Having Two Legs

Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem writes in his Catechetical Lectures: "For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute creedence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (IV:17)

Notice that Cyril does not appeal to his authority as a bishop but rather insists that all Christians must search the Divine Scriptures for themselves. They cannot take his word for it unless they have demonstration from the Holy Scriptures. Salvation and those things necessary for it do not depend upon "ingenious reasoning." The Scriptures are clear and sufficient to serve as the ultimate, infallible authority for matters of faith and piety.

Read More...

Summary only...

Cyprian (c. 200-258) carried on a controversy with Stephen, the bishop of Rome, over how lapsed (but penitent) Christians were to be viewed and received by the Church. Their arguments deal with the basis for their stance, and Cyprian describes the stance of Stephen as the following: "Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down." But Cyprian asks, "Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written down must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: 'The book of this law shall not dpart out of they mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.'" (Epistle 73:2)

During this same controversy, Firmilian, the Bishop of Caeserea wrote to Cyprian and explained his view that "they who are in Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles." Here we see that it certainly was not the universal understanding that the bishop of Rome had some sort of special dispensation from Christ or Peter. Firmilian actually goes on to explain that Stephen the bishop of Rome is guilty of heresy and dividing the unity of the Church.

Again, my primary point being that clearly the early church fathers believed that the written Scriptures ("book of the law") was the authoritative source of the teachings of Christ and the apostles.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hippolytus (c. 170-236): "There is, brethren, on God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source."

Read More...

Summary only...

This is an invitation to more dialogue on this subject. Last time I brought this up, there were concerns that I was overstating my case.

As far as I can tell the "biblical case" for talking to the dead in Christ is based upon the teaching of Hebrews which clearly tells us that we are surrounded by the great cloud of witnesses. And a verse in Revelation presents the saints in heaven offering bowls of incense before the lamb on the throne, and those bowls of incense are the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8). My question is, "Am I missing anything?" Those Scriptures do not tell us to talk to the saints in heaven, and they do not tell us that they can hear us. Nor do they imply this. And part of our interpretation of these passages needs to include the rest of the apostolic traditions in Scripture.

Paul in particular has numerous occasions where he might make mention of such a reality. He is constantly writing to churches while he is in prison, awaiting trial, and having to deal with the reality of persecution, death of saints, and the doctrine of the resurrection. Why does Paul never make mention of this? And in fact, why does he seem to present things in a way that actually pushes against any notion of prayer to the saints?

Examples:

In Philippians Paul is struggling with whether or not it would be better to live or die. He of course says plainly that to die is gain since that would mean he would be with Christ (1:21-23). But he says that for him to remain in the flesh is better for the Philippians. Staying alive a little while longer, staying in the flesh, means Paul gets to "remain and continue" with them for their progress and joy of faith. But by the logic of prayers to the saints, Paul has it backwards. It would be better for Paul to die and go to heaven so that his prayers might be more effective for the Philippians. The arguments defending invocation of the saints insist that those who have died and gone to be with the Lord are more sanctified and in closer union to the Trinity and therefore their intercessions are that much more potent. But Paul says just the opposite. He says that staying in the flesh is more needful and more useful for the Philippians. Dying does not mean that he will go on to heaven and carry on a more effective ministry on their behalf. Neither does dying mean that Paul will "remain and continue" with them, only via the Holy Spirit. Paul assumes that his death will be a departure from the Philippians and that his ministry to them and for them will change significantly. Do not misunderstand me, Paul is carrying on worship and prayer before the lamb even now, but Paul knows nothing of the doctrine of the invocation of the dead.

Another example is 1 Thessalonians 4. Paul wants the Thessalonians not to be "ignorant" concerning those who have fallen asleep, and he wants to give comfort to those who are alive (1 Th. 4:13-18). First, here's a perfect opportunity for Paul to explain how those who have died in Christ actually can hear us when we talk to them. Here's a perfect opportunity to dispel our ignorance regarding those who have fallen asleep in death. But the comfort that Paul brings is the comfort of the resurrection, the comfort of the promise of Christ's appearing. The doctrine of the invocation of the saints is not the comfort Paul offers. Talking to the dead, far from being an affirmation of the doctrine of the resurrection, actually seems to be at odds with it. We are not gnostics, and therefore the victory of the resurrection of Jesus has only begun to burst out into this world. But the fullness of that victory will occur when I get my body back from the grave. When the worms and maggots are deprived of their gluttonous feasting, then we shall be reunited to speak to one another again. Prior to the resurrection, death is swallowed up in victory because Jesus is risen and he is busy driving death and evil out of this world, but talking to dead people is some form of hyper-preterism. Why do we need the resurrection if death is already done away with? The sting of death is gone; sin does not plague believers and therefore we can die and rest in peace in Christ. But death is still a reality; death does separate us from direct contact with those we love. Lastly, on this Thessalonians passage, Paul uses the description of the dead as being "asleep." I fully grant that this is metaphorical language, and I am not a proponent of the doctrine of "soul sleep." At the same time, the metaphor means something. And if Paul is trying to dispel our ignorance regarding those who have died in Christ, he is in no way suggesting that we ought to pray to them, ask them to pray for us, or in any way try to communicate with them. We don't talk to people when they're taking a nap or in the middle of the night when they're sleeping. The metaphor doesn't invite us to think that we ought to be talking with them. Rather, it invites us to think that we must wait for them to "wake up" at the resurrection.

Ok. Please hear me carefully. I'm throwing these passages out for discussion. I invite honest interaction here. I know I may sound polemic at points, but my point is not to offend anyone or suggest that people who don't agree with me are fools. My point is simply to restate what I've said before. We cannot invoke the saints in faith because God has not invited us to do so in His Word. At best, we are ignorant of how we commune with the departed saints. The biblical writers have countless opportunities to clarify, and they do not ever suggest that we can keep talking to them and they hear us after they have died. They are with Christ, they are worshipping the lamb on the throne, death is swallowed up in victory and we do not mourn like unbelievers, and yes their lives and legacies surround us as a great cloud of witnesses. And yes, in the Holy Spirit we are united together, and all of our lives are hid with God in Christ. Yes, and Amen. But to extrapolate beyond that, that we can and ought to talk to departed saints is to speculate beyond the Word of God.

And if God has not spoken, then we cannot act in faith.

Read More...

Summary only...

Part of Ezekiel's prophetic mission is a theatrical calling. Ezekiel is commissioned by God to create a rendering of Jerusalem on a clay tablet and then lay siege to the clay tablet. This siege includes a siege wall, a mound, camps, and battering rams (4:2). In addition, Ezekiel must "set his face against" the city, and he is to use an iron plate as a symbol of this. Of course his siege is enacted over the course of a year and a half, laying on his side in front of this model of Jerusalem (4:5-6).

During this siege, Ezekiel is given specific instructions regarding his diet. He may only drink water by certain measures (4:11), and a certain amount of bread. And this bread must be prepared over a fire fueled by human feces. After all that God has required, Ezekiel finally objects to these particular instructions insisting that this last dramatic enactment of the folly of Israel goes too far. It would actually require him to defile himself. "Ah, Lord Yahweh, Indeed I have never defiled myself from my youth till now; I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has abominable flesh ever come into my mouth" (4:14). And God relents and allows Ezekiel to cook over a fire fueled by cow dung instead.

Ezekiel's objection to God runs parallel to Peter's objection to the invitation to kill and eat on the balcony in Joppa (Acts 10:9-16). Similarly, Peter objects on the grounds that he has never defiled himself before. His specific objection is that he has never eaten anything common or unclean (Acts 10:14). Both stories have to do with the Gentiles. Peter is being prepared to preach the gospel and baptize the gentile Cornelius; Ezekiel is picturing how God will drive his people out of Israel into the lands of the Gentiles and eat defiled bread with them (4:13). Arguably the story of Acts is the record of the Spirit driving Christians out of Jerusalem into Gentile territories in order that the gospel might go out to the ends of the earth. But of course there are important contrasts: one situation is clearly a curse while the other is the beginning of blessing.

A couple other thoughts and a question: This scenario raises questions about morality and the arts. Ezekiel seems to object to God's instructions here based on the assumption that actually performing the theatrical act will itself constitute defilement even though it serves a higher prophetic purpose. But wound into this situation is the factor that God is the one commanding Ezekiel to do it.

So is Ezekiel right?

Read More...

Summary only...

Josh says in the comments that he was taught to ask the questions "Says who?" and "On what authority?" And it is those questions that has led him to question the reliability of some protestant doctrinal stances (Josh, correct me if I'm misrepresenting you).

Of course this goes to the heart of one of the central points of difference between Protestants and Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Protestants say that Scripture is the only ultimate, infallible authority, Orthodox point to Tradition/the Church as the ultimate authority, and Roman Catholics have the Pope. Orthodox and Roman Catholics object to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura on the grounds that this introduces anarchy into the Church. Instead of one Pope, we now have millions. And granted, there are plenty of anabaptists still carrying on like they are in fact descended from St. Peter, and some of them call themselves "presbyterian" or "reformed."

But the Magisterial Reformers have always been at war with such unbridled autonomy. At the same time, they also insisted that the Church could submit to the Scriptures as ultimate without resulting in relativistic splintering. They said that the Scriptures could be (and are) ultimate, and what they authoritatively say is not a secret so deep we need bishops to decipher the code nor is it so mysterious that disagreement between interpreters means it is insufficient. Of course all branches of Christendom hold the Scriptures in high regard, please don't misunderstand me. The question that we keep bumping into is whose interpretation is correct? And how do you know?

But one of the fundamental problems with asking the question this way is that it already assumes that Scripture isn't clear. Is the Word of God unclear? Or do reckless men twist the Scriptures to their own destruction? Yes, I know that there are some things that are hard to understand, but it is our problem, not God's, right?

And the comeback I anticipate is: Well, why do we have denominations and sects breeding like maggots in a trash can? How come every time you blink there's a new group of people and churches forming a new association and excommunicating the rest of Christendom? But my point is that in so far as these are acts of schism, bitterness, envy, and arrogance, they are acts of sin. And anyone who's been around the block in Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism knows that those sins are not absent there either. Unity on paper is not closer to real unity of purpose, unity of mind, communion of the saints, etc. And often this counterfeit unity passes for the real deal. We have apostolic succession, they solemnly insist, and meanwhile various branches of the church transfer their allegiance to a different archbishop, a different metropolitan, and they can call it "autocephalous" or "transferring jurisdictions" and claim they cannot be accused of being protestant schismatics. Come on, people. Just because Protestants tend to do their laundry out in public for everyone to see doesn't mean our Roman and Eastern brothers aren't busy bickering and dividing over their issues.

And the point: the sin of schism does not prove that Scripture is any less clear or any less sufficient for our needs. It does not prove that we need a class of gypsy priests to interpret the Scriptures like so many tea leaves for the ignorant masses. In fact, if anything, it proves our need for God's Word, and our insufficiency as sinful humans.

Read More...

Summary only...

Introduction
Today we consider the call to love the other people in our homes and families by considering a few more portions of our liturgy. The logic of the gospel is that we have been made alive together with these other saints, and we continue to live out an ecclesiology in our homes whether we realize it or not. Today, we think particularly about how God grows up and teaches us as his children in a context of mercy.

Lord Have Mercy
Since the early church, Christians have begun worship with the prayer, “Lord have mercy.” This is one of the common ways we see people addressing Jesus in the gospels (Mt. 15:22, 17:15, 20:30, Mk. 10:47, Lk. 17:13), and it comes with rich covenantal overtones in the Old Testament (e.g. Ps. 136, cf. Dt. 7:9, 12, 1 Kgs. 8:23, Neh. 1:5, Ps. 89:28). And the birth of Christ is the fulfillment of that covenant and mercy (Lk. 1:50, 54, 58, 72, 78). The Kyrie is a plea for God’s covenant promises in all of life for the whole world in Jesus. And as soon as we begin talking about covenant, we’re talking about generations, and that means children. We come as suppliants, inferiors, servants before a master, subjects before a king, as children before the Father. And this raises the question, how does our Father respond?

Jubilee is a Person (Lk. 7:18-29)
This mercy is not merely forgiveness, but comes in the form of sitting at the feet of Christ, listening to his teaching and instruction and finally being invited to eat with him. This pattern is played out vividly in the gospel. John has sent messengers to inquire if Jesus is the “Coming One,” and Jesus responds by describing his ministry (7:18-23). This description is in part a reference to Is. 61:1 which was the passage that Jesus began his ministry with in Luke (Lk. 4:16-21). Jesus has said that his ministry is to proclaim the “acceptable year of the Lord.” This word for “liberty” is only use a few other places, one of which is Lev. 25:10, describing the year of Jubilee, the year of forgiveness of debts, the return of land and inheritance (cf. Is. 61:2, 49:8). Jesus reflects on the ministry of John, and even tax collectors justify God (7:24-29).

Wisdom is a Forgiven Sinner (Lk. 7:30-50)
Because the Spirit of the Lord is upon Jesus, we should expect him to be filled with wisdom (e.g. Ex. 31:2-3, 28:3, Is. 11:2, Acts 6:3). And therefore, Jesus responding to the rejection of the Pharisees and lawyers (7:30), says that this generation is like foolish children who are amazed when the world doesn’t conform to their whims (7:31-32). Neither Jesus nor John the Baptist conformed to their preconceived notions (7:33-34), but Jesus says that wisdom is a woman whose children justify her (cf. 7:29). This flows right into the story of Jesus eating in a Pharisee’s house (7:36), and the implication is that the woman is an example of this wisdom. Notice that Jesus has just described his ministry as characterized by eating with sinners, and the very next episode is Jesus eating with a Pharisee and woman shows up who is a “sinner” (7:37, 39). The woman’s actions are lavish, overdone (even grotesque perhaps to us), but they are acts of hospitality and love (Lk. 7:44-47). While there is perhaps room for nuance, the parable suggests that these great acts of love are a response to a great act of forgiveness (7:41-42, 47). The word for “forgave” means to release, to free, to bestow liberty (e.g. Acts 3:14, 25:11, 16, Phm. 1:22), and of course it also frequently refers to how God has dealt with us in Christ (Rom. 8:32, Eph. 4:32). And as this story teaches us, forgiveness forgets debts. If this story is a picture of the liturgy, following the pattern of our worship, then Christ’s teaching and instruction comes in the context of mercy and forgiveness at a meal. The love of the sinful woman is evoked by the embodiment of Jubilee in the person of Jesus. Jesus is the return of the inheritance, Jesus is our return home, Jesus is our invitation to begin again.

Conclusions & Applications
As we consider the pattern of our worship as a blueprint for treatment of other people, and particularly those other people in our own home, it should be noted that the entire liturgy works as a good outline for disciplining our children in general.

Jesus eats with sinners; Jesus is a friend of sinners. And this means that we are called to imitate this in our homes cheerfully. The sinners that come to your table need to be invited in the spirit of Jubilee: Welcome home.

Bestowing forgiveness is an act of nobility and royalty. God wants us to live lavishly, with forgiveness to spare at every point (Mt. 18:22). We have endless supplies of grace, treasuries of mercy untold. We are rich because God is (Eph. 2:4). Fathers, you are called to this in particular.

We want our homes to be rich with mercy and grace. This is not to downplay the need for discipline, it is to insist that it be surrounded with mercy and forgiveness. He who is forgiven much will love much, and we are required to believe this and live it even when it doesn’t look like it’s “working.” Grace works.

We are called to live as embodiments of Jubilee, and Jesus says that there are particular rewards for those who bestow mercy upon the youngest and most insignificant disciples (Mt. 10:42). This is wisdom.

In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen!

Read More...

Summary only...

Tertullian (c. 155-220): Arguing with Hermogenes' teaching that matter is eternal, "But whether all things were made out of any underlying matter, I have yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes' shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or take away from the written word." Tertullian "condemns as madness" the notion that there was some kind of secret unwritten tradition of the Apostles. This was the doctrine of the Gnostics who believed that there was "secret knowledge" known and revealed only to a select few.

Iranaeus (c. 130-200) in his Against Heresies argues that the Scriptures where the safeguarding of the traditions of the apostles. According to Iranaeus, there are no unwritten traditions of the Apostles. Scripture is the authoritative record of the doctrines, teachings, and practices of the Apostles (cf. Against Heresies, III.1,1.)

These fathers did indeed teach that the Scriptures were to be understood and read in accordance with the regula fidei (the rule of faith) which was itself the received summary of what the Scriptures teach. But the apostolic tradition and the regula fidei both had their source in the Scriptures themselves.

The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 22-26)

Read More...

Summary only...

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215): "But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." (Stromata, Bk. VII, ch. 16)

By the way, Matheson notes in a footnote that Clement declares the legend of Mary's perpetual virginity as false, despite the claims of some that this was a universally accepted belief.

(The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 24)

Read More...

Summary only...

Frankenstein opens as a series of letters from Robert Walton to his sister, Margaret Saville. Walton has determined to find a sailing passage through the north pole, and the letters detail his travels to St. Petersburg, Russia, and then on to the coast before finding a boat and a crew. The story begins on a note of impossibility and doom. Even as the sailors set out in clear water, it's autumn, and Walton notes that winter is coming on; he doesn't know if he'll be able to find a clear passage through the north pole. This sets up the setting for the whole story: a mission of doom, striving against nature, trying to accomplish the impossible. The story begins in autumn; it begins just as everything is about to freeze, as everything is about to die.

Read More...

Summary only...

Mary Shelley (1797 - 1851) lived what appears to been be a fairly horrific life. She easily stands as a sort of icon for the romantic, feminist, intellectual and bohemian lifestyle. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, famed early feminist, died giving birth to her, her father, William Godwin, was a philosopher (enough said), her step-mother openly hated her, her step-sister was suicidal and eventually succeeded in the deed, and at the age of 19, Shelley tried to escape her familial hell by eloping with the soon-to-be literary genius of the English speaking world, (and already married) Percy Bysshe Shelly. The two of them and a sister left for the continent for a year of travels and returned with Mary pregnant with their first child that would die in infancy. Of their four children, only one survived, and Percy Shelley drowned only a few years later in a boating accident at the age of 30.

Speaking of her book Frankenstein, she writes in her Author's Introduction: "And now, once again, I bid my hideous progeny go forth and prosper. I have an affection for it, for it was the offspring of happy days, when death and grief were but words which found no true echo in my heart. Its several pages speak of many a walk, many a drive, and many a a conversation, when I was not alone; and my companion was one who, in this world, I shall never see more. But this is for myself; my readers have nothing to do with these associations." (Frankenstein, Puffin Classics, 7-8)

Read More...

Summary only...

"In present day usage the term commonly denotes unwritten doctrines handed down orally in the Church. It is therefore often contrasted with Scriptures. However, a remarkable scholarly consensus shows that in the early church, Scripture and Tradition were in no way exclusive concepts because they coincided with each other completely.

...

The concept of "tradition" when used by these [apostolic] fathers, is simply used to designate the body of doctrine which was committed to the Church by the Lord and His Apostles, whether through verbal or written communication. The body of doctrine, however, was essentially identical regardless of how it was communicated. No evidence suggests that the apostolic fathers believed they had recourse to any type of secret oral traditions. At this point in the Church's history, Scripture and the Christian tradition were coinherent concepts..."

(The Shape of Sola Scriptura, by Mathison, 19, 21)

Read More...

Summary only...

Gregory the Great (Pope?) writes: "Ego autem fidenter dico, quia quisquis se universalem Sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sue Antichristum praecurrit, quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit. Nec dispari superbia ad errorem ducitur, quia sicut perversus ille Deus videri vult super omnes homines; ita quisquis iste est, qui solus Sacerdos appelari appetit, super reliquos Sacerdotes se extollit."

Which roughly translates: "Therefore I fully affirm that whoever calls himself the universal Priest, or wants to be called that elevates himself to Antichrist, because he vaunts himself over all the others. Not only does this extreme arrogance lead to error, it's also perverse since this person wants to be seen as God over all people; thus whoever he is, who wants to be called the Priest alone, he exalts himself over all the other priests." (Cited in Principle of Protestantism, 169 -- Feel free to correct my translation if it needs it.)

One postscript to this quotation: This is an example of the medieval and patristic pedigree of Protestantism. It wasn't like Luther and Calvin came along and decided they really didn't like the Pope, flipped through their Bibles till they came to a bad name to call him, and them slapped "Antichrist" on the Papal See. They were in good catholic company calling the office of the "universal bishop of the Church" Antichrist. It was at least part of the teaching of the fathers.

Read More...

Summary only...

From Doug Jones' Forward to Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison:

"C.S. Lewis once quipped that the more medieval he became in his outlook, the farther from Roman Catholicism he seemed to grow. The history of the doctrine of sola Scriptura tends to produce the same effect in many of us. Once one gets beyond the superficial, individualistic, confused accounts of this doctrine presented in contemporary Evangelicalism, this teaching becomes very natural, organic, medieval, and apostolic.

In contrast, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox accounts fall out of rather perfectionistic and rationalistic commitments that are alien to the earthiness of biblical reality. Submitting to an infallible magisterium requires relatively little faith; everything is, in principle, neat and clean, like a doctor's office or a robot husband. A perfect husband would make for a very easy marriage; faith wouldn't be hard at all... Submission takes on much more fascinating dimensions when marriage involves sinners...

In this light, the various widely publicized departures of many Evangelicals to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have the distinct aroma of youthful haste and short-term zeal. The Sanhedrin was far better organized than the fishermen, and it had a grand liturgy, an authoritative line of oral tradition, and a succession of leaders. In a healthy church, those forms are good and holy. But to have turned to the Sanhedrin at that time would have been to embrace apostasy. Truth, beauty, and goodness were with the fishermen."

Read More...

Summary only...

Schaf insists that Protestantism earns its right to exist only for as long as we offer to the rest of the Church significant correction in areas that need it. A sect, if we are willing to admit the title, "loses its right to exist, in the same degree in which the body from which it is a secession has corrected the faults that led to it... If sects would be true to themselves, they must as soon as they have fulfilled their commission unite themselves again with the general life of the Church, that they may thus as organic members of the body acquire new vital energy; and the Church, on her side, should make special efforts to gather once more under her motherly protection and care, the children that have forsaken her and are now estranged from her bosom. To this duty the Reformed Church is specially called, as the largest part of these modern separatist movements have sprung from her communion." (134-135)

Read More...

Summary only...

Schaf also takes the Anglo-Catholic Oxford movement to task: He suggests that many who are in this school are attracted to it by a "feeling of poetical romance" and not a few of them have aspirations to the hierarchy inherent in an episcopal system. And for all their insistence on history, Schaf says that this is the glaring hole in their system. The "utter misapprehension of the divine significance of the Reformation, with its consequent development, that is of the entire Protestant period of the Church." They have no conception of historical development, much less the great blessing of the Reformation to the broader Church. He calls their "external, mechanical conception of the Church and episcopacy" nothing more than the "old leaven of the Pharisees." He bases his assertions on the fact that there is no scriptural authority for such a rigid apostolic succession as is commonly held in those communions that insist upon it. There is not high priestly caste in the Christian Church, clergy are servant-leaders of the flock, but are in an important sense still members of the priesthood of all believers. Their's is a specific calling in the body of Christ which includes real authority, but it is not a hierarchical system of automatic authority. Finally he scoffs at those who would think that merely returning to an episcopal polity would fix all the problems of Protestantism: "Preposterous imagination! Can the Church be renovated, by putting on a new coat?" (122-126)

Read More...

Summary only...

Schaf decries the multiplication of denominations and sects in Christendom and insists that this is not inherent in the Protestant principle: "If such were the fact, the Reformation must stand in direct contradiction to the holy scriptures, and be adjudged by its own umpire to condemnation, as a sinful work of man... Teh sect-system, like Rationalism, is a prostitution and caricature of true Protestantism, and nothing else... Away with human denominations, down with religious sects! Let our watchword be: One spirit and one body! One Shepherd and one flock!... Rationalism and Sectarianism are the most dangerous enemies of the church at the present time. They are both but different sides of one and the same principle, a onesided, false subjectivity, sundered from the authority of the objective. Rationalism is theoretic Sectarianism; Sectarianism is practical Rationalism." (119, 121)

Read More...

Summary only...

Schaf identifies rationalism as a problem that has infected both Protestant and Roman Churches. Of course keeping in mind that Schaf was writing in the mid nineteenth century, this is still fairly prophetic as things have tended. But whatever the case, he suggests that whatever common enemies and problems we have ought to be solved first. Before taking aim at eachother there ought first to be a concerted effort to eradicate common philosophical problems. He says, "Luther and Calvin, if they should make their appearance now, would act very differently, in the altered state of things, from what they did three hundred year ago. Their main zeal would be directed no doubt against such purely negative pseudo-protestantism [Protestant Rationalism], as something altogether worse than popery itself..." And turning to the Protestant problem with rationalism he exhorts us: "Let us first with united strength expel the devil from our own temple, into which he has stolen under the passport of our excessive toleration, before we proceed to exorcise and cleanse the dome of St. Peter." (p. 104-5)

Read More...

Summary only...

My children are alive. They burst with sounds and action. They cannot be stilled.

My son is four years old. He's four years old and forty-one pounds. His bedroom is an arsenal of swords, guns, and armor. He is a fighter.

The other day we had company coming for dinner. This company was coming in the form of a family blessed to have four boys, and the prospect of war games throughout the night was clearly on my son's mind. A little while before the guests arrived, my wife and I found him in the living room lining up the guns and swords and various pieces of armor. I could almost hear him saying to himself, 'And we might need this, and this, and this...' Of course his mother ordered him to return the weapons to his room; he could display them there to his heart's content.

It was not long after that when my son tore into the room where I was standing. He was armed to the teeth and brandishing a sword over his head and cried out in his fiercest voice, "I'll cut you in half, and leave you in one piece!" After I had laughed a good bit, I explained what he had just said, and he thought it was good fun too and has since made it part of his regular warrior litany.

But my son is not just a fighter. He's also a teacher. I was blessed to overhear a recent conversation he was having with his 2 year old sister that went something like this:

"Felicity, do you know about mosquitoes?"
"Uh-huh"
"You know that they suck your blood?"
"Okay."
"You have blood under all your skin."
"Okay."
"And there's bones that are hard under your skin.
"Oh."
"Skin goes all over your body."
"Body?"
"And you have bones too, under your skin."

And at this point, River began striking various bones on his chest and arms and head to demonstrate, and Felicity thought this was hilarious and began mimicking her masochistic brother. But I was pleased that blood-sucking mosquitoes turned into a fairly worthwhile conversation about human anatomy.

My daughter still defies most story telling. She sucks a pacifier like Maggie Simpson, and although she does speak, it is still in fairly simple, disjointed sentences. So much of her style is in the tone of her voice, the expressions on her face, and the legacy she has created in emotions and creativity.

Sometime last spring she amazed us with her sleeping trick:

My daughter is not the most plump of toddler girls. In fact, I would describe her as on the petite side of petite. And this is probably related in some degree to the fact that she is fairly particular about her eating habits. Which is to say that she is often not interested in eating. Undeterred, her mother and I, are nevertheless convinced that eating is one of those things that isn't as optional as she would prefer, and thus, we often find ourselves at dinner tables together negotiating with spoons and forks and whatever edible substances we can maneuver into her mouth. On one occasion while we were working our way through the dinner liturgy, my daughter suddenly leaned her head back in the high chair, closed her eyes, and went suddenly still. She was asleep. Of course this was a daring and completely unexpected theatrical stunt, and we all approved of its creativity. After some cheers and approbation, we told her to fall asleep again, and then told her to open her mouth. We found that she was still able to take bites while sleeping upright in her high chair.

Of course there are three of them now: Tovia Ann has been this side of the uterus for just over five months. For those of you keeping stats at home, she's just about ready to push over eleven pounds. She has elbow dimples and happy thigh rolls to prove her mother's milk goodness. Today however, we reached an even more significant threshold. I must say that this little lady has already outdone herself in the smile department. A few words, a hello, or a smile in her direction is all it takes for a big open-mouthed grin to break across her face. And when this woman smiles, her body gets into it. When she smiles, most of her body writhes with joy. Smiling is a full contact sport for Tovia. And of course she's also very capable of various joyful noises as well. She 'talks' and coos and babbles like the best of infants, and Jenny has even had moments where her happy cooing is something very close to a giggle. But all of that was put behind us today. Today we arrived in the real world: wide-open, full-bodied laughter. We should have known that it would be the kids. River and Felicity are so much more funny than we are. And so it was bath time and the kids were doing their thing in the tub, and the next thing you know, Tovia is giggling and chuckling at her older siblings. They were laughing at her and she was laughing at them, and Jenny and I were laughing at them all. Her laugh sounds like it was pre-recorded. It's such a small, tiny baby laugh, and of course on her body, that's not too surprising.

I continue to be amazed by these three people that live in my home. They've moved into our lives and taken up residence; it really is quite the trip. These three semi-permanent guests really are full of life, and our home is so much more lively with them. Our dinner table is a constant ruckus, our living room often looks like the remains of elementary school classroom with crayons and books and papers scattered about. The house just sounds alive; those precious few hours of silence at night with a possible pause in the afternoon are just the recharging hours. They're just getting ready to live again. They're just getting ready to come back from the dead, getting ready to teach us resurrection life again. And really, sometimes I wonder if they aren't all just being nice to us. Maybe they're all like my daughter, and they've just decided to act like their sleeping. They're just being nice to their tired old parents and humoring us for a bit. They close their eyes and lean back in their beds and pretend to sleep. But it's really just part of the show. They're really alive.

Read More...

Summary only...