE
Stop picking your
teeth. We hate it when
you pick your teeth.
Douglas Jones is no fun at parties
Aaron Rench gives us a poem we think
might be about us.
Nathan Wilson brings the problem of
evil to spiders.
What does Douglas Wilson know about
peace?
Peter Leithart won’t stop talking about
baptism.
Mark Beauchamp doodles.
Patch Blakey wants to win, darn it.
That’s why he’s playing.
Nathan Wilson wanders through the
Hollywood Buffet and sneezes on the
salads.
Douglas Jones uses lots of punctuation,
interacting with Nick Gier on the
Trinity.
Pettiness
Volume 17, Number 2
Thema: The Art of Pettiness
Douglas Jones gives some tips on keeping long-term grudges alive.
“Have you ever found yourself at a nice dinner party but can’t find
anything to take offense at? Is it getting harder to make people feel sorry
for you? Do the people around you no longer bend to your silent
punishments? Do you find yourself accidentally considering conflicts
from other peoples’ perspectives? Has your extrasensory gift for seeing
motives become cloudy? ”
4
The Supporting Cast:
Sharpening Iron: Letters to the Editor/ You all
The Cretan Times: New News/ Douglas Jones
Flotsam: The Killing Corner/ Nathan Wilson
Presbyterion: Peace and Purity/ Douglas Wilson
Husbandry: Marriage and Community/ Douglas Wilson
Femina: Sabbath Feasting/ Nancy Wilson
Ex Libris: The Thanatos Syndrome/ Reviewed by Brendan O’Donnell
Childer: When Sons Leave/ Douglas Wilson
Liturgia: Baptism is Baptism III/ Peter Leithart
Doodlat: Mark Beauchamp
Doctrine 101: Winning is Christian/ Patch Blakey
Recipio: Assurance/ Ben Merkle
Stauron: Universe Undone/ Gary Hagen
Ex Imagibus: Hollywood Buffet/ Nathan Wilson
Cave of Adullam: Mutterings/ Jesse James Wilson
Footnotes: Our Wonderful Sources
Disputatio: “Trinity”/ Douglas Jones and Nick Gier
Meander: Clam Jamfry/ Douglas Wilson
Pooh’s Think: YHWH is a Pastor, Part 4/ Michael Metzler
8
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
32
33
Fiction:
Similitudes: St. Rule’s Knife/ Douglas Wilson
19
“But the giant fancied himself a great riddler, and invited them to
his hall. Answer the riddle, he said, and you will all go free. Fail in the
riddle, and into my pie pans you will go.”
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
3
THEMA
The Art of Pettiness
Douglas Jones
HAVE YOU EVER found yourself at a nice dinner party but
can’t find anything to take offense at? Is it getting harder to
make people feel sorry for you? Do the people around you no
longer bend to your silent punishments? Do you find yourself
accidentally considering conflicts from other peoples’
perspectives? Has your extrasensory gift for seeing motives
become cloudy?
You might be in the early stages of beneficium creationis, a
debilitating condition that causes memory loss, ironic giggling,
and flippancy; side effects sometimes last for a thousand
generations. Millions have found success in reversing the
habits of this condition by relearning the ancient techniques of
pettiness, the skills of counting mint, anise, cummin—or as
we call it, the art of living small.
Six Crucial Perspectives
In order to develop healthy habits of pettiness, you must
start with certain pictures of the world. These should become
like glasses you wear and never take off. It’s best to wear all of
them at once. They may feel a bit awkward at first, but they’ll
become natural in time.
1. Justice First—One simply can’t master the art of living
small if you don’t wear the glasses of justice. Justice first,
middle, and last. Justice on the edges, and most importantly,
you have to be convinced that Justice lies at the center of the
universe. Life is a courtroom: all order, laws, and bailiffs. To
live a good life means following orders; to live a bad life
means putting something squishy at the center. God is a drill
sergeant. Everything else follows from this.
2. Punishment Delights—The universe does its part laying
out the laws, but you have to wear the glasses of punishment.
Living small means delighting in punishment. Some beginners
have trouble with this. It takes time and a series of disappointments. But people get out of line, and the only way to keep
people in line is to punish them. Since people don’t often
understand the glory of punishment, you will sometimes have
to blunt this virtue with masks. Take the moral high ground.
Punish them indirectly. Don’t draw attention to your punishing. Make them think your punishing is about something else.
Punishment isn’t just for children or extreme violations. It’s
got to become the air you breathe. Enjoying punishment is the
soul of living small.
3. Simplicity Reigns — Life is always simple. We are
monotheists. Only relativists and perverts believe that there’s
more than one way to see things. The universe is orderly,
edged, and snaps together at the joints. The simple is the true.
Other people try to hide their disorderliness by claiming
4
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
complexity. Words have only one meaning. People can only
mean what they explicitly say. Coins have only two sides. She’s
either blond or not. You can’t be a little bit decapitated. Don’t
trust anyone who can’t give you a precise definition. Definitions snap together like a good plastic car model. If it doesn’t
click, it doesn’t fit. God gives us definitions so that we might
be free.
4. Present Primes—In the long term, we’re all complicated.
Keep it simple. Don’t look at distant horizons. Only wear
glasses that allow you to see close up. Don’t worry about
distances graying off into the future. Keep your eye on the
present and don’t think about living with this person a decade
from now. The weightier matters of the law are here and now.
The short term keeps everything important, like World War
II. Don’t get lazy. Life is a war. Life is a crisis. Remember,
you’re in a battle for justice and order, and the enemy is
always right around the corner. Always keep the safety off.
Who cares what happens after the war? Mete out the
punishment now during the struggle. Your friends and family
will forget what’s important afterward.
5. Surface Brilliance—Life happens on the surface, and you
are the camera. Remind yourself of that. You are a good
camera. Good cameras capture everything. Good photos tell
the whole story. Don’t allow people to slip into fantasies about
what’s happening behind the scenes. Only what happens onstage counts. Behind-the-scenes explanations were first
manufactured to confuse honest people like you. Icebergs
float on waves; only doctored urban legend photos show ice
underwater. Even if there were anything beneath a surface,
how could you talk about it? Only argue about photos.
6. Pond Calm — These glasses retain the imprint of life as
a smooth, unrippled pond. No plants break the surface; no
bubbles. The pond mirrors puffy clouds above. You must
always return to this picture to keep you centered. Life is this
pond. Set up some barbed wire around the pond. Keep out
frogs and fish and skimming bugs. You have a right to calm
water. That’s why God gave us the Garden of Eden. Life is
fundamentally peaceful and shaded, with small pastel birds
playing harps. But intrusive and demonic people keep
throwing rocks into the water and make all sorts of splashes
and bumpy circles. Get those people out of your life. You
have the right to destroy them. If they don’t stop throwing
rocks in your pond, then leave and find another pond. Wear
the glasses, though, to remind you of the ideal pond.
Five Basic Maneuvers
Wearing the right sets of glasses, as above, will help, but
that can’t carry the day. You also need to master the basic
moves of living small. You’ve got to fight off attacks on
THEMA
pettiness. Immature people still don’t see its virtue. Master
these four habits before moving on to advanced techniques
(see below).
1. Wear the Right Face—Once people find out that you’re
petty, they’ll never leave you alone. It will destroy everything.
They always assume it’s a bad thing and insist on rooting it
out. Smallness takes years to cultivate, and you need to protect
it in the meantime. Never let on that something is wrong until
you are well-grounded (then let loose; see below). Always
wear a smile around people, especially those people who
throw rocks in your pond. Pretend to be like them, even laugh
and giggle often. Many new pettiness artists will often at first
feel guilty about this maneuver; it might feel like dishonesty.
It’s not. Not at all. It’s principle. You are standing on
principle. You are called to be nice; that is the chief thing, and
you don’t want to throw any rocks into other people’s ponds,
so you must wear the smile.
2. Recognize Attacks Quickly—Stupid people rarely know
when they’re attacking you, so you need to help them out.
Many people don’t recognize how offensive simple questions
can be. Others don’t recognize how rude not asking you
questions is. You must learn to be both untouchable and
central to everyone else’s life. Practice pulling back the skin
around your eyes without using your fingers. Rehearse this
while watching war atrocities on the news, then use the same
face when the kids make a mess or someone corrects you.
Pale people should also work with a mirror at flushing their
faces with color at faster and faster rates. This has connotations of a volcano, and volcanoes often frighten primitives.
When you master these basics of taking offense, you can move
on to leaning forward in your chair, pointing with two fingers,
storming off with yard-length strides, and slamming doors
with hair blowing aftereffects.
3. Hone Your Exaggerations—The Bible only tends to
caricature arrogant targets, but you need the freedom to
realize that anyone who tries to ripple your pond is the enemy.
In order to conquer an enemy, you’ve got to shift your allies
into crisis mode, too. Even the Bible exaggerates. Without
skillful exaggerations, many allies might suspect you of
overreacting. Generally, allies don’t have a refined sense of
your rights and needs. Demonizing those who challenge your
pond will persuade allies to join your quiet defiance. Make
sure, though, that allies promise to keep the exaggerations
private. Nothing hurts demonizing more than loose lips.
4. Play the Sober Judge—In a crowd of goofballs, always be
the mature one. God is a judge, not a child. The universe is
deadly serious business, and you need to be the model for
weaker brothers. Justice is not for clowns. Start taming your
body into seriousness by wearing a long colonial wig with ivory
and silver highlights. Walk around the house with your hands
on your hips. Stand on the couch and scowl at the carpet.
Turn on the TV to a cartoon, then punch the knob off (return
hands to hips). Imagine someone reading fiction and tell them
you don’t have time for that. Then take these habits on the
road.
5. Draw the Pity—Other people rarely comprehend how
debilitating it is to have your pond rippled. They’re never
there when you’re on the front lines fighting off leaves and
frogs. Pity for pettiness is admittedly a hard sell, so you’ll
often need to venture into the realms of “popularly acceptable” pity. Shallow people recognize genuine illness as
something deserving attention, but it hurts to get really sick.
But you can go right up to the edge and use sickness as a good
tool. An even bolder step, though, is to create problems and
then lament. Drive your friends away, and then complain how
lonely you are. Others will start feeling sorry for you, and you
can start the cycle over again. Be creative with pity.
Advanced Maneuvers
After years of crafting both the fundamental vision and
basic maneuvers of pettiness, you’ll find it’s time to expand
your influence.
1. Anger as the Moral High Ground—At times, you might
accidentally stumble across the fact that you’ve sinned against
someone. You need to recognize this before someone else
brings it to your attention. Before it becomes explicit, you
need to get angry and defend something else. Anger is a sign
of righteousness. God is often indignant with His people.
Anger can be used to remind people implicitly that, though
you might have some flaws, just like everyone else, they are
forgetting the fundamental goodness you’ve shown everywhere else. A good show of anger will make others return to
their former state of gratitude for all you’ve done. Be sure,
though, that when you see other people getting angry that you
try to imagine the sin they’re hiding. That person is your
secret ally; don’t expose him. Anger is a wonderful cover for
sin, though the masses haven’t picked up on this yet.
2. Silence as Purity—When niceness and anger fail,
absolute silence fills a wonderful void. Many people can abide
hypocrisy and anger, but they’re terrified of silence. They feed
on sound, and you can deprive them of their satisfaction by
using the sword of silence. If people’s reactions have been
cooling to the basic maneuvers described above, then start off
with silence. Don’t widen the eyes or turn red, just drop your
glance to the floor and go absolutely quiet. It’s best if they call
after you. Don’t reply. Pretty soon, you might prompt them
into silence as well. But at that point, they’re just imitators.
Your silence stems from your deep conviction that it’s better
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
5
THEMA
to be silent than give in to any more anger. Silence tends to
naturally erode after three days, though. You have usually
worn your opponent down by that time; they have returned to
a state of gratitude to you. Good work.
3. Keep a Notebook—As you get older, your memory will
begin to fade. When you were younger, you could easily
recall, even over years, how friends and family had offended
you. Some people try to keep a list of sins on small scraps of
paper, but at some point you will need a good, strong
notebook. Three-hole punched notebooks work well because
you can print off emails and other documents to supply
precise words. Be sure to keep this notebook well hidden. Few
people can understand that you’re keeping it so that you can
have an accurate record; you simply don’t want to slander
anyone as time passes. The notebook keeps you honest. It’s
best used five or six years after an offense. Raise it when the
offender can’t even remember the details. Enjoy their
confession.
4. Extrasensory Motive Reading—Internal, invisible motives
are tricky things. They reveal whether someone is evil or nice;
they fill gaps in our knowledge; they tell the full sordid story.
Motives are the smoking gun. But their invisibility creates all
sorts of complications. How can you tell if someone is
slighting you or being ignorant? How can you tell if they’re
covering something or being honest? How can you tell if they
are genuine or demonic? Invisible motives settle all these
questions instantly. To be a master of the small, you must pray
and receive the gift of motive-reading. You must develop a
fine-tuned, extrasensory, supernatural gift for seeing the evil
reasons people do things to you and yours. Many people think
they have this gift, and almost everyone tries it at one point or
another, but studies show that devotees of the small can
develop true motive perception with regular practice. Motives
will start jumping out at you like billboards. But it takes prayer
and practice. You can tell the amateurs from the truly gifted,
for example, when you get wind of someone reading your own
motives as nefarious. They are always so far off base, not even
close to what you were actually thinking. Amateurs never get it
right, but true artists get better and better with age.
Recovering from Failure
Mastering pettiness is not easy. And you will fail. You
will enjoy some holidays and some children. Keep up the
fight. But, when you fail, how do you recover? How do you
snap out of the big picture? How do you start taking offense
again? The trick is cross-matching or transfixing: when one
pettiness habit fails, fix the situation by invoking another.
For example, if you find you’re starting to lose the thrill of
punishment, open up your notebook of offenses. Review the
6
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
bad things people have written to you. If your silent times lose
their edge, revert to the high ground of anger. If you find that
your extrasensory motive reading gift starts to fade, get
involved in a group effort of some sort and get freshly
offended. If you start enjoying silliness too much, ask someone
to be honest with you; promise them you’ll be teachable.
Things to Avoid
As you develop your skills in pettiness, you’ll find
roadblocks along the way, things that keep dragging you
backwards. Like any skill, you’ll have to develop selfdiscipline; you’ll have to avoid the following temptations that
so often cause cracks in your pettiness.
1. Holidays—Though a traditional time for exercising
pettiness on unsuspecting family members, holidays also have
a down side. They can sometimes break through and remind
people of what’s “really” important to the masses. Luckily,
though, this is short-lived. But still, it’s best to avoid them
altogether; after all, holidays are also quite wasteful and
unnecessary. Especially Christmas.
2. Fiction—Trust us on this one. Famous novelists often
practice the technique of jumping from one character’s
perspective to another, and this often feeds the illusion that
others have important angles on the issues. Over time, it will
weaken your commitment to the sanctity of your own
perspective. Dangerous stuff. Film is much safer; it tends to
ignore multiple perspectives. Whatever you do, avoid
Dostoevsky and Flannery O’Connor. My God, avoid them.
3. Comedy—We’ve lost so many pettiness artists because
of comedy. Comedy has no respect. It tears down everything
and refuses to take anything seriously. It strikes at the heart of
the art of the small. Wear the smile of laughter but don’t fall
for its silliness. You don’t have time for comedy.
4. Children—You may need to reproduce, for some
reason, but try to avoid unnecessary contact with children.
They are helpful, when young and needy, to remind you of
how life is against you, but they have no ability to carry a
grudge for more than three minutes. Everything they stand for
works against the petty. Kids are so immature.
5. Natural Parks, Oceans, Cathedrals, etc.—These things were
made by enemies of pettiness with the goal of undermining
our whole vision. Don’t fall for them. They all obsess pathologically about the “big picture, the big picture,” over and
over. They’re really quite selfish. They suck attention away
from your perspective just to hog it themselves. Instead, try to
avoid vacations altogether; you should be working anyway. If
you have to go, think about visiting some old prison camp.
That will sober the kids right up.
6. Sex—Be sure to call it this; avoid it as much as
THEMA
possible, except when you can use it as a weapon. But too
many times, yikes—it just obliterates a good pattern of
pettiness in a marriage and you have to start all over again.
Let’s not talk about it. It’s better to break the cycle.
Conclusion
I hope this brief guide will be helpful to you. Keep it as a
reference in your notebook. Certainly, not all of the skills will
suit your personal style or circumstances, but if you are able to
make just one of these habits a permanent part of your social
life, you’ll be well on your way. If you are a serious student of
pettiness, you might master all these techniques and become a
freestyle petty person. You might even go on and invent your
own hand-crafted methods and strategies. There may come a
time when we no longer need a guide like this, when silliness
and celebration have been completely eradicated. Start toward
that path right in your own home. Pass on these techniques to
your children, and they’ll pass them on for generations.
Satisfaction waits. Go find someone to punish quietly. Petty
on!
Fiesta
They beat you mercilessly, spinning
with their blind smiles, every blow a toast
eschatological. Like a ghost,
floating off the ground but not living,
you swung in and out of some darkness
feeling the gusts of inaccuracy
play with your hair. The vanity
of paper bones built to form a mess.
You never ate but your belly was full
until now, as you watch them crawl like ants
collecting what was scattered, wrapped, scintillant.
By the handful, they scoop up your bowels.
Aaron Rench
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
7
SHARPENING IRON
8
From Us:
From You:
It is possible that we have a negative self
image. When we think of our self, we
find easy comparisons to creatures like
skunks, or slugs, or cat-consuming
cougars. We think of our self as a burr,
an itch, a rash on the soft white flesh of
our corner of the secular world.
But maybe we’re not. Maybe we’re
that fair-complexioned knight. Maybe
we have extra-shiny armor and an
enormous white horse so bright, so
rippling in its muscularity, so flowy in
its mane and tail regions, that it could
be mistaken for a unicorn. Except it
doesn’t have a horn.
Maybe our sword is made from
glass and rainbows and no dragon skin
or zoning code can repel it. The solas
are on our shield. Maybe our wife has a
droopy white dress and a saggy
bejeweled belt, slung on slender hips.
Maybe her braid hangs to her thighs.
Or maybe not. We’re less prearranged. It seems more likely that we’re
that creature inside the walls, that
creature that once thought it was a
mouse and is now too large to be a
normal rat. Maybe we eat the cheese
and spring the trap. Maybe we consume
the DeCon and it only makes us
irritable. We eat tunnels in rationalists’
show-bread and leave our sign in the
flour. We kill the cat and lay our eggs in
its body. If we laid eggs. That seems
more like us. A sort of pest gone wrong.
A rodent underestimated, and now the
sheetrock sighs beneath our bulk as we
creep through the ceiling at night.
We don’t seem like a knight. We
seem like an Animal Control problem.
Our city passes resolutions. But a pack
of like creatures gathers around us, and
we run down bicyclists in the predawn.
Paper-boys go missing.
Someday we might have armor. But
our teeth will always be a five on the
Moh’s Scale of Hardness. Lace your
concrete with glass if you don’t want us
chewing through.
SMACK
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your continued work
smacking me in my evangelical face.
Each issue of C/A is a source of great
encouragement. Keep up the good
work.
Shawn Davies
Greenwood, MO
PERILOUS TIMES
Dear Editor,
“Perilous times?” I don’t think so.
Our Lord said, “It is finished,” and by
His power—peace. So it is.
Still they are interesting times and
made even more so by your humor and
wisdom. It is a rare issue of C/A that
doesn’t challenge, provoke, and amuse
me. Thanks.
Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Eberwein
Joppa, MD
UPS AND DOWNS
Dear Editor,
Thanks for your faithfulness. The
issue on “God the Dangerous,” “Ironies
of Laughter,” and “Trinity” were
wonderful. The “Pauline Take on the
New Perspective” was brilliant.
The “Owning the Curse” article
[C/A, 16.2] was so bizarre and wrong
on so many points that it was hard to
take seriously. The excellent points
made in the article and in the issue as a
whole were swallowed up in the gross
exaggerations and strange conclusions.
In your conclusion you said, “we should
invert as many contemporary categories
as we can.” Your article seemed to
simply be an exercise in this. It wasn’t
helpful.
I would give arguments for why I
voted for a clarification of my state’s
constitution on the nature of marriage,
and argue that Paul’s direction to the
Corinthians on dealing with sexual sin
was different than the advice you gave. I
would also like to say that my father, my
pastors and Wilson and Jones have
nothing to repent of concerning the sin
of homosexuality and don’t need to own
this particular curse anymore than they
need to repent of school shootings and
own the death penalty curse, but I’m
sure y’all would say I just don’t get it;
which I happily admit.
Mahaffey
Texarkana, AR
CHEESE AND A P.S.
Dear Editor,
Loved the Cheese. Keep up the
good work, men. When my husband
hears me laugh out loud he calls,
“reading Credenda again, honey?”
Melanie McGuire
Branchburg, NJ
P.S. Rev. Wilson, what do you think of
the Reformed Episcopal Church?
Douglas Wilson replies: I think all
episcopals should be reformed, but
not all reformed should be episcopal.
GOD THE DANGEROUS
Dear Editor,
I thought I would pass on my
gratitude for the insightful article
“Playing with Knives: God the Dangerous” by Douglas Jones. In my opinion
the theological portrayal was radical by
today’s standards but unquestionably
consistent with the God of the Bible.
“God the Dangerous” is not likely a
theme that will play well in many
evangelical crowds but for this evangelical it was a faith deepening reflection.
Thank you for the good work.
William Shurtliff
Ann Arbor, MI
SHARPENING IRON
SEND IT ANYWAY
HE’S A LUTHERAN
Dear Editor,
Please continue to send us C/A,
though I don’t understand all of it. I
grew up around the sense of humor
often employed therein but did not
inherit it, as did my brothers. Is it a guy
thing? (However, Mrs. Wilson’s articles
really speak to me and are very relevant
and incisive; I read them first, and
they’re worth the price of admission all
by themselves.)
H. True
Spokane, WA
Dear Editor,
Though I disagree with some
things you’ve written of late, your
publication always provokes thought,
challenges to obedience, and encourages this Lutheran believer in the faith.
Alex Ihde
Eldersburg, MD
LIKE IT
Dear Editor,
Much thanks for your thoughtprovoking magazine. I enjoy every issue.
Your homosexual issue was especially
on target. The best article of the year
was Douglas Jones’ “God the Dangerous.” I have re-read it numerous times
and keep trying to move it off my
nightstand to the C/A files in my
bookshelf, but then I find myself
reading it again. I had never thought of
the differences between Job and
Abraham in that way, nor of God’s
character in some of the ways mentioned. The section on tension and the
Trinity was quite helpful.
Meril Stanton
Crestview, FL
MUTUAL FAULT
Dear Editor,
I have the unfortunate quality of a
sense of humor on many matters
relating to the present dreadful
condition of the Evangelical movement.
For that reason I find C/A a great
publication.
Joseph Canfield
Weaverville, NC
HMM
Dear Editor,
We noticed that the midsection of
your front page on the website demands, “Send a letter.” So we are
sending the letter “Q.” Since no one
really knows what to do with it, we
thought, maybe you guys can fix it.
We must warn you that this letter
is very needy. It will do nothing at all,
except in the presence of a “u.”
Our analysis reveals that it is quite
monogamous. The word “quail,” for
instance, could easily have begun with
“qw.” But, no. Q will only join in a
useful diphthong [sic] with u. Other
vowels are right out.
We cannot prove it, but we have
theorized that this letter was developed
by the same government bureau that
invented the catsup packet. One packet,
as everyone knows, is never enough to
actually accomplish anything—unless,
of course, you are down to your last
three french fries.
In any case, here is your letter: Q.
Good Luq.
Us
Livermore, CA
I’M LEAVING YOU GOONS
Dear Editor,
I currently receive your publication
and would like to have my name
removed from your mailing list. There
was a time when there were some
edifying articles in it but, sadly, those
days are long gone.
I could receive as much Biblical
edification from reading Mad Magazine if
I had the time.
Don Pastor
Adams Center, NY
REAL POETS
Dear Editor,
If you guys were real poets you'd
have remained silent on cheese.
Matt McCabe
Toronto, Canadio
BRAVO
Dear Editor,
Mr. Wilson’s article, “Congregations and Plays” piqued my interest. It
pressed, as it were, the rewind button in
my mind, engendering the responses:
“Hey, I know that guy!” “Oh wow, I’ve
been that guy,” and “Uh-oh. Pastor
Wilson has one of those guys in his
church?” But then, after a few moments
of pondering, it occured to me that the
biblical cast has such an extensive list
that even the most diverse churches in
our day cannot hope to comprehend its
scope. For instance, there is “the guy
who falls asleep during the sermon,
plunges out the window, and winds up
mostly dead.” Then there’s the
“pretentious real-estate donating couple
killed by the pastoral staff.” And finally,
we have the “quasi-indestructible,
itinerant Presbyterian minister with dual
citizenship, absolutely perfect doctrine
and outrageous medical bills.”
All humor aside, the article was
both insightful and practical. It was
even entertaining. Be assured that
Canadian confessionalists everywhere
will hate you for this. Well done.
Christopher Brown
Sierra San Pedro
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
9
CRETAN TIMES
Bishops Riot as Da Vinci Code Film Starts Production
BRUSSELS—In response to Newsweek’s
publication of portions of the screenplay
for the forthcoming Ron Howarddirected film of the Da Vinci Code,
Roman Catholic, Anglican, and
Methodist Bishops from around the
world began riots which killed at least
sixteen people in major metropolitan
areas.
Police clashed with anti-Ron
Howard demonstrators in Brussels and
London, killing at least three people on
Thursday as protests spread over a
report about how the film depicts
astronaut Tom Hanks rescuing Mary
Magdalene from an abusive relationship
behind enemy lines in Seattle.
The unrest came a day after riots in
the city of Paris left four people dead
—the worst anti-Ron Howard protests
in France since the death of Jerry Lewis
in 2001. Howard’s publicist announced
at a press conference Wednesday that
“These bishops are animals; the film is
just a simple story, just a story. Opie is
ticked off.”
DJ
PETA Protests Treatment
of Wookies
yanked from their cages and handled
roughly by aggressive and often cursing
film technicians.
PETA spokeswoman Laura
Isrington said, “Despite their savage
countenance, Wookies are loyal and
trusting—these are sacred tenets of
Wookie society.” Lucasfilm spokesman
Jack Henner noted that Wookie
tempers are short, and when angered,
“they can fly into a beserker rage and
will not stop until the object of their
distemper is sufficiently destroyed.”
Henner insisted that Lucasfilm Ltd.
takes great care of all the galactic
species in its charge, and its work with
Wookies also helps develop medicines
to treat diseases such as cancer, AIDS,
and severe hair loss.
DJ
PRINCETON, N.J.—The animalrights group People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals on Wednesday
called on federal investigators to shut
down public display of the film Star
Wars: Episode III—Revenge of the Sith,
accusing its director George Lucas of
mistreating Wookies, the shaggy giants
used in the filming of the movie.
In making its claims at a news
conference, PETA showed a videotape
it said was covertly filmed by a staffer
working undercover at Lucasfilm Ltd.
The 273-page report PETA has given
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
depicts frightened Wookies being
Bush Denies Promoting Darth Vader as Judicial
Nomineee
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The
showdown over President Bush’s
judicial nominees took center stage
Wednesday in the U.S. Senate, when
the Democratic leadership denounced
the president for even suggesting that
military appointee Lord Darth Vader
serve on the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Louisiana.
While the White House was quick
to deny any such thought, Majority
Leader Bill Frist called on the Senate to
move toward an up-or-down vote on
Vader, drawing fire from Democrats,
who have fought Vader’s nomination
since episode five.
White House press secretary Scott
McClellan repeated that the president
had never “even met Lord Vader, let
W and Darth,
10
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
B3
American Idol Winner
Demands Obeisance
HOLLYWOOD—After months of
auditions and cuts, Fox’s American Idol
finally produced this season’s winning
star, Carrie Underwood, on the final
episode last month. Reports now
surfaced reveal the celebrations quickly
soured for many when the new American idol stopped the show and demanded that the losing contestant light
a candle and kneel before her. She
quickly demanded the same obeisance
from the judges, who followed the
command. Within minutes the entire
studio audience sang a monotone hymn
to her.
American Idol executive producer
Ken Warwick admitted the winner has
the contractual right as the new idol to
demand conformity with her will, “as
well as certain sacrificial rites.”
Warwick said he had already fulfilled
some of his own duties to Our Lady
Underwood. Warwick noted the show
had already released three cameramen
who had refused to honor Our Lady
properly. “They will have to answer for
their own souls,” he added. “The
authorities will deal with the wretched
attitudes of those traitors.”
The usually caustic judge, Simon
Cowell, said he was well aware of the
contractual obligations of the show and
added that the winner is not just the idol
of the show but of all of America. “You
have to admit, as an idol, she carries
herself well; she has that special energy,
that seductive edge necessary to fulfill
her deeper calling. I love her hair, too.
Perfect tone.”
DJ
Margarine Wars C1
Christians Retake Istanbul B2
Idaho Desert Shrimp A12
CRETAN TIMES
Homeland Security Bans Images of Planes in D.C.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—In an effort
to overcome any further violations of the
capitol’s restricted air space, the
Department of Homeland Security
announced Tuesday it was renaming the
“DC-No-Fly-Zone” to the “DCAbsolutely-No-Fly-Zone” (DANFZ)
and banned all photos, videos, paintings, and pencil sketches of airplanes
within five miles of the White House.
“We take security seriously,” said
secretary Michael Chertoff. “Terrorism
has to be a zero tolerance affair here
among these nice buildings.” He
explained how the department has to
educate the flying community on the
very simple, very safe system being put
in place. “People shouldn’t even think
about flying in this area. That only
encourages violations.” The department
conceded it had taken three
kindergarteners into custody that
morning for unwise crayon usage.
When asked about the National Air
Army Recruiters Promise Only “War of Words”
FORT KNOX, KY — As Army
recruiting numbers plunged in 2005,
Army commanders have expressed the
need to train field recruiters to explain
that war is largely diplomacy and media
interchanges, with very little shrapnel.
“There is an awful lot of sitting and
waiting,” said Deputy Commanding
General Donald Shortal. “That’s what
parents and potential recruits need to
know.”
Shortal oversees the new OWOW
policy for persuading new recruits. The
“Only War of Words” campaign
focuses on how often, he says, “the
media distorts what’s going on in that
sometime dangerous part of the world
beyond Georgia.” Shortal confesses that
“with so many words flying about, it’s
difficult to tell whether there is even a
war going on. We have our doubts.
Share that with the potential soldiers
you address.” Given these circumstances, recruiters are urged to inform
potential recruits that the Army needs
many chefs and actors for commercials.
DJ
Florida Cancels Hurricane Season
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Under a bill
the Florida legislature sent to Gov. Jeb
Bush on Friday, this year’s hurricane
season will be called off after a series of
last-minute offers were rejected.
Disagreements over host proposals and
disaster payments effectively shut down
the hurricane stream even before it got a
chance to start.
Hurricane season, already low in
U.S. popularity ratings, becomes the
first major natural disaster to lose an
entire season. Opponents complained
that taking a year off will only push
hurricanes further off people’s radar
screens.
After the vote, the Speaker of the
Florida House Alan Penser announced,
“This is a sad, regrettable day that all of
us wish could have been avoided, but
not really.”
Several adjacent states objected to
Florida’s action. “I just wish they would
have consulted with us a little,” said
Alabama governor Bob Riley. “Florida’s
decision creates some serious logistical
problems for the rest of us who still
embrace hurricanes. Shouldering their
portion pushes up our costs.”
Jeb Bush promised to sign the bill
and assured surrounding states “we’re
planning to have hurricanes next season.
We just needed a break.”
DJ
and Space Museum at the National
Mall, full of old military and civilian
planes, Chertoff noted that both the
Wright 1903 Flyer and the Spirit of St.
Louis had been safely reassembled at a
dairy in Wyoming. He then took that
moment to announce the opening of the
new National Pillow and Tape Museum, open in the former Air and Space
spot from 10:00am-3:00pm daily.
DJ
Baseball Donates Leftover
Steroids to Clay Aiken
NEW YORK, NY — Baseball players
union chief Don Fehr is expected to be
grilled today during congressional
hearings about Bud Selig’s new proposal
to hand over baseball’s excess steroids
to American Idol’s famous loser, Clay
Aiken.
Selig proposed to the union that he
had buckets and buckets of steroids that
he would “like to see put to good use.”
Clay Aiken, widely acknowledged to be
in need of body-enhancing steroids, sat
loosely in his clothes during the
meeting. Although management and the
union representatives discussed the
proposal last week, Fehr has been leery
of using his phone.
Rep. Cliff George (R-Fla), the
subcommittee chairman, admitted that
his six-year-old daughter had bested
Aiken in an arm wrestling test, “but
Clay might have had an off day.” Selig
said if the union refuses to endorse the
donation to Aiken, “I am left with no
reasonable alternative, and I will
support federal legislation to get these
materials into the body of rapper Li’l
Romeo.”
Aiken reiterated his promise never
to play sports and said to the assembled
reporters, “What are you doing tonight?
I wish I could be a fly on your wall.
What will it take to make you see I’m
alive?”
DJ
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
11
FLOTSAM
The Killing Corner
Nathan Wilson
THE ANGEL OF DEATH, I assume, rarely showers. But that is
what I am doing, and I am that angel. There’s a whole Rome,
an entire Egypt living in the corner, up above the shower head,
and I shall descend upon it. If descend is the right word.
Our baby sitter, who went with us on vacation, announced
that there were six spiders in the shower, and that they were
big ones. There may have been eight. By the time I showered,
twelve hours later, I believe she had shed blood, and only a
few remained.
Spiders are a subject over which many members of the
human race disagree. God, apparently saw fit to create them,
but many of us aren’t exactly sure why. Bug zappers could
have kept the flying pest population down just as well, or lots
of dragon flies, or a wider variety of Venus Fly Traps. But He
gave us spiders. Eight legs, bulging eyes, occasionally
jumping, occasionally lurking, and occasionally scampering
like the dickens. Almost all of them do neat tricks with sticky
ropes and their rear ends. Some make parachutes, others
underwater caves, others weave dens, or only egg sacks, and
some spread enormous nets to catch dew for photos on
Christian posters. There’s an aesthetic sense in these ugly
creatures, and I know of at least one Greek woman who was
turned into one.
God made spiders. My exegesis is not good enough to
justify their wholesale slaughter. Spiders pose an odd problem
of ugly for many, while others revel in their existence. Legspangled creatures that in some places grow big enough to net
themselves birds or mice. The people who revel in spiders are
usually a problem of ugly themselves, with their black,
arachnid-emblazoned t-shirts.
I examined the situation and found that the babysitter had
been accurate in her assessment. The spiders were large, and
they were present in the shower in a definite plurality. I had
never seen their kind. I had spent summers watching the
abdomens of cat spiders swell up grasshopper by grasshopper
until their three-horned backsides glared at me, looking very
catlike with a mane of legs. But these Californian domestic
shower spiders are new to me. Why the shower? I’ve never
seen a real bug population in any shower. But they might be
tropical spiders, imported into the country in the proverbial
bunch of bananas. The shower provides comfortable humidity, if not food. But there is one spider who seems to have
done quite well for itself. It is the biggest. Its long torso is not
as slender as the others, and the enormous legs straddling the
small corner web are also quite thick. This spider has a web
scattered with small dry exoskeletons. The sort of bugs I
would never notice in the shower or anywhere else, unless they
12
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
were in my lemonade, and they are apparently the preferred
prey. I examine the other webs and I find nothing. Not one
carcass, not one kill. I do have scriptural precedent for this.
Christ cursed the fig tree, and a few minutes later a mass
burial of broken but twitching legs is performed in the toilet.
Only one spider remains. The large faithful one. The one
fulfilling the task assigned to it by my father Adam. Go to the
showers, he said, and consume the small bugs no one notices.
And the California Domestic Shower Spider did.
The babysitter complains, but is told that part of
existence at the beach is being able to share the shower with a
faithful spider. It, at least, was doing its job. The others are
gone. My wife, who has shared bedrooms and showers with
real bugs all over the world, says nothing. Her look is enough.
The babysitter was right. The spider was doing a job, but
it was not doing its job. Days passed, and every morning, I
stood and examined the web. The tiny brown bugs were no
longer so tiny. My eyes, even in the steam, could make out
distinct hair-thick legs sprawling symmetrically in both
directions. Each little brown body had eight. Crabs have eight
legs. Also octopi. This leggy California she-spider has eight
legs. Little brown bugs do not have eight legs. According to all
the literature and the internet, they only have six, along with
two antennae and occasionally even wings. But not eight legs.
The terminology shifted. These were no longer little
brown bugs. These were little brown spawn. The spawn of
this thing above the shower head. Every day, those spawn
grew larger.
I did not kill them right away. I wanted to watch them
grow and graduate from kindergarten. I wanted to command
them with the authority of Adam to all stay in their corner.
Stay, or cease to be.
The vacation days are waning. I take one of the final
showers. I am here for the great migration. The spiders have
grown large enough and they are leaving. I command them to
stay. Put blood on the lintel and stay inside. They disobey and
I kill them, one by running one, with my fingernail. They are
each half an inch wide now, from toe to toe, and they splay flat
on the steam-slick wall and ceiling. The mother does not
respond as Job. She is more of Pharaoh’s mold, and she is
angry. How long, Oh Lord, she cries. How can a perfectly
good God and such a great evil pink thing coexist? She is too
large for my fingernail. The shampoo bottle spreads her
length, three and a half inches from claw to twitching claw.
Seventy-five dead, all told. Her firstborn, her last born,
her everyborn. All but one, whom I leave confused among the
dead, asking the big questions, becoming an atheist. He
chooses the road to Hell. In the morning his web is empty.
My mercy has been ignored, and a bite graces my arm.
PRESBYTERION
Peace and Purity
Douglas Wilson
THE PROBLEM of pettiness is not itself petty. Unchecked, it
can destroy congregations, and the minister and elders
need to be constantly on the alert for signs that “smallness
of mind” is threatening the peace and purity of the church.
In many Reformed congregations, including ours, the
membership vows include the phrase that the incoming
member will diligently seek the peace and purity of the
church. Unfortunately, for the petty-minded, this vow is
often taken as the basis for destroying the peace of the
congregation and corrupting the purity of it.
The phrase peace and purity presupposes a standard.
Peace, defined in what way? Purity, by what standard? The
prophet Jeremiah speaks about those who heal the wound
of the people lightly, who say peace, peace, when there is
no peace (Jer. 6:14). Not everyone knows what peace is.
Jude tells us about those who carouse at our love feasts,
pretending to be among us while seeking to corrupt us
(Jude 4, 12). Not everyone knows what purity is.
The armor that protects these alien definitions of
peace and purity is often the armor of subjectivism. What
matters is not what the minister said from the pulpit, for
example, but rather how the disgruntled parishioner said
he was made to feel. And when the refs stop making the
calls accurately, the defending basketball player can
pretend to take the charge and flop however it suits him.
Of course he was offended. He’s on his back, isn’t he?
The myth of neutrality plagues us here as well. We
often assume that people in community are not leaning one
way or the other, but rather just gathering facts objectively.
Then, when they get to a certain critical mass of facts, they
make up their minds. But neutrality is impossible, especially in the community of the local church. People either
love people or they don’t. If they love them, then they will
interpret whatever happens through that grid. If they do
not love them, then they will bide their time, gathering
evidence or, to use the scriptural term, a record of wrongs.
But everything is interpreted in accordance with the basic
demeanor we have toward the other person.
If that demeanor is one of love, then that love is
patient and kind (1 Cor. 13:4). It covers a multitude of
sins (1 Pet. 4:8). This love is not oblivious to faults in
others, but it catalogs the faults that it sees in accordance
with the law of charity. When that love is absent, the
natural tendency is to find fault. As Spurgeon once put it,
faults are thick where love is thin. A fault-finder is petty.
But this does not mean that he picks his nit and is ready to
bring charges. Malicious and bitter people instinctively
know when others are not bitter, and when they are. For
those who are known to not be bitter, it is necessary to wait
“patiently” until enough “evidence” is gathered to make a
plausible case (provided that sufficient editing is done) to
those who are not necessarily in an uncharitable frame of
mind. For those others who are bitter, it is astonishing how
quickly a relationship is formed behind the scenes.
Bitterness feeds on any little thing (which shows the
petty nature of it), but knows that when the problem is
brought out into the open at the congregational meeting, it
will have to have more to say than “pastor’s wife took my
parking spot at the Christmas service three years ago!”
The “concerns” have to grow, either in size or in momentum.
Momentum is created when the behind-the-scenes
bitter people (I call them the fellowship of the grievance) get
enough people worked up over little things that the
number of people involved make it a big deal whether their
individual concerns are substantial or not. And many
Christians have learned the jargon of pained vagueness.
“Oh, I don’t know. It is just that the sermons don’t speak
to my heart anymore. I am not feeling fed.” Of course the
reason he doesn’t feel fed is that he is not eating, but that
would be taken as an unloving thing to say. When ten
percent of the congregation is talking this way, the
nebulous nature of the grievance does not make it any less
of a pastoral crisis.
The other way things can come to a head is if the
pastor and elders make a point of bringing them to a head.
When there is sin in the congregation, the duty of the
pastor and elders is to attack sin. This is done by a weekly
invitation to the Lord’s table, pastoral counsel, phone
conversations, home visitations, emails, and sermons.
Monsters don’t shrink when you feed them, and the best
way to feed a congregational crisis is to let bitter people
seek out their own food. The easiest thing in the world is
to thunder away in a conservative pulpit about the sins of
liberals. It is a bit harder to preach searchingly in such a
way as to deal with the sin that is trying to take root in the
congregation in front of you.
Now of course, there is an important caveat to note
here. I am presupposing here a session of godly elders.
Nothing is worse than a minister who is carrying on a
sordid affair with someone he is counseling, and then gets
into the pulpit to declaim against the sin of “gossip.”
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
13
HUSBANDRY
Marriage and Community
Douglas Wilson
When a man and woman marry, they settle into a community. Or, at least they used to settle into a community.
Today, the average American couple moves around the
country regularly, chasing from one job to the next. The
only difference between Christians and non-Christians in
this is that some of the Christians seem vaguely uneasy
about this state of affairs. But for many it is the only thing
they know.
I have talked to many Christian grandparents, and a
routine difficulty they experience is the problem of their
kids and grandkids being scattered all over the country.
Modern conveniences like air travel, cell phones, and
email can ameliorate the problem somewhat, but these are
still no substitute for life together. The unusual situation is
one where three and four generations of the same family
live together in the same community. Our society is
atomistic, and the Church has apparently adapted to that.
But God has created us to live together over the
course of generations, and it is worth asking what might
happen when we attempt to do this. What temptations
will we face, with regard to marriage and family, if we
overcome the present hurdles presented by transient
America? It may seem strange to try to anticipate these
temptations before we are faced with them, but this is
most necessary. If we don’t think about where we are
wanting to go, we will simply lurch away from where we
already are. And fleeing from the problems caused by
atomistic families does not constitute a biblical worldview
concerning marriage and family. To react without thinking
is the way to create clannish communities that reject “the
world,” but it is not the way to create true scriptural
community. True community will get accused of being
clannish, which is fine, so long as the accusation is false.
So as we are approaching the development of true
community, we want to look ahead of us for pitfalls. That
said, I am going to use these terms loosely, but I hope that
they will still communicate. We really have only two
choices—life in a community or life in a machine. As
Christians are beginning to revolt against life in the
machine, they have to take care. We are far more prone to
the errors we are headed toward than the errors we are
fleeing. Just because we are developing life with true
familial connectedness does not mean that we are doing it
in a way that is right. The fact that life in the machine is
wrong does not make life in the town or village right.
There have been plenty of pagan villages. And life in the
city is not to be equated with life in the machine. History
14
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
has seen many genuine communities in urban settings. But
if we are to see the blessing of God in true community, we
have to recover the backbone of true community, which is
three and four generations of the same family in the same
place.
When uprooting every three years to move across the
country becomes the norm, it becomes easier and easier to
uproot from other things. God does tell us to love our
neighbor, and part of this, it seems to me, means that I
ought not to glibly trade my neighbor in for a new one
every two or three years—because once the habit of
uprooting is deep in the bones, it is hard to limit it to
geography and hometowns. This transience starts to
transfer, and it eventually gets to marriage.
If marriage is for life, and it is, then we ought to think
about a permanent place for that life to occur. And part of
this is children and grandchildren living in the same place.
This is not to say that it is a sin to move from one place to
another. But when we look at the frenetic restlessness that
characterizes so much of our national life generally, who
cannot but wonder if this is not a larger, society-wide sin?
Why are we so rootless?
But when we start to address this, and start to think
about building a life that our children and grandchildren
can enjoy together with us, one of the first temptations (as
the tribe forms) will be the temptation to tribalism. In the
Reformed world, there is a great deal of joking about
“Dutch evangelism” (which, for those who haven’t heard
the joke, means having babies) and the joking is simultaneously affectionate and exasperated. It is affectionate
because I think we see that the Dutch have done something
we are all supposed to do—they really have built genuine
communities. It is exasperating because sometimes those
communities have become in-grown to the point of a
provincialism that collides with the universal scope of
Christ’s love.
We cannot just wave a wand and make all the modern
threats to modernity disappear. But we can and should
begin asking the hard questions. When a man and a
woman marry, they should think of it (normally) as settling
down. And they should hope and pray and labor to settle
down in a place where their children can also marry—and
settle down. But as we do, we have to guard against the
temptation that comes with it. Think of the temptation as
a temptation to super-denominationalism. Party spirit is
bad enough in many denominations that you just “join,”
but when the denomination is tied to blood and soil, the
sectarian temptation can become fierce. And yet, the
promises of God tie generations together.
FEMINA
Sabbath Feasting
Nancy Wilson
SABBATH dinner is a tradition at our house, but it hasn’t always
been that way. Shortly after our first-born was married, we
thought it would be nice to get together to kick off the Lord’s
Day, and there were just six of us, including our new son-inlaw.
Though I would love to take credit for such a great idea
as the Sabbath dinner, it was really Doug and Paula Jones who
set the example for us. (Over the years they have quietly led by
example in many such things.) When we began to gather each
Saturday night, we really had no idea what a great blessing this
meal was going to become for us all. We had just moved into
a new house, our daughter had just gotten married, we had a
new table, and it was the perfect time to begin what was to us
a very new concept of a weekly feast to celebrate the arrival of
the Lord’s Day.
One of the novel things about our newly established
dinner was the presence of wine. I remember standing in the
grocery store with no idea where to begin. What should I
serve with what? One of those weeks I bumped into a friend
with a whole lot more wine savvy than I had. Knowing that we
were new at this, he pointed me to an (inexpensive) sparkling
wine that would not be too scary for us. I even had to invest in
some wine glasses for the first time.
That was eight years ago now, which isn’t very long at all,
and our Sabbath dinner has changed quite a bit. The most
noticeable change is the number crowded around our new and
bigger table. Not only has the adult population in the family
grown to eight, but the little people outnumber us. With the
increase of numbers has come the development of a liturgy,
and I’m sure that will change as the children grow older.
When we visit friends’ homes, we often come away with ideas
to incorporate into our dinner. Dave and Kim Hatcher
sprinkle wrapped chocolates down the center of their table,
and they play a story game between dinner and dessert that
involves their kids. They also have a great way of teaching the
children to wait for the hostess to take the first bite of dessert:
if one of the children jumps in before the hostess, they pass
that child’s dessert around the table and everyone gets to take
a bite! Steve and Jeannie Schlissel have a lovely way of
welcoming everyone to their table that we have gratefully
imitated. Doug and Paula gave us the idea of having a liturgy
to follow each week.
I have talked with many young mothers about how to get
their Sabbath dinner going. One of the first things I try to do
is dispel some myths about it. At our house it is not Thanksgiving dinner every week with a turkey and all the trimmings.
No way! Of course I try to make a meal that is a cut above the
daily dinners. But it is not the same as an Easter or Christmas
dinner where I pull out all the stops. The point is to start with
what is doable, not the impossible. My children are grown, so
I am not cooking with five little ones underfoot. Sabbath
dinner ought to grow as your family does. Start small and
work your way up. As your children get older, and you have
more help in the kitchen, you may be able to do more. The
point is to celebrate the coming Lord’s Day together in a
festive manner around your table, week after week, all year
long. If you start by using all your china, crystal, and fine
linens, you may burn out after two weeks and give up. Ease in
slowly.
Because my kids were college age when we started, I
could pretty much do what I wanted. I had lots of help with
the clean up, and it was pretty simple. But as we’ve added
high chairs and boosters, I have adjusted things accordingly.
The college girls who live with us help in many ways. I have
little wine glasses for the little people, lots of bibs, and most
always lots of rolls and honey butter. Dinners usually involve a
big piece of meat coming out of the oven, but not always. It
might be pasta or shish-kabobs, and in the summer we eat
outside as often as we can.
During the school year I am cooking for twelve adults
and six kids plus whatever company we have picked up, and it
can reach (as it did last week) up to twenty-two adults. When
that happens, the guests often help by bringing food or wine.
The point in telling you all this is not to get you to do what we
do, but rather to encourage you just to begin. Your family will
shape your Sabbath dinner into a unique weekly family feast.
The point is to celebrate before the Lord around the table,
knowing that He is preparing a table for all of us where He
will be seated at the head. We are simply practicing each
week, preparing for the day when we will sit down with Him.
Your preparations for Sabbath dinner will be some of the
most important work you do all week. And because it is so
important, you expect it to be peppered with temptations. So
pray ahead of time, don’t be easily offended (or petty!) and
“do it unto the Lord,” asking Him to bless all your efforts by
making your family look forward to it all week.
As the years go by, you will get better at feasting around
your table. Your children and grandchildren will see the
beauty of holiness more and more and taste the goodness of
the Lord.
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
15
EX LIBRIS
The Thanatos Syndrome
By Walker Percy
Reviewed by Brendan O’Donnell
MODERNISM is dead; so say some. It has begotten postmodernism, which, like one of those fascinating and gruesome
spectacles often observed in the insect world, is eating its
mother. Well, modernism is dead—and so is post-modernism, for that matter—dead in the way you might describe a
zombie or Dracula as dead: lifeless, rotting, malevolent, and
moving. Obituaries notwithstanding, modernism is still
mobile enough to serve as Terri Schiavo’s bedside attendant
in the Pinellas Park Hospice; post-modernism enough so that
Jesse Jackson can show up to support her.
Walker Percy is also dead, having fallen asleep in 1990.
Percy’s writings constitute a wry, satiric critique of modernism. The Thanatos Syndrome, his 1987 swan song, takes on
modernism as specifically expressed in utopian social
engineering and the culture of death. The book is a gratifying,
rewarding read, not least because of how it treats such grave
material with such a lithe sense of humor.
The story concerns how one Dr. Tom More, the narrator
and hero, gets to the bottom of some strange medical and
sociological happenings in Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. Going
by zealously maintained pietist standards, Tom has few of the
traits that make for a Christian hero. He’s a Catholic, and a
terrifically, agnostically lapsed one at that. He’s also a paroled
psychologist, let loose after a two-year stint for selling
prescription meds to truckers. He kisses his kissing cousin,
despite being married with children. Yes, fortunately for us,
in Tom More, Percy abjured the sort of brooding selfimmolation that pietists usually think must accompany
character flaws. At least More is no navel-gazer.
“For some time now,” Thanatos begins, Tom has “noticed
that something strange is occuring in our region.” His wife,
Ellen, is suddenly a bridge prodigy; her mind has grasped the
game with computeresque acumen, even as her conversational
abilities have reduced to disinterested, monosyllabic grunts.
Two of Tom’s patients exhibit similar traits, as well as a
degradation of sexual inhibition and a diminution of personality. Tom, sensing a connection, figures a few brain scans will
help unravel the mystery.
However, the parolee doctor finds that his overseer, Dr.
Bob Comeaux, has little interest in this line of inquiry, and
would rather that Tom chat things up with Father Smith, a
recovering boozer priest, and talk the man into selling the
local Catholic hospice. Comeaux, who runs the “Qualitarian”
center at Fedville—where they extinguish invalids, young and
old, who will never live a “quality” life—wants to buy the
hospice, another source of invalids. Father Smith, the story’s
16
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
disheveled Father Zosima figure, is a man apt to perform the
Mass in his old khakis and tennis shoes. He has holed himself
up, Simon Stylites-style, in a fire tower above the Parish
woods in protest against the world’s evils. His most particular
beef is against the medical community, a profession of
erstwhile healers standing complicitly by while the Supreme
Court legalizes an array of murderous practices in the name of
tenderness. Smith, the wild-eyed prophet, the eccentric
spiritual center of the story, sees things quite clearly from his
tower. He voices the story’s refrain: “Tenderness always leads
to the gas chambers.”
Tom, quietly enough, spends the duration of the story
acquiring that same clarity. With the help of Lucy, the kissing
cousin and the local epidemiologist, Tom figures out the
Parish-lulling syndrome traces to heavy sodium from the local
nuke plant. Someone has been tampering with the Parish
water supply quite intentionally.
The culprit, of course, is Dr. Comeaux, and that which
motivates him is socially-tender, twentieth century
utopianism. Yes, there may be heavy sodium in the water, but
the effect on the locals is downright dreamy: every crime
statistic in the Parish has plummeted, as have teen suicide and
pregnancy, AIDS cases, and homosexuality; meanwhile, the
I.Q.’s have increased, the behaviors have improved, and the
football team has enjoyed an undefeated three-year hegemony
on the field. Were life only statistics, amen and amen.
Life isn’t, though, and the utopian vision is necessarily
myopic: the local private school, run by Comeaux’s accomplice Dr. Van Dorn, is a hive of pedophiliacs, who have dosed
the school’s water with heavy sodium to produce passive,
albeit athletic, booksmart, and sexually willing children.
Comeaux, meanwhile, plans on transforming the Father’s
hospice into another euthanasia clinic. Then there’s the
problem of the Parish-wide deadness of personality, exemplified the dumbness of the Parish language and the baseness of
the Parish sex-drive. Comeaux, in engineering his superb
statistics, has deadened man into bestialism; Tom, however,
foils the scheme, and life defeats death.
Certainly, Percy didn’t take modernism’s evils lightly.
That which is evil in Thanatos comes across as such; however,
he is so resolutely unsentimental that he also refuses to take
any of the evil seriously. He’d much rather have us all laugh at
it. Were it not for this narrative demeanor—Percy’s nimble
and confident dismissal of what passes as tenderness in the
world—this would be unbearably heavy, mirthless, handwringing reading. These three adjectives, incidentally,
characterize our Pro-Life movement; The Thanatos Syndrome
indicates that we need not expunge laughter, whether that of
mockery or that of joy, from our arsenal.
CHILDER
When Sons Leave
Douglas Wilson
I want to begin by belaboring a point. The Greek word for
“leave” is kataleipo. The New Testament uses it twice to mean
forsake (Heb. 11:27; 2 Pet. 2:15), once to mean reserve (Rom.
11:4), and the rest of the time it means plain old leave, as in
“he up and left.”
Jesus, for example, left Nazareth (Mt. 4:13). A man
might leave his wife by dying (Mk. 12:19). The young man
who escaped from those arresting Jesus left behind his linen
cloak (Mk. 14:52). Levi left everything to follow Jesus (Lk.
5:28). Mary left Martha with the dishes (Lk. 10:40). A good
shepherd leaves the ninety-nine sheep to go find the one (Lk.
15:4). It was not right for the apostles to leave the Word of
God to wait tables (Acts 6:2). The ship St. Paul was on left
Cyprus behind (Acts 21:3).
The New Testament also uses this same word to talk
about sons leaving father and mother in order to marry a wife
(Mt. 19:5; Mk. 10:7; Eph. 5:31). This is a quotation from
Gen esis 2:24 in all three instances, where the word azab is
used—a word that throughout the Old Testament means
forsake or leave.
Now in the sense of simple departure or separation, a
daughter also “leaves.” But she leaves because she is given.
Daughters are given. Sons go.
This does not mean that sons have the right to disrespect
their parents, obviously. The Fifth Commandment was not
written just for daughters. Sons are to honor and respect their
parents, just as daughters are. But the point must be underscored here. For a son to leave home when he is grown does
not constitute disrespect. This is because honor and respect
are defined by scriptural duties, and not by what the requirements of the parents may be.
A normal pattern is for a son to leave home in order to
marry. A man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his
wife, and the two shall become one flesh. There it is—leave
and cleave. But Scripture also indicates that sons leave for
other reasons as well.
For example, when the armies of Israel mustered for
battle, the men who were required to be there were the men
twenty years old and up. “Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, from twenty years old and
upward, throughout their fathers’ house, all that are able to go
to war in Israel” (Num. 26:2). One of the central duties of
manhood is to fight in battle if that is necessary. In Israel,
eighteen-year-olds were not mustered for battle, but at the age
of twenty, they were included among the men of Israel.
On the flip side of this, those who were under the age of
twenty when Israel came out of Egypt were permitted to go
into Canaan. The adult men, that is, those who were twenty
and up, were kept out of Canaan with the exceptions of
Joshua and Caleb. “Surely none of the men that came up out
of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the
land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto
Jacob; because they have not wholly followed me” (Num.
32:11).
Another indication that men were considered responsible
and independent adults at the age of twenty was that this was
the age when they had to pay the atonement tax on their own.
“Every one that passeth among them that are numbered,
from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto
the LORD” (Ex. 30:14).
In my view, this has obvious ramifications for how we
bring up our sons. In a very real sense, parents are preparing
them to leave. As my wife once put it, there is one thing worse
than a son leaving home, and that is a son who doesn’t. This
means that when a son reaches a certain age, he may just
leave—even if his parents have not blessed it—and he may
do so without being guilty of rebellion against them. He is
supposed to go. In addition, he may do this even if he is not
getting married—he may have joined the Navy or be off at
college. When he does this, and he is financially independent,
he should be considered as a responsible adult, a new
household.
At the same time, a common mistake that young men
make at this age is that they want the perks of independence
while postponing the responsibilities of independence. But
young men who want Dad to stay out of their “private”
affairs (like their lack of study habits) while fully expecting
Dad to keep up the car insurance payments are young men
who clearly have not yet grown up. They need to learn
obedience.
Now the fact that a son may go when he has grown does
not mean that his motives are right in going. In other words,
he may have the right to be wrong. And his parents may be
right to be worried about the choices he might make. But sons
who struggle with independence when they have finally
become independent are likely sons who have not been
trained or prepared for it. That preparation should have
happened long before the age of twenty.
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
17
LITURGIA
Baptism is Baptism, III
Peter Leithart
1 CORINTHIANS 12:13 is commonly seen as a reference to the
experience of baptism by the Spirit, rather than water
baptism. No wonder. The text explicitly states that the Spirit
is the agent (or the medium) by (or in) which we are baptized:
“by [or “in”] one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”
Craig Blomberg points out that there are seven uses of the
phrase “baptize with/in the Spirit” in the New Testament (in
addition to 1 Cor. 12, there’s Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16;
Jn. 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16), and these passages actually
contrast water baptism with the baptism of the Spirit. In
Paul’s usage, Blomberg says, the phrase refers to “an initiation
experience that immerses a person into the realm of the
Spirit.” This Spirit-baptism “must not be confused with
water-baptism.”
Calvin is guilty of just this “confusion,” however: “Paul of
course [emphasis added] is speaking about the baptism of
believers, which is efficacious through the grace of the Spirit.
For to many people baptism is merely a formality, a symbol
without any effect; but believers actually do receive the reality
with the sacrament.” Thus, “as far as God is concerned, it
always holds true that baptism is an ingrafting into the body of
Christ, because everything that God shows forth to us in
baptism, he is prepared to carry out, so long as we, on our
part, are capable of it.” Paul has in view the “essence of
baptism,” which is “to incorporate us into the body of
Christ,” and this is the essence of baptism, Calvin argues,
whether or not everyone who receives the sacrament is actually
joined to Christ. Paul’s point in mentioning the Spirit is
simply to emphasize that “this is not effected by the outward
symbol.” It is rather the “work of the Holy Spirit.”
So, who’s confused, Calvin or Blomberg? Does “baptism”
in 1 Corinthians 13 mean water baptism? There are good
reasons to think so, and to accept Calvin’s “of course.”
First, baptism is mentioned several times in 1 Corinthians
prior to chapter 13, and those uses are linked in various ways
with 12:13. In 1:13–17, there is no doubt that Paul is
speaking of the rite of baptism. Paul points to water baptism
as a sign of the unity of the Corinthians in Christ, and this
provides an important link with 12:13, where he teaches that
baptism forms one body that is not divided by ethnic-religious
or social boundaries. Paul also mentions baptism in his
typological interpretation of the Exodus in 1 Corinthians
10:2, where he speaks of baptism “in the cloud and in the
sea.” The reference to a baptismal experience in water makes
it clear that he is thinking about water-baptism, and the
connections between 10:2 and 12:13 are tantalizing:
18
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
Baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea (10:2).
Baptized into one body [of Christ] in/by the Spirit
(12:13).
Further, the last clause of 12:13 echoes 10:4:
All drank the same spiritual drink (10:4).
All made to drink of one Spirit (12:13).
12:13 deliberately reaches back to the clearly sacramental
references at the beginning of chapter 10.
Third, what about those passages that use “baptism in
the Spirit” with reference to something Jesus would do, in
contrast to the water baptism of John? Particularly in Acts 1:5,
this phrase refers to the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost.
At that same event, however, Peter announces that anyone
who wants to share in the baptism of the Spirit from Jesus
must “repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Through this
rite, the Spirit incorporates the baptized into the company of
the disciples of Jesus, which is the body of Christ.
Finally, the clearest evidence that Paul is talking about
water baptism is that he is talking throughout 1 Corinthians
12 about the visible church. Each member of the body has a
“manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (v. 7), the
common good of the visible, historical community of the
church. No member of the body can lord it over others, since
all are necessary to the proper functioning of the body (vv.
14–21). This body is distinct from other social bodies in that
the “least honorable” members receive more abundant honor
(vv. 22–24). All members are to have “the same care for one
another,” and suffer and rejoice together (vv. 25–26). The
body that Paul talks about has apostles, prophets, and
teachers ruling and guiding it (vv. 28–29). This is not a
description of the invisible church, but of the visible. Therefore, the baptism that Paul speaks of is also a visible baptism.
At least the Reformed theologians who compiled the
proof texts to the Westminster Confession thought so, since
they used 1 Corinthians 12:13 as a proof text for the claim
that baptism is given “for the solemn admission of the party
baptized into the visible church” (28.1).
SIMILITUDES
St. Rule’s Knife
Douglas Wilson
THE LONGBOATS were beached, and as Andrew and Beow
headed inland and up onto a small rise, they could make out
an encampment just past the beach. Andrew held up his hand
to shield his eyes from the sun and saw tents, numerous
columns of smoke, and small figures moving around.
Beow turned his head toward Andrew. “Hide the knife,”
he said, “as best you can.” Andrew put his pack down on the
ground and stooped over it, managing to get the knife into an
inside pouch that he had only discovered a few days before.
“Why?” he said, standing up again.
Beow motioned with his head for them to walk along a
small ridge that ran parallel to the shore. “I can tell you the
story on the way. It is one of the few stories that the seapeople share with the Kale, and if they found out that this was
the knife, I am afraid that our lives would not be worth much.
If we meet up with them, as is likely, you are on no account to
mention it, or bring it out.”
Andrew thought for a minute. “Why don’t we just leave
the knife here then? I just picked it up on a whim. What is the
sense carrying something down to them that we don’t want,
and that they would kill for?”
Beow shook his head. “No, little one. You were meant to
have the knife. It was sitting out for you to take. Many
adventurers have been to the top of the tower, and there was
never any knife there. It was there for you, and no doubt it has
something to do with the dragon. These things never happen
by accident.”
They walked for a moment silently, but then Andrew
asked another question. “What is the story about St. Rule?”
“When St. Rule first came here, there were no people,
only giants. The Kale came later, and then after them, the seapeople. But when St. Rule first arrived (with his small
company of monks and followers) this whole land of
Greenland was a land of giants. Now giants don’t live together
normally—they need room for themselves, which is understandable. Just south of where St. Rule built his tower used to
be a great mead hall, made of oakenwood, in which the lord
of the giants lived. He was the oldest of them, and very
shrewd in his way.”
“How tall was he?” Andrew asked.
“Nine cubits, or so the stories say,” Beow said.
“And what happened?”
“When St. Rule and his company passed by, the giant
saw them first, and haled them down. It was no use running—he would have caught them all after twenty strides. But
the giant fancied himself a great riddler, and invited them to
his hall. ‘Answer the riddle,’ he said, ‘and you will all go free.
Fail in the riddle, and into my pie pans you go.’
“St. Rule turned to his people to comfort them—he was
a man of great faith—and then he turned back and said that
riddles were friends of God, unlike giants. This unsettled the
giant, as well it might, and so he began to think of his best and
deepest riddle. And though he was shrewd in his way, his
pride was offended by St. Rule’s words, and so he tried to
think up a deep riddle on the spot. If he had used one of the
riddles from the books he had inherited, he perhaps would
have done better. But they were all standing outside his mead
hall, and as he was thinking, his fingers found the knife—the
one in your pouch—a knife that was kept in a special space in
the hilt of his larger giantish knife. A sly smile spread over his
face, and he moved his hands around some more, then put
them in his pockets so that no one would see what he had
thought of (although St. Rule had), and then finally asked,
‘What color is the bone in the deepest meat?’
“St. Rule knew that it is bad manners to answer a riddle
right away, even if you know the answer, and so he pondered
a moment stroking his chin. The giant’s eyes narrowed, and
he began (I am afraid) boasting of what a good cook he was.
But then, St. Rule looked up and said, ‘What is darker than
black? What cuts deeper into meat than obsidian?’
“With this the giant’s eyes widened in astonishment, and
I think he would have broken his word to them and eaten
them anyway. But he took a step backward in his surprise,
tripped over some of St. Rule’s ponies who had got behind
him, and fell backward into his building, striking his head as
he fell. With a shout, St. Rule’s men rushed forward and
dispatched him quickly.
“The knife was kept in St. Rule’s tower for centuries until
the fighting between the Kale and the sea-people cause the
tower to be abandoned. And when that final flight took place,
the treasure was somehow lost. Each of the monks thought
that another monk had taken it. And when they discovered
their error, there was great lamentation, but when they
returned to look for it, it was not there. But apparently it
remained there hidden in some way—hidden even from your
black widow, although she wanted to pretend it was hers.”
Andrew looked up (for he had been listening intently),
and there ahead of them on the path was a Viking captain.
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
19
DOODLAT
By Mark Beauchamp
20
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
DOCTRINE 101
Winning is Christian
Patch Blakey
AS a young boy, as well as throughout high school and college,
when I participated in sports, the objective from the perspective of all participants was always to win. When we chose
teams in first grade to play kickball during recess, the team
captains would get to choose sides, and the biggest concern
was always who got to choose first so that they could pick the
one player that would hopefully ensure victory. Sometimes,
some of us were left out because we weren’t as aggressive or
skillful as the other boys.
After I became a Christian, it seemed that there was a notso-subtle shift in focus. Winning was no longer the primary
objective in playing sports; “character building” was the new
nexus for the saints. Now, I don’t want to disparage character
building, because we are to be Christ-like (Eph. 4:13 ). But
may I ask, “Whatever happened to winning?” Is winning
antithetical to character building?
Some Christians don’t think winning is important because
most of us don’t win in whatever our athletic endeavor. We
are not all Olympic gold medalists. Admittedly, the increasing
trend in popular athletics, from the “parks and rec” level of
competition to professional sports, to win at any and all costs
is shameful, and that is not what I’m advocating. Unethical
means of seeking the winning advantage are certainly not
Christ-like (Lev. 19:11).
Other Christians think that we are to be meek and mild like
the paschal lamb. However, they tend to forget the other half
of the metaphor: the Paschal Lamb is also the Lion of Judah
(Rev 5:5). The lion and the lamb laid down together in Christ
when He was buried following His crucifixion. They also both
arose when He ascended on high and was given all authority
in Heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18).
So then, what is our biblical example? Is it one of being
“born to lose,” or are we called to win? What do we mean
when we teach our children, “It doesn’t matter if you win or
lose, it’s how you play the game?” Although no doubt
intended to counter the idea of “win at all costs,” does this
idea adequately communicate what the Bible teaches?
The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian believers, “Know
ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth
the prize? So run, that ye may obtain,” (1 Cor. 9:24). Paul is
saying, play to win, work to win, work very hard to win. In
fact, it sounds an awful lot like Paul is saying that the objective
is to win. It’s also noteworthy that he uses an athletic example
to make his point, as though there’s an obvious connection.
How about John’s comment in the book of Revelation,
speaking of Jesus as the Lamb? “These shall make war with
the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord
of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are
called, and chosen, and faithful,” (Rev. 17:14). The analogy
has shifted from sports to warfare, but look who’s winning;
look who the conquering hero is. The Lamb shall overcome
those who make war with Him. That sure sounds pretty
victorious. Jesus had an objective: He was going out conquering and to conquer (Rev. 6:2).
So when Paul writes to the Philippians, “Let this mind be in
you, which was also in Christ Jesus,” (Phil. 2:5), what sort of
image does it conjure up in our thoughts? Christ the “loser”
who died as a wimp on the cross, or Christ who suffered and
died to conquer sin, and rose again to conquer death?
But what are we parents supposed to tell our children when
they compete and lose? “Know ye not that they which run in a
race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may
obtain,” (1 Cor. 9:24). We need to tell them that they must
work harder, developing the kind of Christian character that is
truly Christ-like; they must strive to be winners.
Children who grow up thinking it’s okay to lose will be easy
prey for unscrupulous bullies. They will be prone to take the
route of least resistance and inclined to be quitters. They will
also be more likely to passively wait for the return of Christ
rather than to proactively make the earth a more heavenly
place to live (Mt. 6:10). Is this the kind of stuff that heroes
are made of?
No! Heroism is overcoming in adversity, not whining
through it. If we teach our children that their hero can be the
Pillsbury Doughboy, we shouldn’t be surprised when they
grow up to look and compete like him. Douglas Wilson and
Doug Jones said it well in their book Angels in the Architecture:
“The church today is a stranger to victories because we refuse
to sing anthems to the king of all victories. We do not want a
God of battles; we want sympathy for our surrenders.”1 We
need to impart a winning attitude which produces a vision of
victory.
If we are not training our children to win, we are not
developing Christ-like character in them. The difference
between godly winners and ungodly whiners is a wide chasm.
Even those mentioned in Hebrews 11:36–40 strove for a
godly objective, even if they did not obtain it. They did receive
a good report because of their faith. They had a winning
attitude. They followed Christ, the Conqueror.
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
21
RECIPIO
Assurance
Ben Merkle
“IN WHOM you also trusted, after you heard the word of
truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having
believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His
glory” (Ephesians 1:4).
Ur was the capital of Sumer and one of the earliest
great powers recognized by pagan historians. A great
ziggurat has been discovered at the site and seems to have
been a center of pagan worship. The last hurrah of Ur,
known as the Ur III period, ended when the Elamites,
Subarites and other tribal forces invaded and destroyed
the great city-state around 2000 B.C. Mourning this
terrible destruction was a famous Sumerian text (at least
famous as far as Sumerian texts go), the Lament of Ur. The
text opens with a catalogue of gods and goddesses that
have abandoned the city of Ur: Enlil and his wife Ninlil,
Ninisinna, Sin, Enki and others. The Sumerian deities have
all abandoned the city and their sheepfold has been
delivered to the wind. The author then entreats the god
Enlil to preserve Ur, but Enlil responds with “It is good,
so be it.” According to the Lament, the capitol of Sumer
was abandoned by her gods because her fickle deities just
didn’t feel like protecting her anymore.
A little work with the chronologies supplied by
Scripture puts Abraham and Terah moving from Ur to
Haran in close vicinity to the time of this destruction. A
comment in the book of Joshua tells us that Terah and
Abraham were fairly familiar with some of these pagan
deities: “And Joshua said to all the people, ‘Thus says the
LORD God of Israel: ‘Your fathers, including Terah, the
father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the
other side of the River in old times; and they served other
gods. Then I took your father Abraham from the other
side of the River, led him throughout all the land of
Canaan, and multiplied his descendants and gave him
Isaac”’” (Joshua 24:2–3).
The passage tells us that Terah worshipped these
other gods, but doesn’t make this statement about
Abraham. However, whether Abraham was a part of this
worship or not, he was certainly familiar with these pagan
gods. It is likely that when Terah led his family away from
Ur, as described in Gen. 11:27–32, this pilgrimage was
prompted by the destruction chronicled in the Lament of
Ur. Abraham knew the fickle nature of the Sumerian gods.
These gods stood by their people one moment and then
walked away the next, because it pleased them to do so.
22
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
Then, while he was in Haran, Abraham received a call
from a different sort of God, who began making all sorts
of promises to Abraham about a land, a nation, and
countless descendants. Eventually, this God demonstrated
his uniqueness in a startling ceremony. In Genesis 15
Abraham boldly asks for proof for all the promises offered
by this God. “How shall I know?” Abraham asks. God
responds by sending a smoking pot, His Spirit, between a
row of animals that had been divided in half. Abraham
knew what the ceremony represented. This was a selfmaledictory oath, common in the Ancient Near East,
which in effect said, “If I break My word, may what has
been done to these animals be done to Me.” Yaweh sent
His Spirit to guarantee the fulfillment of His promise. The
author of Hebrews sheds a little more light on this:
For when God made a promise to Abraham, because
He could swear by no one greater, He swore by
Himself, saying, ‘surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying
I will multiply you.’ And so, after he had patiently
endured, he obtained the promise. For men indeed
swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is
for them an end of all dispute. Thus God, determining
to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the
immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath,
that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible
for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who
have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before
us (Hebrews 6:13–18).
The Holy Spirit is a Spirit of promise. In Him God has
promised something to His people. The fact that the
Triune God is a God who makes promises is a fact that
should not be skimmed over lightly. His promises are
guarantees, which have been given to us that we might have
“strong consolation.” Yaweh does not intend for His
people to be people of doubt, blown about by our misgivings concerning what God has in store for us. In fact,
Yaweh has gone so far as to send His Spirit with the
purpose of giving us confidence in the promises that God
has for us. This confidence is something that can only be
offered by the Triune creator God. It flows from His
nature and it is a mark of His people.
STAURON
The Universe Undone
Gary Hagen
IN PAUL’S LETTER to the Romans, he describes a cacophony
of agony. We learn that the whole of creation howls under the
bondage of sin. The cosmos cries out from its corruption.
While the galaxies grieve and groan, the waters of earth’s
oceans roar. The skies above weep in their sorrow. The
universe lies undone—sharing in God’s curse on man’s sin.
Adam had stretched out his hand to grasp the death-fruit
from the forbidden tree in the center of the garden. Havva, his
wife, gazed upon this fruit and ate deception. Because man
had deigned to taste that which was forbidden by the Creator,
YHWH cried out His curse, damning the soil on man’s
account. No longer would fruitful fields yield their strength.
Man himself would be changed. As Abraham would later
confess, man’s destiny became but earth and ashes (Gen.
18:27). Earth, rather than yielding its strength, would now
yield thorns and nettles.
In the beginning, the Lord had charged man to multiply
and fill the earth. Man did fill the earth—with wickedness
(Gen. 6:5). In our English translations of the Bible, we often
miss the poetic justice of Scripture’s account. In Genesis
6:11–12 we are told about the ruinous effects and ubiquitous
spread of man’s sin. Three times in those two verses, the
Hebrew word for ruin and spoiled is repeated. In the KJV it is
given as corrupt, or corruption. This is fine. But when God
declares His response to the bloodshed and corruption on
earth by man’s sin, He uses exactly the same word to describe
His judgment in the following verse (v.13). What is translated in the KJV as destroy is the same Hebrew word for ruin.
In effect, God is saying, “So you want to ruin the earth? Let
me help! I’ll show you some real ruin.” The ensuing global
flood, where only Noah and his family were preserved, is
described in a way reminiscent of creation week. Just as
waters had originally covered the earth, with void and
emptiness prevailing, God declared that welter and waste
should hold sway upon the face of the earth once again. In
Genesis 1:2, the Hebrew is stated in rhyming words, tohu wa
bohu, void and emptiness.
All this dreadful tale came about by the hand of one man
(Rom. 5:12), as the result of his sin. Paul tells us that this
causes all of creation to wail. Zephaniah 3 records that the
Lord God rejoices over His people with singing. Is it too
much to think that not only the creation, but also the Creator,
wept over the ruination of the world? But what are we to
think?
Scripture is also very clear on the point that before time
began, before the foundations of the world, “before ancient
light begat the sun, or granites shed the sea,” God ordained
from His deep counsels that He would speak His majesty
upon the earth. His gracious mercy, wrath, and power would
unfold on sails of time, displayed for all earth and heaven to
see the glory of His Name.
Part of that unfolding of the story throughout history
included another cataclysmic judgment at the tower of Babel
scarcely a few hundred years after Noah’s flood. The Most
High came down to scatter sin and disperse mankind. At His
word, the tongues of men multiplied. They had resisted the
divine command to fill the earth. Man had built himself a
monument of height. But the Lord used confusion of tongues
to ensure they would divide earth’s portion as He intended.
Man, of one blood, as a result of many tongues would become
countless tribes and many nations. These same divided
tongues, tribes, and nations are now being gathered again.
In the divine plan of redemption, one man (Abraham),
one son (Isaac), one tribe (Jacob/Israel) would be the bearers
of the divine covenant of adoption. They would transmit the
law of promise, God’s righteousness and His Messiah.
Through Him, all would pass from death to life, through
faith.
The cosmos cries its corruption. It yearns for resurrection. But this redemption is beyond all natural reach. Man,
creation, both powerless. Yet into this weakness, the Word
came down. And by this mystery, salvation was preached.
The mystery is that the Possessor of the Universe would
descend from endless days, to visit and walk among men and
die at our hands, in order that we might receive mercy and
even favor from His pierced hand. Jehovah-Jireh, the one who
provided the lamb to Abraham on Mount Moriah, came and
provided Himself as a sacrifice for sin. By His death we have
peace with God, and by His life, we have salvation (Rom.
5:10). Death has lost its sting! Not only this, but all creation
joins as beneficiaries in this glorious liberty from the corruption of sin, in redemption (Rom. 8:21). For this reason (Is.
44:23; 49:13), God commands all creation to rejoice—in the
redemption of God’s people. Salvation is not a “just Jesus and
me” proposition. It is a global redemption. No, it is a
pervasive redemption beyond that.
There are the beginnings of a new polyphony. The
heavens sing, the mountains rejoice, and psalms rise from
ocean waves. The trees of the cursed fields now laud heaven’s
King, earth’s Redeemer. We are witnesses to a cosmic liturgy
of praise. Men and angels are invited to see God’s glory. He
has declared (Rev. 21:5 cf. II Pet 3:13)—“The universe
made new!”
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
23
EX IMAGIBUS
Hollywood Buffet
Reviewed by Nathan Wilson
In Theaters (mostly):
Episode III
directed by Jorge Lucas
I’m an American and so I went to this movie. Turns out
Anakin goes bad at the end. Not that he’s ever really been
anything other than a fussy butt. Anyway, he goes really bad
and even kills some cute little blond kids in the Jedi temple.
And he ends up wearing this dark mask thing, and there’s this
whole Frankenstein scene.
This movie’s tension seemed to depend solely on all of us
out in the audience simply wondering how they will get all our
characters lined up and ready for the original Star Wars. Why
will Darth Vader have to wear a suit? Why won’t C3PO have
a clue? We don’t ever wonder if Anakin will die, or the
emperor, or Yoda, and we’re pretty sure that Samuel L.
Jackson’s character wasn’t in the originals, and that Natalie
Portman is going to suffer complications, as it were, in labor.
So we all sit, and we watch, and we wonder. How will
they do it? And then they do it, and we leave the theater
thinking more about how strange it is to sit in a dark room on
a beautiful afternoon than about the story we just watched.
The movie is all about eyebrows, brooding, and angst, but
especially lightsabers. The dialog is torturous; Lucas’s cuts
ignore narrative flow; and it’s way better than the other two.
Oh, and “Only Sith Lords deal in absolutes.” Or
something like that.
The Episodes have a great deal of trouble coping with the
lofty calling of being a classic on the first weekend.
Kingdom of Heaven
directed by Ridley Scott
World Magazine didn’t like this movie at all, and headlined a
review with something like “Pluralistic Crusaders.” So, in all
fairness, I must admit that I wish I could like this movie. I
wish that I could take it as seriously as it seems to take itself.
But I can’t. Luckily, my beef isn’t with the pluralism. My beef
is with wildly superficial characters. Orlando Bloom spent the
whole movie looking like something I could have whittled
from a cedar chip.
The whole thing was episodic. And then his father shows
up. And then he kills a priest. And then they run, and then his
father gets hurt and the big German gets shot through the
neck with an arrow that’s about as thick as the leg of a swing
set. Then our bastard hero tries to go to Jerusalem, but gets
shipwrecked, or was it knighted first? Anyway, the king of
24
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
Jerusalem is a leper and his character is the best thing about
the movie. And the Saracen general drinks snow in a cup, and
the Templars are stupid. And other things too.
Anyone who has spent the least bit of time studying the
Crusades would only expect, upon being beamed back in time
into the twelfth century, to find a great deal of religious
cynicism. The world was in dire need of the Reformation and
wouldn’t get it for another couple hundred years. The wildly
hypocritical bloodshed, fanatics and mystical crusaders,
opportunists and villains, the gospel of purgation, of penance
and works-driven salvation all would make me sneer my lip
and ask what exactly made us better than the Muslims.
Scott labored mightily to show us men we could respect
on both sides, and show us that they respected each other.
That was very liberal of him. But then, that is also how the
world and the world’s wars go. In fact, I would vastly prefer
hanging out in the tent of a Saracen who killed Christians than
in the tent of a Christian who did.
Scott also labored to show us big things. Big dust clouds.
Big walls. Big fights. But he didn’t make us give a rip. He
preached that Jerusalem didn’t matter, and that individual
lives did. But he doesn’t seem convinced himself. And our
hero doesn’t either. And so we aren’t. Ultimately, a person we
have trouble caring about successfully negotiating a surrender
doesn’t provide the payoff that Scott needs. The narrative
punch is nothing to Scott’s lone gladiator slaying the Roman
emperor in the ring and returning the city to the Senate. Using
Russell Crowe would have helped the film in some ways, but
he couldn’t have saved it. The curse of self-seriousness
weighed too heavily.
Sahara
directed by Breck Eisner
It is true that Hollywood seems to be realizing that the old
“family film” might make a buck or two. This film gives you
exactly what it promises: a wildly unbelievable story that swirls
around a Confederate iron-clad lost in the Sahara (don’t
expect too much of an explanation), third-world politics, and
the enviromental impact of hyper-inflated red algae growth.
I can enjoy a good hot dog, especially when the person
who gives it to me calls it a hot dog. This movie made me
laugh. There are no pretensions, no delusions of grandeur. It’s
made from processed chicken, beef, and pork parts, and it
tastes much better than what you’ll get from Kingdom of Heaven
or Episode III. You see, those movies are also serving up hot
dogs, but they call them Tuscan tube steaks and take them
very seriously.
Sahara is a popcorn movie and so the premise behind the
film is dubious at best, but at the same time, the writing is
better and the flow superior to either Kingdom of Heaven or
Episode III. And it will give you ketchup, a bun, and a beer to
go with your dog, not just parsley, a twist of lemon, and some
seltzer water.
Come watch yet another celebration of the American
hero. How many times have we saved the world?
On Video:
The Phantom of the Opera
directed by Joel Schumacher
My wife was surprised that I sat through this one. So was my
three-year-old son. So am I. I won’t let it happen again.
This is a very important movie. Take it seriously. It is
artistic. It was once even a play on an actual stage.
I hate it when people seem so painfully aware that what
they are doing just now (Did you see that? That yearning thing
I did with my eyes, and how I let my arms dangle?) is terribly
moving. Because there’s this secret voice that taught me to sing,
and now I’m quite good. And when I find out that he’s a
deformed peeping tom, then I struggle with my feelings for
him. And I let him take me into the basement and sort of
burrow in my neck and touch my girlish, and yet very vocal,
torso. Life is so complicated.
What exactly went wrong with Andrew Lloyd Weber?
Was it abuse? Bed-wetting? What has gone wrong with us?
Why would we be such fans of this stuff?
I’ll grant that people sing pretty in a couple bits, and that
at least one dance sequence was fun to watch. But sheesh to
the rest and raise your glasses to pop art that thinks it’s high
art and promotes itself as timeless.
National Treasure
directed by John Turteltaub
On the other side of the coin, we have National Treasure. A film
similar to Sahara in many ways. Not the least of which is the
fact that it strictly adheres to the boundaries of its genre,
which limits its central cast to a guy, a sidekick, and a hot
chick. Usually the hot chick is an expert in something that
requires expertness. That justifies dragging her around on the
adventure, beyond the obvious sexuality of the thing.
In this case, our leading lady is an archivist? A manuscript
expert? A parchment connoisseur? Benjamin Franklin Gates
(Nicholas Cage) is the last generation of a family that has been
hunting for an ancient treasure buried in New England by the
Masons. Standing on the shoulders of Indiana Jones and other
greats, he finds it.
Just how far can you stretch your suspension of disbelief?
With notable effort I was able to go the distance with old Ben
Gates, though a couple bumps nearly threw me off. The
largest treasure in the history of the world is buried under
Wall Street. That I can handle. There were some astronomical details and the history of Valley Forge that caused hiccups,
but I recovered well.
Hot dog movie number two. A movie like this does not
insult my intelligence because it isn’t pretending to be
important, and it isn’t trying to get me to take it seriously. It’s
corny, but it’s fun, and that’s how it billed itself. For historical
revisionism with beret and cigarette, we’ll have to wait for the
film release of the The Da Vinci Code.
The Aviator
directed by Martin Scorsese
Back in the golden age of Hollywood, the celebrities lived as
darkly and as nastily as our very own contemporary celebs, but
back then they always played in movies that showed us the
happy shiny side of life. Today, they want to show us how it
really is, how it really was. Real is the grime in the toilet bowl.
Neurosis is more real than normality. A quest for the real
always seems to be a quest for the abnormal. Find the tumor,
the hidden birthmark, the quirks and troubles.
I can enjoy a biopic. There have been a great many
interesting characters throughout our history, and narrative
studies of them can have a real hook. Howard Hughes led a
life of the abnormal. The Aviator tries to take a close look. But it
primarily wants to see the “real.” The film is about Howard
Hughes, but it is more directly about his fevered and paranoid
brain. We have one scene of his childhood (with his mother
working to instill a neurotic fear of disease during a cholera
outbreak), and that scene provides us with our motif. Hughes
was brilliant. He was stubborn. He was hypocritical and
immoral. But above all, Scorsese tells us, he was nuts. The
narrative thread highlights this, with characters entering stage
left for one or two scenes of neurotic revelation, and then
exiting stage right. Scorsese only focused on those interactions
and events in Hughes’ life that revealed his demons or set up
struggles with them.
It is not a wretched film, or as filthy as many would
expect given a great deal of Hughes’ behavior (though there is
crassness, vulgarity, and Leonardo naked). But I prefer more
human narrative, stories less warped by the false doctrines of
realism. A character is not the sum of his faults. Build me a
character. Show me his faults if you must, but then use them in
a story. They are very rarely a story in themselves, and can
have trouble carrying a film that’s nearly three hours long.
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
25
CAVE OF ADULLAM
Mutterings on Regnant Follies
Jesse James Wilson
Extreme Cotton
A Christian T-shirt store in Kansas has the moniker Extreme
Christian Clothing. The T-shirts they sell range from shirts with
messages that are about as extreme as warm cookies and milk
(“Got Jesus?”) to those that actually are as advertised (“My
God can kick your god’s butt.”)
As much as one hestitates to discourage this new-found confidence
among evangelicals . . .
Always Thinking
A story out of Nairobi lets us know that there is demand for
jet fuel on the black market there, because some entrepeneur
has figured out a way to use said jet fuel for delivering a better
kick in a locally-made alcoholic beverage. Speeds up the
process.
This trick works with Calvinism too.
A Close Call
The American Enterprise reports on a dust-up of sorts over in
Germany. It appears that the Bremerhaven Zoo over there
had flown in four female penguins in an “attempt to encourage three male couples to start reproducing.” The plan was
abandoned when homosexual groups began protesting this
“organized and forced harassment through female seductresses.”
That’s right. Blame the women.
Can’t Trust Myself to Make a Comment
On a web site for some bloody fellow who specializes in “2nd
Trimester Elective and 2nd/3rd Trimester Abortion Care,”
we were astonished to note the adverstised services of a
chaplain. In his blurb, this chaplain explains helpfully that lots of
religions let you get an abortion. However, all this is just the
normal chutzpah. The kicker came with some of his offered
services, which included “the celebration of spiritual sacraments such as baptism of the still born fetus and blessings for
the aborted fetus.”
What Did Jesus Smell Like?
An enterprising couple has taken some of the spices mentioned in Ps. 45:8, to wit, myrrh, aloes, and cassia, mixed
them into a candle, and marketed it as a way to “smell Jesus”
because, as we all know, we can’t see or touch Him. They have
26
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
sold thousands of this theological advance so far.
But what do we smell like to Him?
What Passes for Good News Nowadays
In the five years after 1999, the box office numbers for Rrated movies have plunged drastically. In 2004, for the first
time in several decades, PG movies outgrossed R movies (and
when we say outgrossed we are talking about the receipts). Of
course, a movie that would have been rated R ten years ago
would today be rated PG-13, but let that pass, claim victory,
and let us rejoice!
This is like walking west down the aisle of an east-bound airliner,
and claiming that you are too walking toward California.
Hearings in Congress Fodder
A news story notes that while discriminatory pressure is
building on baseball and football players for enhancing their
abilities through steroid use, some athletes are fooling around
with nature and getting off scott-free. For example, Tiger
Woods and other athletes have been getting Lasik eye surgery
to bump their vision up to 20/15 or 20/10.
How is this supposed to help? So you can watch the dimples on the
ball as off it sails?
Neo-Monasticism
“News of the Weird” reports on one estimate that as many as
ten percent of Japanese youths may have a case of what are
called “epic sulks.” Said young people live permaently in their
bedrooms as hermits (hikkomori), driven there by school bullies,
academic pressure, unaccessible fathers, and so on.
If it were not for video games, their time there would be entirely
unproductive.
A Moment of Silence
Could we ask you to take off your hats and stand silently
where you are just for a moment? We would like to remember
our dear friend post modern evangelicalism who is currently
in the closet shooting himself.
. . . Ichabod. Thank you. It means a lot to us.
FOOTNOTES
In Order of Appearance
Doctrine 101:
1. Angels in the Architecture, 43
Pooh’s Think:
1. Pelikan, vol. 4, 367.
2. Robertson, 18. Robertson is strong on the point: the exegete
“should be concerned to determine the reason for this omission.”
However, Robertson fails to determine the reason for this
omission, and this is because the reason for this omission is that
there is no berith suggested, implied, or hinted to in the first five
chapters of Genesis.
Rather, Robertson argues for the fact that omission of the
word does not necessarily entail omission of the general concept,
and he proposes other biblical examples of such omission:
“scriptural precedent exists for the omission of the term ‘covenant’
in discussing a relationship which unquestionably is covenantal”
(p. 18). However, this is simply an attempt to blunt the edge of
what is a very strange omission in Genesis and has not given the
reason for such a strange omission. The positive arguments
Robertson gives for a creation covenant are related to exegesis
outside Genesis (and will be at least implicitly addressed as we go
on) or they simply assume the discussion to be surrounding
‘Covenant’ and not berith.
W. J. Dumbrell, in Covenant & Creation (1984), offers what
is for me the only interesting exegetical argument for a creation
berith I have so far discovered. He takes a close look at the covenant
language in the Old Testament and argues that Genesis 6 & 9
point to a pre-existing covenant at the point of creation that is
merely ‘carried through,’ or ‘confirmed.’ This conclusion is
according to his interpretation of heqim (establish)
and the absence of karat (cut), which we do find in chapter 15, yet
once again, not in chapter 17. He also notes the parallel between
Genesis 1 and 6. I do not have space to sufficiently respond to
this, but a few cursory points: First, there is most certainly parallel
between chapters 1 & 6, but this does not evidence a parallel in
covenant. Just the opposite is the case: the covenant, as Dumbrell
admits, comes notably after the establishment of the new world,
along with all the parallelism, and is conjoined to the covenant
sign. Second, karat is precisely what we would expect to find in
Chapter 15, since the Lord is very literally cutting covenant in a
way Abraham was culturally accustomed to. And we have no cause
for surprise when we find karat absent when the Lord gives His
covenant in chapter 9 and 17. Dumbrell’s argument from heqim is
worth further pursuit, yet Dumbrell quickly crowds out his careful
consideration of the biblical language with theological speculation
on the covenant concept and capitulates to speaking of ‘the
covenant’ that spans from Genesis 1 to the New Testament.
A Little Help For Our Friends:
First Orthodox Presbyterian Church in San Francisco (Charles
McIlhenny, pastor) is currently looking for a full time pastor for a
mission work they began several years ago. If you itch for the
frontlines contact Deacon David Gregg, Providence Orthodox
Presbyterian Chapel. Phone: (925)960-1154.
Fred’s Word Study
When Simon Peter acknowledged Jesus as the
Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus answered,
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah. . . . You are Petros,
and on this petras I will build my church” (Mt. 16:17–
18). Christians differ as to the rock on which Jesus was
to build His church. Was it Simon Peter himself? After
all, the very next verse promises him the “keys of the
kingdom.” And Eph. 2:20 refers to the church’s “being
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Or was it the rock of Peter’s confession of faith in
Jesus as the Messiah? Petras generally refers to bedrock. For example in Matthew 7:24 Jesus commends
the wise man who built his house upon the petran
(bedrock). If we are wise we also will build on the
petran—Jesus.
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
27
DISPUTATIO
“Trinity,” Thema: C/A, 15.4
Debated by Douglas Jones and Dr. Nick Gier
NG: Jones’ principal thesis is that monism (“all reality is one
substance”) is really bad, and that monistic philosophy has led
to the worship of power, mass conformity, the loss of humor
and irony, and the rape of women. With one fallacious brush,
Jones paints all of Asian thought and most of Western
philosophy as monistic and proposes that his Trinitarian
thinking somehow corrects all of these maladies. I demonstrate that most Asian thought is not monistic and that the
schools that are, Zen Buddhism and philosophical Daoism,
contain dramatic examples of nonconformism and a consummate sense of humor and irony. Furthermore, there are fully
personalized Trinitarian Godheads in Zoroastrianism,
Buddhism, Religious Daoism, and Hinduism that have
produced the qualities that Jones admires (including dancing),
but which are, ironically, mostly missing in the history of
Christianity.
John Calvin defines the Godhead as “one simple essence
comprehending three persons” and he defends a “unity of
[divine] substance” against the Arians. Although Jones
embraces Reformed theology, he appears to reject Calvin’s
formulation when he wrote that “there is no flat oneness that
could operate outside the communal aspect of the Trinity.”
Jones doesn’t realize that if divine unity is just the mere
togetherness of three divine persons, then the only logical
result would be a polytheistic tritheism.
Jones sometimes refers to the Greek orthodox tradition
for inspiration, and it is clear that his view of the Trinity is
more in line with this tradition. These theologians begin with
three divine persons whose unity is derived from their shared
divinity. While the Greek orthodox Trinity does a great job
of demonstrating the interrelation of the three persons, it does
not clearly support the substantial unity of God, the central
doctrine of Judeo-Christianity. When Jones recites the
Athanasian creed’s “the Godhead of the Father, of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit is all one,” he can affirm only the
divinity of each; he cannot claim a substantial divine unity of
them all. In this formulation “Godhead” can refer only to each
of the persons individually, not as three persons of the same
Godhead, as the Trinity is normally understood. Jones’
dramatic images of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit frolicking
together as children make for great religious literature, but it
is not Judeo-Christian monotheism. Augustine insisted that
the Trinity has “a single action and will,” so he would find
Jones’ language quite unusual, if not unorthodox.
DJ: I don’t know how Nick Gier generates his monism
summary from my essay because I make explicit reference to
28
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
multiple views, monistic and nonmonistic, such as those
privileging “an isolated Cartesian self or frozen Reason or an
Eastern One or even a vapid Jeffersonian god.”
Alongside this simple misreading, Nick Gier wants to
find a Trinitarian godhead in the religions he references, but
he seems to think the mere mention of threeness or personality makes a Trinity. None of the examples he cites qualifies as
a Trinity (and the same goes for the more specific examples
cited in his longer essay). Any counterexample needs to be a
fully personal three-in-one monotheism, not three gods
unified by impersonal forces or one personal god wearing the
masks of three gods or three disunified persons.
Perichoresis lies at the heart of the Trinity. That is not “mere
togetherness” of divine persons, a view he falsely suggests I
hold. He cites a line from me about “flat oneness,” apparently
from some private correspondence, not the essay itself. I do
defend that language, but it doesn’t exclude genuine oneness;
it rejects a mere impersonal unity in the Trinity. The Trinity
is a fully personal three-in-one, and I can recommend
standard Trinitarian sources for more on that point.
Since he somehow thinks I hold to a “mere togetherness”
view, he is forced to try to explain away my resting in
Athanasian Creed language about divine unity. Like Calvin
and Augustine and the East, I reject “mere togetherness,” and
he won’t find “mere togetheness” defended in my essay.
He tries to invoke the Eastern Orthodox view of the
Trinity but fundamentally mischaracterizes it, while ironically
suggesting that the East is marginal and unorthodox in this
discussion.
I’m glad to interact with Dr. Gier in this discussion about
the Trinity, but he has yet to deal with any major point in my
piece. Since, understandably, he is still trying to come to grasp
the historic Christian appreciation of the Trinity, he might
want to work through more discussions of that view before
declaiming about who is or is not orthodox.
NG: I’m disappointed in Jones’ response. His original
piece is primarily rhetorical, so I was hoping for some
theological, philosophical, and historical substance, similar to
what I’ve done on my website [www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/
trinity.htm]. Even though I have given specifics, references,
and graphics in this essay, Jones continues to misunderstand
the Asian Trinities. The religions of Krishna, Durga, and
Zoroaster represent fully personal three-in-one monotheism.
To charge that they are not true trinities begs the question of
what a theological trinity is. The New Testament is just as
vague about it as any Asian scripture; furthermore, after two
millennia Christians cannot agree on a proper trinitarian
formulation.
DISPUTATIO
Jones is correct that “perichoresis lies at the heart of the
Trinity,” just as it does for Shiva, Durga, or Krishna, who are
simultaneously Creator, Redeemer, and Destroyer. Jones’
language about three centers of consciousness playing with
one another, however, appears not to support perichoresis as the
total interpenetration of each aspect of the Trinity. In order
to guard against the tritheism with which Jones flirts, Karl
Barth speaks of “modes of existence” and not “persons” of
the Trinity. Jones’ three persons apparently act with separate
will and action, something Augustine insists, emphasizing
divine unity, that the Trinity cannot do.
Jones claims that I do not understand the Eastern
Orthodox Trinity, but I relied heavily on the two books that
he recommended. In my long essay I summarize the views of
Western and Eastern Christianity, and I believe that I
correctly locate Jones in the latter camp. I then show how the
Western view fails to make real threeness intelligible, and I
then give an argument about why divine unity can only be an
abstraction in the Eastern view. Jones owes us an answer to
my arguments.
Jones states that I have not dealt “with any major point”
of his essay, but let me summarize what I’ve actually done: (1)
I have demonstrated that the negative charges he lays against
monism and Unitarianism are false; (2) that acts of historical
Trinitarian believers, with their abuse of power, racism, and
intolerance, are the opposite of what Jones’ theory predicts;
and (3) that Jones has failed to give a formulation of the
Trinity that makes threeness intelligible within real divine
unity. The oneness of God is central to the Hebrew Bible and
the New Testament, and any doctrine of God that does not
embrace that unity cannot call itself Judeo-Christian.
DJ: Nick Gier chides me for being both clear and unclear
at the same time. He insists I misunderstand Asian trinities,
and yet, he says the Trinity is vague anyway. It’s not that
difficult. Every Sunday in every part of the globe one can hear
Christians, east and west, confessing aloud the historic creeds
of the church—Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian. We hear
remarkable agreement on the fundamentals while the church
continues to grow in her understanding of the depths of the
Trinity.
Those ancient definitions show us that, in the Trinity,
both oneness and threeness, unity and diversity, are equally
ultimate and thoroughly personal (not even allowing Krishna’s
“impersonal womb”). Look carefully at Nick Gier’s examples
in his longer essay. They never show us equally ultimate and
personal unity and diversity. Take just one example, the
Hindu “trinity,” where even cursory introductions to
Hinduism repeat that this trimurti means “having three
forms.” We hear that these three gods are “aspects” or
“phases” or “roles,” all “analogous to a person performing
different tasks.” “The plurality of Gods are perceived as
divine creations of that one Being.” The Christian church
rejected this Sabellianism or modalism over a thousand years
ago. Modalism denies that real difference lies at the heart of
God; it privileges the one over the many. That’s one reason
Asia is not the haven for women that Gier bizarrely suggests.
Most of Nick Gier’s objections are just impositions of his
own Enlightenment categories. His distinction between
rhetoric and substance, his evaluation of historical and biblical
evidence, his use of logic as if it were some neutral ahistorical
norm, and his most recent invocations of “intelligibility”
against the Trinity all set up his personal judgment as the
supreme court of the universe—a typical Enlightenment
prejudice. But that’s the issue in question. Question authority,
I say. Who made his historically-generated standards king?
Why should we all bow to Nick’s view of intelligibility?
Question imperialism, especially Enlightenment prejudices
imposed as neutral scholarship.
His comments about Barth, Augustine, and perichoresis are
all corrected in the very book he says he’s read. I don’t
understand why someone would insist on picking a fight on a
complex topic that he’s so new to. It’s embarrassing to see a
former president of the [Pacific Northwest] American
Academy of Religion unable to discern between Sabellianism
and the Trinity.
NG: I stand by my claim that all references to the Trinity
in the world scriptures, including the Bible, are vague. It took
nearly 400 years for Christian theologians to articulate clear
creedal formulations of the Trinity. No other religious
tradition did this with their divine triads, so it is patently
unfair for Jones to judge them according to Christian
standards. Besides, these formulations were expressed using
Greek terms that are found nowhere in the New Testament,
including a word for “trinity.” It is ironic that the religious
tradition with the weakest scriptural basis for the Trinity
made the most efforts to speculate about its deepest meanings.
Irenaeus, the father of Christian orthodoxy, held the
“heretical” view of progressive self-disclosure of the three
persons of the Trinity. At the close of the second century
Irenaeus admitted that a majority of Christians he knew
followed the Gnostic Valentinus. Twenty years later
Tertullian reluctantly admitted that a majority of Christians in
his area were modalists, the view I believe is the only way to
preserve divine unity. Jones flatters me when he charges that
the law of contradiction is my own invention, and this debate
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
29
DISPUTATIO
would not be possible if Jones and I did not obey basic rules of
thinking. John Thompson, an author that Jones recommends,
knows very well the distinction between substance and
rhetoric, and he admits to his readers when a formulation is
intelligible or not. As a constructive postmodernist, I have just
as many problems with the Enlightenment as Jones does, but
that does not mean that we throw out rules of evidence and
canons of reasoning just because some eighteenth century
thinkers pushed reason too far.
Finally, Jones claims superior theological knowledge, but
all that he can do is repeat the creeds and express only a
shallow understanding of a very complex doctrine. He still
has not answered the argument that I present against the
Eastern formulation. One would expect much more from a
Senior Fellow in Philosophy.
DJ: At last, progress. In my former response, I pointed
out that Nick Gier’s examples of “wondrous trinities”
everywhere are actually modalistic, not Trinitarian at all. His
latest response finally concedes that modalism is the “only
way,” an admission that reveals his main line of argument has
been quite irrelevant from the start. Triads are not trinities.
Modalism privileges unity and makes genuine difference
unreal. That was a key point in my original essay. Positing
unity as ultimate denigrates particularity, and that often
expresses itself in a love of power. We even see this in Gier’s
own power plays in this discussion. He keeps assuming his
Enlightenment standards of “intelligibility” are universal,
neutral, and open, when in fact they close the door on the
Trinity before the discussion gets started. This is begging the
question on a grand scale—Gier’s habitual fallacy. He begs
the question in his argument “against the Eastern formulation,” and he does so in almost every published criticism he’s
ever raised against Christian reality. I often use examples from
his writings in lectures on question-begging and the naiveté of
the Enlightenment. So come on, Nick. I’ll believe you’re an
interesting critic of the Christian gospel when you can show us
you’re able to step out from behind your ideological mask, just
for the sake of discussion—when you can step out of the
Enlightenment and just explain from a different viewpoint
why your criticisms so regularly assume what you need to
prove. I’m not asking you to believe another perspective, just
to understand why they could legitimately appear so naive to a
perspective outside your own.
30
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
Baying
A pack of purple irises
is eyeing me through the window.
No collars. They are feral, strays
come into my yard to taunt me
with long necks and basset hound heads.
Arrogant canines.
Floppy-eared flora.
Begone from me dogs,
Jezebel’s vista.
But they do not flinch.
I will bend these unpelted necks
when the lawn mower sputters wrath.
Royal ears, caesar dogs, will be
blade-flung throughout my yard-kingdom
as a warning to the simple.
Nathan Wilson
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
31
MEANDER
Clam Jamfry
Douglas Wilson
Christ the Healer: As we make applications of biblical
principles, one of the primary places we should make
application is in the realm of health. In Scripture, the word for
savior and healer are the same word. A central part of Christ’s
ministry was that of healing, and to this day concerns about
health are the most natural subjects of prayer. By His stripes
we are healed, and this is not just a verse for our charismatic
brethren. When we are sick, or ailing, or dying, it is not only
very natural to cry out to God for deliverance (salvation and
healing), but it is also scriptural. It is a false spirituality that
consigns the task of forgiving sins to Jesus and the task of
healing our bodies to the AMA, the chiropractor, or any other
volunteers. The gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection
occurred so that everything that is crooked might be made
straight. This will be finally complete in the resurrection, but
the Bible is plain that the consequences of sin (including
disease) will be ameliorated through the gospel’s progress.
But as we undertake to understand what this means, we
have to think like adults, and not like children. The fallen state
of man does not just cause us to have problems like sickness
and disease. It also causes us to be confronted by a pandemonium of suggested treatments and remedies, many of them
fundamentally contradictory. Now what? We know that the
progress of the gospel, and the gospel’s influence, is gradual,
and so we ought not to expect any instantaneous fixes. But at
the same time, we should expect real progress through
history, along with the means to measure whether or not we
are making actual progress.
Sun Dogs: Driving north through brittle air, bright sun
behind us. Snow on the ground, as cold as it gets here. Crystal
motes float everywhere, an infinite number suspended, cold
children of Abraham.
Behind my wife and me, and rising straight up, ascending
to glory, a straight rainbow, a rainbow unbowed—a rainbow
unbent, and three times too thick. A bow unstrung in heaven’s
armory, propped in a celestial corner. Awaiting a battle, who
knows what battle? No adequate words. No idea what to call
it, no description that fits. No poem to describe it. Monumental and momentary glory, just south of Spokane, a place
with zip codes. As though the equivalent of the Grand Canyon
just appeared in the sky for just a few moments. No time for a
tourist industry to develop. No postcards.
Driving north with my father, a year or so later, we came
near that spot in the road. I try to describe it, no name
describes it. “Oh, sun dogs,” he said. That’s what his father
called them, long ago back in flatland Nebraska, with one on
32
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
each side of the sun.
Me and St. Peter: “There follows from this a vital and
liberating point, which I first met in the works of the great
Anglican divine Richard Hooker, and for which I shall always
be grateful. One is not justified by faith by believing in justification by
faith. One is justified by faith by believing in Jesus” (N.T.
Wright, What St. Paul Really Said, p. 159). This is a glorious
point, really, and is one of the reasons why those who differ
with Wright on other important points should still be able to
read him with profit. This is a point, incidentally, where
Wright understands the gospel far better than Robbins does.
Mr. Robbins is on my mind because I just finished
reading “A Guide for the Perplexed” by him, in which he
essays to provide a set of directions for people wanting to sort
through the Federal Vision stuff. Robbins can crank out
articles like this because he only deals with propositions, and
the ninth commandment, being an imperative, is not a
proposition. No sense carrying around all that heavy stuff that
slows you down in making your connections.
A statement from Wright like the above will be met with
howls of protest. And because I quoted it approvingly, it will
no doubt be said that I think that belief in justification by faith
alone is “not important” and so on. But of course belief in
justification by faith alone is crucial, and anyone who cannot
clearly define it, articulate it, and defend it from Scripture
ought not to be ordained. But if anyone says that defining it,
articulating it, and defending it is essential to salvation, he has
in effect denied the doctrine itself in the name of defending it.
What score must you get on the theology quiz, justification
section, before the pearly gates swing open? And who grades
the quizzes anyway?
St. Peter: “Halt! Who goes there?”
Me: “Me!”
St. Peter: “Why should I let you into this place?”
Me: “Because my answer to the next question will be
perfect!”
St. Peter: “Okay. Why should I let you into this place?”
Me: “Because I unequivocally affirm sola fide!”
St. Peter: “Sorry. I don’t know Latin.”
Me: “Huh. I would have thought . . . Because I unequivocally affirm faith alone!”
St. Peter: “Wrong.”
Me: “What do you mean wrong? I was told that was the
stinking password. Did you change the codes on me?”
St. Peter (rolling his eyes): “There have been a lot of you
guys recently. Well, here is the good news, at least as far as
you are concerned. I am letting you in because your answers
were wrong.” And the gates opened. I didn’t even push.
POOH’S THINK
YHWH is a Pastor, Pt. 4
Michael Metzler
YHWH was a pastor and not a theologian. This is revealed
throughout Scripture, including what we have seen in the
Genesis covenants. Berith (‘covenant’) was a word that came
down from heaven to comfort and cheer those men whom the
Lord had already loved, those who were already righteous in
His eyes (e.g., Noah and Abraham). As for the wrath and
destruction we fear, berith means ‘know that I will never do it
again’ (Gen. 9). As for what glorious things the Lord has in
store for His saints and even the world, berith means ‘know
that I will certainly do it’ (Gen. 15). To follow Paul’s line of
argument further, the covenant was established, cut, and given
in order to assure those who would receive His blessing and
confirm His wonderful promises before circumcision and the
law. Berith was a sweet word that had little extended theological meaning for Noah and Abraham outside of restful trust in
their God—and a better night’s sleep.
However, after three hundred years of system, theological words, and academics, berith (‘covenant’) has no such use
for God’s people. When our theologians speak of ‘covenant’
they do not mean a Genesis theological berith. Nor do they
mean the sort of anthropological ‘covenant’ cut in the days of
Abraham. Nor do they mean the poetically expanded and
altered covenant of Sinai, or even the further expanded
covenant of David’s songs. Nor do they mean the ‘covenant’
that is new and now fully revealed in Jesus. Rather, when our
theologians speak of ‘covenant,’ they are speaking of covenant-in-general, a theological technical term; they are
speaking of system, something less real, more timeless (dare I
say rarified) than the biblical berith. In deference to this
theological tradition, I will respectfully call this sort of
covenant ‘Covenant’ with a capital ‘C.’ ‘Covenant’ is commonly used to refer to the entirety of God’s relationship to
creation, Adam, Noah, and Abraham. Theology of ‘Covenant’
can be summed up well with Robert Rollock’s observation
that “God does not communicate to man unless it be through a
covenant.”1
Some contemporary theologians have gone further by
maintaining that ‘Covenant’ just is the gracious relationship
between God and man. More intimate terms to describe the
Lord’s relationship with his people, such as adoption,
indwelling, union, and sexual love are now thought to be
inherently ‘covenantal,’ and impossible to truly understand
outside of ‘Covenant’ reality. In fact, the nature of the Trinity
itself is now referred to by some as the ‘Eternal Covenant.’
Whatever the virtues may be of this traditional understanding of ‘Covenant’ and the recent attempts at expanding
its range of meaning, it is clear that all this is something
different from the word berith we find in Genesis. In fact, what
the author is doing with berith in Genesis is so different from
what our theologians do with the word ‘Covenant,’ that if we
are to understand berith at all or move on in our understanding
of ‘Covenant,’ we must make a strong distinction between the
two words. But because ‘Covenant’ is generally taken to be the
theological implication from the berith of Scripture, or perhaps
even taken to be identical with the berith of Scripture, we
should expect some resistance to this sort of analysis. Yet,
because this distinction is so needful, and the sort of errors
this distinction implicitly rejects are so exegetically poisoning,
we cannot let this unhappy thought deter us from our chosen
exegetical course. I will therefore propose four considerations—or perhaps we could call them arguments—that will
help clarify and defend the stark difference between a
theological ‘Covenant,’ and a biblical berith (for now, only the
Genesis berith).
1. Berith is absent before Noah. ‘Covenant’ is understood as permeating the creation account and God’s relationship with Adam, but berith is nowhere to be found until Gen. 6.
There is no berith spoken of until the time of Noah. O. Palmer
Robertson, in The Christ of the Covenants, vigorously defends the
reality of the ‘covenant of creation’ and does not suggest any
distinction between berith and ‘Covenant.’ However, he admits
the importance of the omission of berith in the first five
chapters, which he says “should be given its full weight of
significance.”2
But why does the absence of berith carry so much weight?
The answer to this is found primarily in the compacted nature
of the Genesis text from Genesis 1 to 9. This is a highly edited
theological work and is poetically dense, meaning that the
words, phrases, and repetitions are crafted with great care. If
berith is a perfect word to refer to the act of God’s creating, the
essence of his relationship to Adam, and the ground for the
Fall, then we would surely expect to find the word in the
creation account since the Lord and the author of this text
chose this word as the theological center-piece of the Lord’s
dealing with Noah. Berith is so unique and robust in meaning
in chapter 6 and 9, some sort of poetic incoherence or
deficiency would be implied on the part of the author if it just
as accurately applied to the original creation account. The clear
parallelism noted by commentators between the creation
account and the ordering of the new world of Noah, carefully
crafted by the author, highlights this point remarkably. Berith is
one of the few dissimilarities between the beginning of the world
of Adam and the world of Noah.
2. Berith supplements relationship. As already noted,
‘Covenant’ is either an essential element of God’s relationship
to man or is identical to it. However, berith comes late, if not at
“Things to be done” Volume 17/2
33
POOH’S THINK
the end of the relevant Genesis story. This was one of the few
clear aspects of berith that we have already noted in our sweep
through Genesis (part 3). So berith is not an essential element
of a relationship, and it is certainly not equivalent to a
relationship; rather, berith comes at the end (or at the very
least, the middle) of a special redemptive relationship. In the
same way, it is not a surprise to find a Genesis marriage-berith
come after and additionally to a pre-existing marriage
relationship: Jacob had already been with his two wives for
many years and had children before it became necessary to
add a literal berith between him and his father-in-law Laban.
3. Berith exhibits poetic variation: ‘Covenant’ is the sort
of thing that is grasped by way of singular and unchanging
definition. We speak generally of the nature of ‘a covenant,’ or
we direct our attention to the unifying thread of ‘the covenant.’ We have gone so far as to speak of the monolithic
covenant idea as the best way to understand ‘Covenant.’ But berith
does not permit of this sort of abstracting and definition. As
most commentators understand it, berith is clearly a natural
word that is taken up from the semantic soil of our ancient
fathers and employed poetically by the Lord; this is done to
contrast His lips from the lips of deceitful, untrustworthy
men, and thus to assure frail and distrusting men. In the case
of Noah, the literal man-to-man karat (cutting) is cleaned up
in the process, coming back in full force in the time of
Abraham, but in two different ways (the bloody ceremony of
chapter 15 and the bloody sign of chapter 17).
The rich variation in which berith is theologically used,
which contrasts to the fairly simple and monolithic meaning of
the literal man-to-man beriths in Genesis, gives full evidence to
the poetic nature of the theological beriths. In chapter 9 there is
no karat, no blood, no ceremony, but there is a sign. In chapter
15 we see karat, a ceremony, blood, and yet no sign, and the
covenant cut with Abraham was in response to Abraham’s
explicit request (“How may I know?”). With Noah, however,
berith was initiated only by the Lord. There is very little
connection between the berith cut in chapter 15 with the berith
of the Lord that was given to Abraham in chapter 17, outside
the common promises that were confirmed. A word that
means anything at all, when employed with such variation,
must be grounded in another more natural and literal usage;
hence, berith is necessarily used poetically, but ‘Covenant’ is
not.
4. Berith is repugnant to the ‘garden’: ‘Covenant’ is a
defining element of life in the garden before the fall. But the
nature of the creation account is repugnant to the reality of
berith. If the tree of life was a sign, it was not a promissory sign,
although perhaps sacramental. The language of chapter 16
suggests a parallel with the narrative of the fall. Sarai believes
34
“Things to be believed” Volume 17/2
that the Lord had withheld from her the child that was
rightfully hers and commands her husband to take her maid,
and her husband obeys without resistance: here, take, and go
into her. Eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and
Evil was sacramental adultery. And the Father warned his son
Adam about the ways of the garden just as Solomon warned
his son: take the harlot upon your lap and you shall surely die.
So here then is a story not found in our systematics: It
was not until madness brought forth her rot in the garden that
the marriage between soil, man, and Spirit was ripped apart.
Death, shame, and toil haunted man; the marriage bed filled
with adulteries, vain gardens were erected with only memories
of the luscious fruit and the fellowship of the Lord, and the
blood of violence filled hillside and adorned the hearth. Trust,
fidelity, and safety were rare pearls in an ocean of strife.
Ritual and blood were necessary to believe a simple yes or no.
Karat berith (cut covenant), which is paradigmatic of what we
know of covenants between fallen men, implies mutilation and
bloodshed. In place of a yes or no, men were forced to
promise, but any believable promise soon needed further
ceremony and oath, violent ceremony and swearing oath. If a
ceremony and oath proved true for one generation, it would
be forgotten in the next: “with my offspring, or with my
posterity” (Gen. 21:23). The general idea is this for fallen
man: “No, it is true, I speak the truth, may I be butchered, my
wife raped, my sons turned to beasts, and my gerbil hung by
its own intestines if I actually don’t let your sheep drink from
my well; and this goes for your sheep’s sheep too, I tell you.”
Berith motivation comes after the Fall, and as a good pastor,
the Lord uses it to confirm His promises and comfort His
people.