tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-86202756594318137892024-03-13T19:50:48.074-04:00Proto-ProtestantismCalling for a Return to the Doctrinal Ideals and Kingdom Ethics of the First ReformationProtoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comBlogger1148125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-6570126989948492822024-03-13T19:50:00.000-04:002024-03-13T19:50:04.643-04:00Playing Chick-fil-a with the Sabbath<p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://wng.org/opinions/playing-chicken-with-the-lords-day-1707873572" target="_blank">https://wng.org/opinions/playing-chicken-with-the-lords-day-1707873572</a></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">I read this article in
frustration and then laughed when I reached the bottom and realized
it was written by Timon Cline, another name that keeps popping up in
connection with The American Reformer. This website which has not (to
my knowledge) produced anything sound or of lasting value has (it
would seem) taken the Dominionist world by storm - just today I
listened to a rather disappointing interview with his compatriot
Aaron Renn. This article on Chick-fil-a (in keeping with everything
else I've read from this lot) completely misses the point and
obfuscates the issues at hand.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The Sabbath issue is
effectively moot. Apart from being unbiblical in the New Testament
context, society has fundamentally changed in the wake of industrial
revolution. Sabbath cannot function in an industrial society, a point
many still have not reckoned with. If these folks want the
Westminster Sabbath then they're going to have to bring down
industrial society - which would not reform America but destroy it. I
don't believe that's what these Dominionists want.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Assuming for argument's sake
the false notion of a Christian let alone Sabbatarian industrial
society, factories, power stations, and sewage plants cannot be shut
off on Saturday night. The realm of 'necessity' (if it is necessity)
has permeated society to the extent that the line itself is blurred
to the point of meaningless. The Sabbatarian doctrine states that
only acts of necessity and mercy are permitted on Sunday (the
so-called Christian Sabbath). Generally it's understood that hospital
workers, firemen, and the like will have to work and it's legitimate
for them to do so and thus miss church services.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Sabbatarians usually argue
that since the Sabbath (as they see it) is part of a universal moral
law (as opposed to Covenant Law or more specifically Old Covenant
Law, which is subject to categories of type and fulfillment) it is
therefore binding on all. Everyone who is not keeping Sabbath is
sinning. Indeed everyone who is an unbeliever is indeed sinning, and
all the time in all that they do - not so much because they're
failing to keep Sabbath but because they are rejecting Christ. The
Old Covenant prophets frequently denounced the evil of the nations
but never are they castigated for failing to keep Sabbath. Why?
Because as people outside the covenant it didn't belong to them and
it would have been an abomination or at the very least sacrilege for
them to attempt to keep the holy day.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Christian Sabbatarians who
believe (contrary to all evidence) that the shifted day (Seventh Day
to First Day, which indicates the so-called moral law is not
immutable) is binding on all, will argue that Christians should not
do anything that compels others to work on that day - fostering their
sin as it were. Therefore one should not shop, eat out, and so forth.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">This leads to a lot of ethical
games involving casuistry, some of which I have shared over the
years. Many years ago I knew one OP elder who used to give me a ride
to church. He would stop along the way and buy his Sunday paper from
a machine but then promise not to read it until Monday. It never
occurred to him that someone had to work to fill the machine on
Sunday morning.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">My roommate at the time (whose
father was a PCA elder) would tape Sunday television shows on the VCR
by means of timer, and then watch them on Monday. It would be wrong
to watch them on Sunday but okay the following day. Did no one have
to work on Sunday to make the shows appear on television?</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">For that matter is there no
ethical issue in supporting a newspaper company or television station
which operate (in defiance of God) on the Sabbath? Should we give
them business any day of the week? How far do you take this?
Christians boycott other companies because of sinful conduct. If the
breaking of Sabbath is (as part of the Decalogue) equivalent to
theft, murder, and blasphemy - shouldn't all Sabbath breaking
companies and institutions be rejected?</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Some years later, I would
occasionally eat lunch at an OP elder's house after church. He worked
at a rather prominent Christian college and I was surprised to
observe him turn on the radio one Sunday afternoon which played
classical music. It was the college's radio station. He proudly
informed me that through his efforts no one was there on Sunday
morning - a way to keep the station on air without violating the
Sabbath. He didn't seem to understand that listening to the music was
already a violation of the Westminster Sabbath.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Leaving that question aside,
it was an automated system that piped out the music - no DJ required.
After further inquiry he revealed that it wasn't automated per se but
rather it flipped over to a Chicago station on Sunday morning - where
a DJ ran the music. When I pointed out that the DJ in Chicago was
working - implying that the set-up wasn't nearly so clean and
doctrinally tight as he thought, he grew silent. I honestly don't
think he had ever worked that out.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Does Cline turn on his lights
on Sunday morning? Someone is working so that he can do that. Is it
'necessary'? I think it's hard to argue for that. Convenient to be
sure, it's certainly not necessary.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Does he expect the roads to be
plowed on a snowy day? The list goes on and on and it's not just in
this realm that the sacralist Church has failed to reckon with social
ethics - much more could be said about the fundamental shifts in
social dynamics, family, and economics. The Church is way behind on
these issues and has fallen into patterns of syncretism that permeate
most spheres of Christian thought.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Back in my early Reformed days
I was a strict Westminster Sabbatarian. I took the Isaiah 58
imperative seriously. It meant that it was hard to even be around
most Christians on Sunday. Discussions about the weather, work, and
all other categories of the mundane were forbidden and to be rebuked.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">With a couple of like-minded
friends, Sundays were usually spent in near isolation, either quietly
in a home or in the summer we would take a brief drive out to some
quiet country spot and spend the afternoon sitting under a tree or
walking while we discussed Scripture and only Kingdom-related issues.
Since I enjoy these things it was hardly a burden. Afterward we would
go to an evening service. Over time we adopted an evening-to-evening
model which meant no Saturday night out having dinner, but Sunday
night was permissible.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The problem was (I eventually
realized) that the Sabbath principle (in terms of keeping a 24-hour
day) was unsound in the New Covenant context and built on numerous
false assumptions regarding everything from the nature of the law, to
the relationship between Old and New Covenants, questions of typology
and fulfillment, and the weakest aspect of the argument - the shift
from Saturday to Sunday, which undermined the doctrinal reasons given
for a Sabbath to begin with. Sunday could be the Lord's Day - but
that could not be the Sabbath. The theology was flawed on several
points, and the Early Church testimony did not corroborate with the
system either. And when pressed, I found very few Reformed leaders
who could give a satisfactory answer. One prominent man connected to
the Banner of Truth (when questioned by one of the aforementioned
close friends) simply fell back on a social argument about societal
flourishing and godliness associated with (what amounted to)
Victorian Sabbath keeping. It was not an argument, and one easily
picked apart. </span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">At one point in time during
mid-1990's I was ready to face serious punishment over the issue - a
work-related dispute that could have resulted in my being
incarcerated. I stood my ground (in zealous but sincere ignorance)
and God delivered me. And yet, it did force the issue, and forced me
to really examine it. I stood my ground then, but by the late 1990's
I had abandoned the position and as one still in Reformed circles I
was able to appeal to Calvin. Years later, little of this mattered
and now the New Testament is sufficient for me to stand my ground.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The World Magazine/Cline
article is deeply flawed but more critically it completely misses the
point when it comes to Chick-fil-a and this dispute with the New York
Thruway.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">This isn't about the sabbath
or even some kind of social campaign against Chick-fil-a. As I have
already argued elsewhere this is about greed and privilege on the
part of Chick-fil-a and a lack of due diligence on the part of New
York authorities. The Christian Right keeps trying to make hay out of
this issue. If Cline wants to invoke the question of Sabbath, then
what he really needs to be talking about is shutting down interstate
travel on Sundays. I don't think he's going to find too many people
to support that. Is he willing to shut down The American Reformer on
Sundays? Somewhere someone has to work to make reading its website
possible. Servers must run and the buildings that host them require
monitoring. They are complicated facilities with advanced cooling
systems. Does someone really 'need' to read his article on Sunday?</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">I find it ironic that even the
Banner of Truth used to shut down its website on Sundays - a practice
given up a number of years ago. Should Sunday just be limited to
Edinburgh time where the store is located? I don't mean to obfuscate
the Sabbath issue by losing it in the maze of modern
techno-industrial life and global communication. There are ways
around this but it requires a great price to be paid and it will mean
Christians are out of the loop, outside the circles of power and
influence. I'm fine with that - even if the likes of Cline and Renn
are not. But the larger and more critical issue is doctrinal - is the
Sabbath for today? The answer is 'no'.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Cline for his part is trying
to take what is essentially a question of rather dubious business
strategy and regulation and attempting to lose it in a kind of
Sabbath labyrinth. It's not helpful. I hope people will understand
that.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">See also:</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2024/01/dilorenzos-latest-attempt-at-red-baiting.html" target="_blank">https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2024/01/dilorenzos-latest-attempt-at-red-baiting.html</a></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2021/05/sunday-and-triumph-of-mammon.html" target="_blank">https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2021/05/sunday-and-triumph-of-mammon.html</a></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-moral-law-ezekiel-20-sabbath-and.html" target="_blank">https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-moral-law-ezekiel-20-sabbath-and.html</a></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2014/08/sabbatarian-hermeneutics-and-some.html" target="_blank">https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2014/08/sabbatarian-hermeneutics-and-some.html</a></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.04in; margin-top: 0.04in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2019/05/sabbath-and-dominion-new-calvinism-and.html" target="_blank">https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2019/05/sabbath-and-dominion-new-calvinism-and.html</a></span></p>
<p><style type="text/css"><font size="6">p { line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.1in; background: transparent }</font></style></p>Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-54452964853630805352024-03-09T09:38:00.001-05:002024-03-09T09:52:24.606-05:00Inbox: The Northern Kingdom Analogy Expanded (II) <p><span style="font-size: x-large;">Confessionalists
and Evangelicals, (the two dominate groups in my Judah- Southern
Kingdom analogy) don’t quote their own prophets as do the
Charismatics but they do rely on alternate word-authorities.
Evangelicals frequently quote the Founding Fathers or the founding
documents treating such words as inspired or the very least
deutero-canonical.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">And
Confessionalists appeal to their own heritage and tradition –
whether it be Luther, Cromwell, the Covenanters, Calvin or Knox. And
their confessions are quoted in a manner that is de facto equivalent
to Scripture or at the very least function in a deutero-canonical
manner.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">What’s
more dangerous, the Charismatic demagogue-showman that can be
dismissed out of hand, or the more subtle and credible
confessionalist who (Bible in hand) quotes the confession and
promotes evils like the Lesser Magistrate doctrine that teaches
people to reject New Testament norms and encourages rebellion and
violence? To be blunt, those who follow the likes of Benny Hinn and
the TBN crowd are lost. No one seriously immersed in Scripture will
fall for the likes of that. No one indwelt by the Holy Spirit will be
led astray by such blatant deceivers. They are to be pitied but
should not be taken seriously. Rebuke them, expose their errors, but
do not treat them as those who have standing.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">But
what of the teacher who is in possession of degrees and doctorates,
teaches a tradition that is ostensibly coherent, but does not
faithfully represent Scripture? He may also in turn utilize endless
philosophical arguments and assumptions in order to justify the
political and economic systems of empires and other bestial orders
that have exploited and murdered men by the thousands and millions.
Is this man not dangerous? There is a veritable army of such men and
these false shepherds are held in high regard and their scholarship
and ‘Biblical’ expertise is often extolled.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">A
Christian might rightly recoil when watching Daystar or the Trinity
Broadcasting Network (TBN) and yet what if a respected
confessionalist like D James Kennedy or an Evangelical like David
Jeremiah appear on the channel and effectively endorse and partner
with the channel and movement's larger cultural projects? How is that
man any different? He's part of the same problem or the very least a
hireling and opportunist.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">How
often did the false prophets in Judah lead people into the sins of
Samaria? Those who seemed faithful to the covenant and oracles of God
were not always so – and so it is today. Who was the greater threat
in terms of deception for a God-fearing Jew in the Southern Kingdom –
the priest of Bethel or the false Judaean prophet supporting the
corrupt court and giving sanction to high place worship – which is
what most of Evangelical worship is these days. Based on emotion and
tactile extra-Scriptural and cultural proclivities, it is the same
impulse that in the context of late antiquity led the Constantinian
Church into the embrace of statues, icons, incense, vestments, and
other practices such as Advent and Lent.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">And
Judah suffered not just from the high places but on many occasions
the doctrinal and ecclesiastical corruption crept into the temple
with the presence of idols and other forms of false worship. At times
it must have been difficult or nearly impossible for the faithful to
meet their temple-worship obligations – or it must have all but
sickened them to do so. And so it is for many of today who struggle
to be part of what passes for worship and a New Testament meeting.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">The
practices were so widespread and persisted for so long that it’s
not hard to imagine how some of them became traditions in and of
themselves and even a source of pride. One can be sure cultural and
historical narratives were constructed that justified such practices
and they could be backed up by weighty (yet erroneous) philosophical
arguments and reasoned appeals to a tradition, events, authorities,
and superstitions. I’m sure there were numerous factions with
different narratives and methods of extrapolating doctrine and
ethics. And yet all of these claimed to speak in the name of Jehovah
and to represent His covenant.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Again,
for the man who is serious about following God’s Word, who is the
greater threat, who is more likely to deceive him – the Philistine,
the prophet from Dan, or the man standing before the true oracular
shrine in Jerusalem, backed by the hierarchy and the court and yet
speaking falsehood?</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">In
the grand scheme of things, the nations are nothing – a drop in the
bucket to be sure. The apostate ecclesiastical bodies need to remain
in the larger discussion but their influence and impact with regard
to the faithful is minimal. The real threat is always found within.
When men claim to be Biblical but promote other ideas and traditions
– whether it’s the false narratives of the Magisterial
Reformation or Evangelicalism’s bogus read of America’s founding,
there is a real threat. For in both cases the false ideas and values
are effectively baptised leading to misguided ideals and goals, and
in both cases it has reaped a rotten harvest in the realm of
economics, ethics, and culture.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Evangelicalism’s
utilitarian approach to questions like the standard of living has had
profound and destructive ramifications for the Church. Its desire to
remain relevant to the culture has generated a litany of compromises
and subjugated it to the consumerist ethics of pop culture. This has
played out in everything from its mammonism, to its approaches to
worship and ecclesiology, to its embrace of feminism, psychology, and
divorce. And of course both confessional and evangelical camps have
succumbed to nationalism and as such promote militarism and all too
often champion war.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Are
these not seductions on the order of Balaam? Are these not rebellions
such as we see with Korah? The Oracle-Word is supplanted by rival
claims to authority and their claims which tickle ears in what they
promise, lead the people of God to stumble and sin thinking they do
God service. So it is with the usurers and mammon chasers, the men
who take up the sword, and those who like the kings of Israel seek
help in Egypt and Damascus – in other words turn to the world for
help and form alliances with the princes of those lands. The Northern
kings did this and were condemned. When Asa formed an alliance with
Ben-Hadad he was condemned by Hanani. His son Jehoshaphat of Judah
also pursued evil alliances and he was roundly condemned by Jehu. His
errors led to his son’s impiety and his marriage with Athaliah of
the House of Omri.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">In
Revelation we read that Jerusalem is called Sodom and Egypt, the city
where our Lord was crucified. And yet this is in reference to the
Last Days body, the Church as signified by the Two Witnesses. Who
slays the witnesses and revels in their death? The world does as to
be expected, but they are killed in the districts of the covenant. Is
not Church history a story of the False Church persecuting the True?
I suppose it depends on what sort of histories you read and how you
understand the events. The False Prophets who preach ‘peace, peace’
revel in the supposed glories of Western Civilisation and the Church
which produced not just the castles, cathedrals, and universities of
Christendom – but they often praise and defend the Crusades and the
global empires which emerged at the end of the Renaissance era. For
them this glory and power signifies the work of the Holy Spirit, the
Kingdom of God manifest on Earth. For the faithful remnant, these
glories are the beast-abominations and tokens of Mystery Babylon, the
Bride turned Whore riding on the back of the Beast, the rebuilding of
Babel topped by a cheap cross. This is true of Papal Rome, its
tributary states and its system of lies, but no less so when it comes
to the subsequent history of Protestant-guided nations like Britain,
Germany, the Netherlands, and the American Empire.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">If
the Philistines want to let two men marry or if the Babylonians want
to kill their children in the womb, what is that to me? They’re
lost and will behave as such. They need the gospel. They are outside
the covenant. You can train a dog to exhibit human traits but it’s
still a dog. A pagan can be compelled to act a certain way by the
threat of sword but he’s still a pagan and thus his hypocritical
conformity accomplishes nothing in terms of the Kingdom. It reminds
one of Christ’s condemnation of the Pharisees – making hypocrite
proselytes just as damned and Hell-bound as themselves. </span>
</p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Show
mercy, rescue children, do what you can - but don't confuse the tasks
and realms. The end result is far worse and always results in evil
alliances, compromise, corruption, confused goals and ethics - and
ultimately a destruction of the Church's identity and testimony. So
it is in our day.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">And
what of those who engage in false practices and yet do so claiming
the blessing and sanction of God? These are the progeny of the false
prophets of Judah functioning within the New Covenant. They preach
‘peace, peace’ thinking they stand for right because they oppose
the Philistines and Ammonites. They are deluded and while we have no
Jeremiah or Isaiah in our day (as these prophets were types of the
Prophet), we do have the Prophet’s Holy Word and as such we need to
employ it and call out, expose, and denounce the false prophets just
as the faithful in the Old Testament were wont to do. That's why I'm
critical of these men and their movements. In some respects they are
more dangerous and destructive than those who are blatantly false and
disobedient to God's Word. My focus is on Judah - what have I to do
with Israel or with the Philistines? They are already gone.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">See
also:</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: x-large;"><u><a href="https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-northern-kingdom-analogy.html" target="_blank"><span>https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-northern-kingdom-analogy.html</span></a></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><style type="text/css">p { line-height: 115%; text-align: left; orphans: 2; widows: 2; margin-bottom: 0.1in; direction: ltr; background: transparent }a:link { color: #0000ff; text-decoration: underline }</style></span></p>Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-34277485320209694822024-03-09T09:36:00.006-05:002024-03-09T09:51:57.046-05:00Inbox: The Northern Kingdom Analogy Expanded (I) <span style="font-size: x-large;"> <span><i>Given
all the overtly heretical forms of Christianity that are out there,
why spend so much time criticizing conservative leaders and
ministries? Where’s the threat? Are they not all more or less in
agreement on the basics of the gospel? Are you not guilty of majoring
on the minors?</i></span></span>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">---</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Over
the years I have on occasion appealed to something I call the
Northern Kingdom Analogy. The New Testament repeatedly reminds us
that the Old Testament serves as an example. There were false
prophets among them just as there will be among us. In Christ, we
participated in the same events, and partake of the same spiritual
meat and drink. The typology is relevant as well, and especially so
when one understands Revelation provides a multi-faceted view of
Church History cast in Old Testament forms and symbolism. Throughout
the epistles, but especially in Jude and Revelation, there’s a
direct analogy to Old Testament antecedents.</span></p><a name='more'></a>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">The
Old Testament theme of large-scale apostasy with a persevering
remnant is also spelled out in the New Testament. There are many who
wrongly dispute this but in every case they rely on either Judaized
assumptions regarding the Kingdom or in some form of over-realized
eschatology – reading Old Testament prophetic perspective and idiom
in rather literalist terms and applying it (without warrant) to the
Last Days or Church Age.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">The
Old Testament though fulfilled and no longer normative reveals a
scenario that in many respects parallels our own. Many are befuddled
by this and lose their way blending and confusing Old Covenant forms
and types with New Covenant life which is set in a non-theocratic
pilgrim-remnant setting – and one in which the higher calling and
ethics of the Kingdom preclude Christian participation in the state
or expectations of political mastery and domination. To compare Old
Testament Israel to society at large (as is commonly done) is to
distort the analogy made by the apostles. Israel (and Judah) are
pictures of the Church in various states of faithfulness and
apostasy. They are not pictures of sacral societies within a false
construct known as Christendom. In New Testament terms, the only
sacral or covenant society is the Church. To covenantalize other
cultural, tribal, or political entities is a heresy. This is an
elephant in the room for the Church today and one so deeply
entrenched that few understand the issue.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">With
the Old Testament paradigm before us, we find a situation in which
the majority of professors, the majority of those within the outward
confines of the covenant are apostate and as such can (in one sense)
be written off. They’re not pagans. They’re apostates.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">This
doesn’t mean we write off individuals, but large swaths of
Christianity are not worth engaging with on any serious level.
Remnants exist as we see (by analogy) in the Northern Kingdom, and we
can be sure that even in these otherwise apostate quarters there are
even now seven-thousand that have not bowed the knee to Baal.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Many
forget or have not quite understood that the Northern Kingdom
worshipped Jehovah but was engaged in false Jehovah worship – in
particular at the shrines of Dan and Bethel. Their altars and
priesthood were illegitimate as were their worship practices. They
were not recognized and this is demonstrated on more than one
occasion.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">The
Northern Kingdom also succumbed to overt Baal worship for a season
but generally its problem was not the open embrace of pagan gods, but
syncretism – and we see analogies in the larger ‘Church’ today.
This is not to say that the raw and naked idolatry of Baal worship
(as it were) doesn’t also rear its head at times in the context of
the Church. Indeed the New Testament itself reveals this as one
immediately thinks of the Jezebel analogy in the Revelation letters -
though it is difficult to say just what exactly was happening there.
It's just as likely this was also a case of syncretism. But this
example also makes it clear that such analogies are by no means
required to be exact replications or reiterations to be valid
comparisons. The spirit of the error (overtly pagan or syncretistic)
is what is germane. In other words we can say that Baal worship,
illegitimate shrine worship, and High Place worship are still with us
today.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">The
false priests and apostate kings of the north could be rebuked by the
prophets or (like Elisha’s example with regard to Jehoram), treated
with a kind of dismissal or contempt. How we would want to manage
that today is a question worthy considering.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">And
so what groups today could be reckoned as ‘Northern Kingdom’-type
apostates?</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">The
numbers are considerable, overwhelming, and tragic and yet consider
that of the twelve tribes – a full 5/6 fell into this kind of
apostasy. Could such a ratio be relevant for today?</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">For
starters I would relegate Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy to
this category. They are an exact representation of the kind of
syncretism and apostasy we see in the post-Rehoboam epoch. When
compared and contrasted with each other, there are differences to be
sure and at times one or the other is superior on specific points of
doctrine and practice. If pressed, I would argue Constantinople is
superior while others would argue for Rome. Both retain a place in
larger discussions and calculations and yet should not be reckoned as
legitimate expressions of the New Testament Church. They are apostate
bodies that have lost their way.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Next
would be the Mainline Churches that have succumbed to Theological
Liberalism. They retain the language of historic Christianity and yet
have replaced its substance with that of another religious movement.
They speak Christian (as it were) but their epistemology is pure
Enlightenment and this plays out in their truncated metaphysics and
humanist ethics. Machen’s 1923 brilliant (if somewhat flawed) work
‘Christianity and Liberalism’ sufficiently demonstrated this.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Finally,
I would place the Charismatic Movement in this category which itself
is broad and touches in some respects the Roman Catholic, Liberal,
and Evangelical sectors – the latter of which I have not yet
addressed. The movement in many respects typifies what we might think
of when it comes to ‘High Place’ worship. In reality, its
parallels with Rome are substantial – in some cases little more
than a different style rooted in the same kinds of error and
extra-scriptural authority. It is therefore no coincidence that the
movement also has a prominent place and presence within the Roman
communion. The two movements are in many respects compatible. And
when it comes to other issues, the Charismatic Churches and their
theology easily find a place within the spectrum of post-war
Neo-Evangelicalism – today’s Evangelical movement.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">This
is not to say that all people in these Northern/Apostate camps are
lost. I would never want to say that and I don’t believe it.
Additionally I’m making sweeping generalisations here for the sake
of argument. The truth is there is a considerable spectrum to the
nature of these errors. They are serious and I don’t want to
downplay them in any way, shape, or form but thankfully not all
adherents are consistent or compliant with what their churches
actually teach.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">And
increasingly these lines are blurred – there are some Catholics
that are near Evangelical in practice and have much in common with
that movement – large numbers of both factions being interested
only in a kind of 'broad strokes' Christianity in terms of doctrine,
with a primary emphasis on culture.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">The
Evangelical movement itself is flirting with apostasy and many
sections of that massive and diverse sphere are rapidly descending
into this unfortunate status – but I wouldn’t write them off in
the same way I would Rome, Constantinople or the others. At least not
yet, but it would seem the leaders of this larger movement are
rapidly descending down that road.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">As
already suggested, there is considerable overlap within
Evangelicalism and the Charismatic movement which complicates the
question. And increasingly there are Evangelicals that are exhibiting
tendencies that place them on the fringe of Theological Liberalism –
just as there are those in the Mainline churches that are
conservative enough that they qualify as liberal Evangelicals or even
could be placed on the fringe of traditionalism and yet are not
Confessional Protestants. It’s complicated, but there are general
trends and categories we can identify.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">And
it needs to be stated clearly that while I would put Evangelicalism
and Confessionalism in the ‘Southern’ or ‘Judaean’ category
and thus grant them legitimacy, this in no way suggests these
movements should be endorsed or encouraged.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">I
am very interested in what’s happening in Rome, in the Mainline,
and to some extent within the Charismatic fold. The interests are
sometimes limited to a kind of observation knowing that whatever is
happening will percolate, permutate, and affect other sections of the
larger ‘Church’.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">This
brings us to Judah. What was the status of Judah during the divided
kingdom? And we might also reflect on its ‘survivor’ status
through the period of exile and restoration, but that’s a larger
and more involved discussion.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Judah
was the realm where the faith was kept and yet readers will know that
it was not kept well or consistently. Judah was plagued by bad kings,
negligent priests, and false prophets. So of the twelve tribes, the
1/6 represented by Judah-Benjamin was also plagued by error, false
teaching, false worship and the like - and yet this was the area of
valid covenant status and discussion. The north was out of the
picture in terms of legitimacy. The south was legitimate but itself
inundated with destructive errors and the seeds of apostasy (as it
were) were sprouting everywhere.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Corruption
and syncretism afflicted the covenant people. While the syncretism
wasn’t on the order of the Dan and Bethel shrines in the Northern
Kingdom, or its flirtations with Baal worship, there was still
Jehovah worship taking place at the high places.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Worldly
wisdom and polytheistic proclivities are unable to grasp the problems
associated with this unofficial ‘high place’ worship and this is
demonstrated by the Assyrian general’s mocking denunciation outside
the walls of Jerusalem in 2 Kings 18 and Isaiah 36. He thought it
absurd for Judah to call on Jehovah for protection when Hezekiah had
torn down ‘His’ high places. It demonstrates that the high place
worship was Jehovah-based – but still repeatedly condemned. The
Rabshakeh was ignorant of the theological issues and failed to
understand that their removal actually glorified God and Hezekiah was
praised for it.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Continuing
the analogy, the Judaean false prophets defied the Word of God as
exhibited in the inspired record of the true prophets. We don’t
have such prophets today on the order of Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, or
Zechariah, but we do have the Word, the Oracle of God. And in many
respects the New Covenant is superior. The true Church (as it were)
is marked out by its fidelity to the Oracular Revelation - the Word
of Christ the Prophet. Just as in Judah, the faithful followed the
prophets, in the New Testament we follow the Prophet.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Not
the tradition, not the magisterium, not the utterances of
usurper-prophets in the form of pseudo-charismatic leaders, not
marketing studies, political alliances, and conformity to bourgeois
values, and not confessions written by neo-scholastic advocates of a
new Christendom – the faithful remnant that is the Last Days Church
follows the Oracles of the Prophet.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">The
false prophets in Judah are revealed as court figures – like many
Evangelicals today. They didn’t call the covenant nation to
repentance but affirmed the straying covenant community by crying
‘peace, peace’ – in other words, do not fear as God is on your
side, when in fact He wasn’t. They were covenant breakers under
judgment and in danger of apostasy. The notion of being handed over
to a reprobate mind which is mentioned in the New Testament also
seems very pertinent for our day.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">Many
today twist these words to suggest the false prophets taught
pacifism. Clearly those who say so have not read the passages
carefully or are inept expositors as this has nothing to do with
their ‘peace’ message. It was not about an absence of violence
but an assurance that they needn’t worry that they had earned the
displeasure or judgment of God.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">In
many cases it's clear enough these are Right-wing theologians that
hate the New Testament’s teaching concerning non-resistance and are
disingenuously (or out of ignorance) finding a way to ‘score a
point’ against the argument by equating it with the teachings of
the false prophets – what amounts to a double distortion.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">In
the twisted thinking of today’s Evangelicals they cannot see the
analogy with the Church. Even those who believe the Zionist state
represents God’s covenant, they commonly think in terms of Israel
as an analogy (not for the Church) but for America – just as others
might do so for Britain. They think of Judah/Israel as American
society and so the apostate elements are the Democrats, progressives,
or the ‘other’, while the conservative Right-wing Churches are
the faithful - those who are given the ‘peace, peace’ assurance
of the false prophets.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">But
this whole understanding distorts the analogy. America is a pagan
country like the Philistia, Tyre, Egypt, and Babylon. The covenant is
not located in the nation but the Church. And in the Church (which is
the Israel/Judah analogy) it is these same Evangelicals who preach
the ‘peace, peace’ message of the false prophets. They don’t
believe they are under judgment or that God might be angry with them
and so it never occurs to them to the re-think or challenge the
common doctrinal and ethical assumptions that govern them. They never
stop and weigh whether the economic system they support is compatible
with New Testament ethics. The same is true of their nationalism,
support for war, and their championing of gun culture. The New
Testament does not shape their thinking about the values of the
middle class, how they would view refugees or immigrants, or
questions regarding whether or not New Testament Christians should
work for the state, utilize the courts, or participate in the system
and endorse its assumptions. To question the ideological foundations
of Classical Liberalism, the regime of rights or the notion of social
contract is beyond comprehension for many of them. Few are even
capable of thinking in these terms and all the more when they read
such passages in both Old and New Testaments and think only in terms
of the larger society and their domestic political opposition.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2024/03/inbox-northern-kingdom-analogy-expanded_9.html" target="_blank"><span>Continue
reading Part 2</span> </a><br /></span></p>Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-24500975807998766682024-03-06T22:18:00.000-05:002024-03-06T22:18:07.039-05:00More Presbyterian Shenanigans<p><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://theaquilareport.com/transferring-church-membership-is-not-a-violation-of-the-presbyterian-church-in-americas-membership-vows-a-gentle-rejoinder-to-an-earnest-man/" target="_blank">https://theaquilareport.com/transferring-church-membership-is-not-a-violation-of-the-presbyterian-church-in-americas-membership-vows-a-gentle-rejoinder-to-an-earnest-man/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It's difficult to imagine anyone enjoying or benefitting from
reading the linked piece on PCA membership. But there's something here that's
noteworthy – something that reveals (at least in part) some of the deception
and sleight-of-hand at work in Presbyterian membership constructs, and perhaps
the bureaucratic mind.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I'm not even remotely interested in the bulk of the article.
It's a waste of time but there are some interesting nuggets that one can find
if willing to wade through these dirty and diseased ecclesiastical waters. Why
are they dirty? Because they absurdly claim that this polity is Biblical, but
it is easily demonstrated that it rests on a contrary but critical assumption
that the Scriptures are woefully insufficient when it comes to polity. It
claims to elevate Scripture even as it denigrates it. They trumpet Sola
Scriptura and yet in the realm of ecclesiology they deny its basic sufficiency.
God left it to men to invent a polity.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It is (apparently) the task of the Church to deduce,
construct, and imagine a functional system that pretends to be based on the New
Testament (by means of appropriating some terms and concepts) but in reality is
just an arbitrary creation in the minds of prelates and other bureaucrats. It
may be philosophically sound and even pragmatic, but it is neither based on or
derived from Scripture.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If like the Anglicans, they simply admit this – admit that
the system has no Biblical basis but is rooted in a tradition and (as they see
it) 'works', then so be it. The system can be accepted or rejected but at least
the discussion is honest.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But not so with these Presbyterians. They actually think and
argue this system is Biblical. It is truly laughable, but when interacting with
its prelates – the end result is not funny, but an experience of frustration
and misery.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But the point here is not to dismantle the entire
Presbyterian bureaucratic construct but rather to note a few items of
pertinence and offer some comments and observations.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Much of what I found to be of interest is located in the
paragraph I included below.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Note the exclusive claim to be the Church which they will
deny at other times.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Note that membership is to the local congregation but in
reality the status is about one's ties to the denomination and the hierarchies
that run it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Note that the BCO or Book of Church Order (along with the
Westminster Confession) functions as an authority equal to Scripture – in other
words it functions as Canon Law – a body of traditions, ordinances, and
protocols which are authoritative and thus functionally canonical, on par (at
least in practical day to day operations) with Scripture.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We read:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Of greater concern is that the notion that one commits
oathbreaking by leaving a church for insufficient reasons seems to proceed on a
misunderstanding of the church as it is conceived in the PCA </span></i><em><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-size: 18.0pt; font-style: normal; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi;">Book of Church Order </span></em><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">(BCO). The BCO distinguishes between the
Church universal and local churches by means of capitalization: the capitalized
“Church” means either the Church universal or the PCA in its entirety, whereas
the lower case refers to a local/particular church (e.g., BCO 1- 5; 2-3; 8-3;
11-4; and 13-9). BCO 57-5, where the membership vows are prescribed, uses the
capitalized “Church,” meaning it does not refer to a local church but to the
Church universal or the PCA as a whole. Exactly which is not clear from the text
itself, but as will be seen below, this seems to be a reference to the visible
Church universal of which the PCA is a part.</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">One commits the sin of oathbreaking by failing to follow the
dictates of the BCO. The BCO defines the Church and this can be equated with
the PCA in its entirety. If you defy the PCA you effectively defy the Church
Universal and this is certainly how they treat the issue in practice.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Please note the usurpation of authority in the claims of this
BCO and the PCA.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And in the extra-scriptural (and in some cases unscriptural)
membership vows, you swear to the 'Church universal or the PCA as a whole'.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And yet when one is prodded to 'join' the local church, this
element is largely left out or obscured. And in the vows it's never fully
explained as to what is happening and what is meant by 'Church' – universal but
essentially (and in practice) the PCA. You're joining a denomination by means
of formalizing a relationship with one of its franchises. The Church under
Presbyterianism is found within the regional presbytery, the body that ordains,
sends, and particularizes individual congregations. They make much over the
fact that it's not required of 'members' to subscribe to the Westminster
Confession. This is because all that really matters is that you join the
denomination and are subject to its hierarchies and canon law. As a layman you
don't subscribe to the Westminster Confession and BCO but you've sworn an oath
to a denomination that is governed by them and will be judged by these
standards and how the clerics interpret them. It's a bit dodgy to say the
least.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This also ties in with their arguments as to why Teaching
Elders or Pastors are not members of the local congregation, but the regional
presbytery (or body of clerics).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Once again it is revealed to be an episcopal system – with
simply more clerics in the hierarchy. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">More than twenty years ago I joined the PCA. Objecting to the
extra-scriptural membership rite, I submitted to the elders by taking the oaths
outside the boundaries of the formal meeting. We took them in the basement, in
the setting of a potluck dinner. I wasn't happy about it but it was a
compromise I felt compelled to make in order to have my newest child admitted
to the waters of baptism. Otherwise these shepherds of the Church would deny my
son the sign of membership in Christ – a clear case of placing the tradition
above Scripture and subordinating the commands of God to the dictates of
denomination and its canon law.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Today I would not make that compromise. I would refuse to
take vows – vows that are in many respects redundant as they (by means of
extra-scriptural rite) require oaths regarding imperatives that are already
binding on all Christians (regardless of denominational status) and covered in
the sacraments established by God Himself. As such they risk supplanting the
sacraments already established by God.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And the final questions regarding polity are not only
dishonest (as suggested above) but patently unscriptural in their assumptions. Today
I would refuse to take an oath obligating me to pray for and/or support the
PCA, its committees, courts, or denominational bureaucracies. I cannot sanction
such man-made constructs (and thus corruptions) any more than I could pray for
a Roman Catholic diocesan structure.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We join the Church by means of baptism and renew our faith commitment
to a local assembly by our attendance and participation in the Lord's Supper
which should be part of every service. Denial of the Supper is to deny
communion regardless of whether or not some rite (as per the BCO) is followed
which formalizes this exclusionary act and utilizes the language of the
Corinthian epistle regarding the person being handed over to Satan. Those
outside communion are already in the realm of Satan. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In this case they create a rite that (for them) only has real
meaning in the context of denominational assumption. By excluding those who are
not 'members' of their denomination or one in which they approve, they are
clearly guilty of schism.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Most congregations fence the table by the exhortation that
you must be a 'member' of a church that preaches the gospel in order to
participate in the Supper.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I know of no one that would say their church does not preach
the gospel – even if it doesn't. The exhortation is thus rendered risible and even
ludicrous. And if a 'member' of another church, apart from a travelling or visitor
scenario, why would they be at the PCA? If they've left another church and are
attending the PCA – then how (apart from some bureaucratic shenanigans) can
they be said to still be 'members' of the other church? These are games. I'm
surprised we're not all fingerprinted and issued photo ID membership cards upon
joining.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This is not sacrilege for I do not refer to joining the
Church of Christ but a denomination – a construct condemned in Scripture though
its advocates choose to ignore this and explain it away by pragmatic appeals to
history and tradition.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And for those who belong to congregation that don't practice
their version of bureaucratic membership – they are excluded and treated as
pagan interlopers. Once again, the charge of schism certainly seems
appropriate.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Presbyterian membership rite and system functions as a
contrived sacrament and creates a middling ecclesiastical tier that is
unwarranted in Scripture – an infiltration and imposition between the Church
Universal and the local body. So it is with all denominations. And practically
speaking it takes on another disagreeable aspect with its inevitable tendency toward
institutionalism and bureaucracy, and like all denominations the Presbyterian
order operates in many respects like a business.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">More than once I have engaged Presbyterians and frustrated by
my criticism they have fallen back on a simple but (to their mind) effective
argument: It works.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Well, so does episcopacy. And for them what works often is
tied to institutional assumptions. It's a vicious circle.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If you believe in the Sufficiency of Scripture, the very
simple New Testament model of Congregationalism works as well – a polity in
which elders teach and rule and the office of hireling 'pastor' is an unknown.
They seem to have forgotten that the Church is held together by the Holy Spirit
and it is He who brings about fellowship and communion. God uses means but we
do not invent them when we think what God has given isn't up to the task. You
can build an impressive structure or form but it doesn't mean that it will have
substance. Presbyterian history alone should teach them that.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Once again, I could respect the position (to some degree) if
these points were admitted. But as long as they continue to assert it's a
Scriptural system, I will continue to attack their arguments from every angle
and do all I can to convince others to eschew them. There is no hope of real
reform for the larger Church until this false system is removed from the scene.</span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-20655493429368347732024-02-27T19:13:00.001-05:002024-02-27T19:13:20.730-05:00A Rather Foolish Argument for Creedalism<p><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://www.smalltowntheologian.org/for-those-who-argue-against-creeds/" target="_blank">https://www.smalltowntheologian.org/for-those-who-argue-against-creeds/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Those who reject Confessionalism are fools we're told by this
Small Town Theologian. I'm afraid his arguments were less than convincing. In
fact I would throw the 'fool' label right back at him.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Shirk stretches the Scriptures to the point of breaking when
he tries to extrapolate creedalism from texts like Nehemiah 8. And perhaps he
is unaware that a Roman Catholic apologist could have a field day with his
arguments out of Acts 8.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">A bare 'the Bible speaks for itself' kind of common sense
appeal is certainly wanting, and there are those guilty of it. But the
alternative is not to embrace full-throated Confessionalism either. Shirk's
presentation is a case of false dilemma.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Creeds and Confessions are worthwhile – as tools, not chains.
They are tools or guides that can aid in the way a map does for a journey. When
used as absolute standards, they functionally usurp and replace Scripture. It's
something I have encountered repeatedly when interacting with Confessional
Presbyterians over the years. Their claims of Sola Scriptura are empty and
bogus.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Explanation, exposition, and exegesis are not the same thing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">He argues the standards explain the sense of Scripture. But
functionally, that's not how they operate. They are the standard and yet they
don't all agree, they contain errors, and they have been in some cases modified
over time. And as I have argued elsewhere, some of the modifications such as
the 1789 American revision to the Westminster Confession have generated
theological dilemmas and internal contradictions which are still unresolved.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And most important, the Confessions must be interpreted which
adds another political layer to the discussion. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">When many creedal elements are arbitrarily set aside – such
as the rest of the material put out by the Nicene Council, or certain elements
within the Westminster tradition, the standards become not so much a means of
articulation but a means of wielding power by ecclesiastical bodies. They are
selectively used to govern – which is tantamount to episcopacy as the body of
clerics holds the authority, not the document in question, and certainly not
the Scriptures.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Additionally there is another elephant in the room – the
issue of Progressive Orthodoxy. Confessionalists embrace the concept but want
to arrest it at a 'confessional' moment in time that is wed to a historical
narrative. If the narrative is found wanting, then the argument for 'stopping'
the progress (as it were) collapses. Progressive Orthodoxy has a problem with
timeless truth – something Primitivism tries (and yet often fails) to
recapture. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And as is so often the case, the real issues are side-stepped
and obscured and there's an attempt to ridicule the supposed small-mindedness
of those who reject their arguments. But one needs to look more closely at them
and at the foundations upon which they rest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They are made of sand. The Magisterial Reformation was not a return to
primitive Christianity. It was not a Second Pentecost (though it's functionally
treated this way). And when one considers the subsequent history – as one moves
through the sixteenth and seventeenth century the story only becomes uglier. To
argue that the creedal symbols produced by 'divines' of this tumultuous era are
authoritative for all time is bordering on the absurd and is rightly rejected
by any serious student of the New Testament.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This is not to say these documents are of no value. They are
in fact tremendous works and yet deeply flawed at points. Those who ignore them
are foolish and yet those who treat them as authoritative are even more
misguided. It's not necessary for each new congregation to reinvent the wheel
(so to speak) and draft a new constitution or confession. I wish to be clear, I
am not speaking of denominations which have no Scriptural warrant to begin
with, let alone the polity tools they employ to bind their schismatic
endeavours together. The answer is not to keep re-writing confessions and
creeds or to adopt them wholesale, but rather to utilize them sparingly and
with wisdom and to re-think the nature of theology and doctrine and how
churches need to bind themselves together and delineate themselves from the
world. Creeds and Confessions have been born of controversy and so often today
they are utilized in contexts divorced from those controversies – often leading
to confusion and even zealous but misguided stands on certain points –
especially in the realm of epistemology.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I'm certain Shirk would roll his eyes at the notion of a
church simply using something like the Apostle's Creed or even no specific
symbol. And yet I must also ask – just what is it that holds the Church
together? Will these confessional forms suffice? Can they do the work of the
Holy Spirit or replace Him? Many would argue they are means used by the Holy
Spirit.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Are they? Where can I read about that? Where do the Scriptures
teach us about such man-generated means? When we adopt extra-Scriptural means,
we necessarily reduce the ones that are given and detract from their meaning
and import. The Spirit holds the Church together – not some man-made dusty form
relying (often) on misguided assumptions such as is the case with Westminster
and its context of the English Civil War. Despite its many errors, it's a
useful document, a useful tool, but it should not be treated as authoritative
or as a standard. Those who do so are guilty of schism. When I'm denied
communion because I won't subscribe to a denominational creed from the
Magisterial Reformation era – then that body is guilty of elitism,
factionalism, and schism.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Shirk is engaged in reductionism – he's oversimplifying the
issues at stake in an attempt to explain away some real problems. There is (to
say the least) an over-abundance of such articles floating around and with very
few willing to engage them and challenge their assumptions on Biblical grounds.</span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-51009286785922296072024-02-13T19:32:00.000-05:002024-02-13T19:32:14.573-05:00Atlanticism's Attempt to Curtail the Rise of Europe and a Multi-Polar World<p><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Atlanticism represents a historical anomaly – Europe under
subjugation from an outside power. For many decades this was limited to Western
Europe but with the collapse of the USSR, the United States extended its reach
through NATO and other mechanisms to include all the former Warsaw Pact nations
and portions of the former Soviet Union itself.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While the notion of Atlanticism is packaged in terms of
alliance and partnership, the paradigm assumes another euphemism – American
Leadership. But the leadership in question is not a case of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">primus inter pares</i> or first among
equals. No, it's cast in terms of yet more euphemisms – American Exceptionalism
and Indispensability. In other words, Europe is subjugated to the leadership
and interests of the United States. The European states while ostensibly
autonomous are nevertheless controlled in terms of trade, foreign policy, and
questions of military defense. They are satraps or under the old Roman imperial
model – client kingdoms.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There are endless metaphors one could employ to describe the
arrangement between America and its European subjects and the truth is the
paradigm always contains a degree of dynamism. Sometimes it's like a
relationship of lord and vassal. In other instances it's a case of big brother
and one of younger weaker siblings, and at other times the relationship is best
described as that of a mafia godfather and his caporegimes.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The problem is when the empire is mismanaged, resentment
grows. When the high-ranking underlings are mistreated, a seed of bitterness is
planted. There is a way that things are done and when there's a breach of
simple respect, it produces umbrage and offense. And when the underlings become
powerful in their own right, not only do they want autonomy, they will
eventually challenge the godfather.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In the early days, NATO was so dominated by the US, that the
European powers still emerging from the wreckage of the war had little hope of
challenging US supremacy – though it was Charles de Gaulle who recognized the
arrangement for what it was – a mechanism for American domination. And he
resented it and nearly paid for his resistance with his life as the US
collaborated with internal elements that wanted to see him dead. While success
(or domination) in France was limited, that is until the ascent of Nicholas
Sarkozy in 2007, the US scored many resounding victories throughout the rest of
Europe during the Cold War and after, manipulating politics and in not a few
cases orchestrating the removal of leaders.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The US passed through a relatively weak period in the 1970's,
so the threat of US domination was less of an issue for a season, but then came
Reagan and the military build-up of the 1980's – as well as a new attempt to up
the nuclear ante in Europe. This produced resentment in many European quarters.
Then the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War ended, and the European Union
finally emerged – the promise of decades of diplomacy and negotiation, it
finally took wing in 1993 and by 1999 the Euro currency was officially launched.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And the US did not like any of it – though many have
forgotten this. The EU's overall population is bigger than the United States
and we've reached a point the US feared – the European economy as a whole is
now more or less equal to that of the United States. The average per capita
income is still lower than the US, even though parts of the EU already exceed
the US in terms of buying power and standard of living. As the EU's economic
might continues to grow it will not just be a rival to American power – this rivalry
is certain to turn adversarial and then run the risk of a real conflict.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As its economy rivals the US, Europe will have its own
interests that will sometimes fall outside that of Washington and it will want
to pursue its own foreign and military policies. This is already starting to
happen even as the US attempts to block such moves and efforts.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The US has long dreaded this moment and to the horror of US
praetorians, the Trump era was actually accelerating the pending crisis. Trump
antagonized the Europeans and gave them every reason to pursue autonomy. Biden
has curtailed this tendency and trajectory by means of NATO expansion, the
Ukraine War, and through liquefied natural gas (LNG) but as that war stagnates
– the tensions are going to quickly re-emerge.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Throughout the Cold War the United States often treated its
allies (or subjects) with contempt. It manipulated their politics, funded
terror within European borders and frequently stabbed its allies in the back –
or expected them to fall on their swords. This can all be explained in terms of
Exceptionalism and Indispensability which (though core concepts within the
Atlanticist framework) many European leaders find offensive and ridiculous.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We've seen another instance of this recently. After the US blew
up the Nordstream pipelines – and virtually everyone knows this is the case,
the US more or less twisted Europe's arm into accepting American Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG). After investing huge sums of money and re-tooling their
economies to make it all work, Biden recently suggested the US may restrict
exports. This is how America treats it allies – with contempt.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/biden-confirms-pause-on-new-lng-export-permits-for-doe-review" target="_blank">https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/biden-confirms-pause-on-new-lng-export-permits-for-doe-review</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">You can only imagine the outrage within the corridors of
power in places like Brussels and Berlin. After investing millions, the US is
willing to put this all at risk so Biden can pander to a political bloc during
an election year. And the Europeans are just supposed to take it – and like it.
There are also real fears about energy supply and the needed infrastructure,
but on a personal level how many will take a financial hit if the US reduces
supply? Such a crisis is likely to generate political upheaval in these
countries as well.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Thankfully for the countries of Europe, there are (at this
point) some other options and yet such moves only increase European autonomy –
something America does not really want to see.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Are we to believe Biden's statements are really motivated by
environmental concerns? It may be a factor, but there's got to be more to it –
a political angle.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As far as the allies go – they are once again to fall on
their swords for the sake of US interests. It's nothing new.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And yet how long will this continue? Europe is looking at
America as something unstable and a Trump victory in 2024 will put NATO on a
rather shaky foundation as he's already suggested the US will not honour its Article
V obligations. Without that, Europe is on its own.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Needless to say his jokes about encouraging Russia to invade
Europe if NATO members don't meet their financial obligations are far from
being helpful or reassuring.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And they know that with a Trump victory they are on their own
and as a consequence European leaders have been planning for it. From the
Aachen Treaty between Paris and Berlin to the growing calls for a European Army
– to now this Federalisation plan, Europe is planning for the day when Atlanticism
is dead and the EU is a rival superpower. Such a federalisation scheme will
unite Europe and grant it more ability to act independent of Washington as well
as respond to a crisis in a more timely and flexible manner. The leadership of
the EU will be empowered and able to act. They're preparing for the inevitable
new multi-polar order that is already emerging. America had its chance to
create a unipolar order and they threw it away.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/a-federalized-europe-isnt-in-americas-interest/" target="_blank">https://www.politico.eu/article/a-federalized-europe-isnt-in-americas-interest/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Politico article is written by someone associated with
the Right-wing of the Atlanticist movement and its critical content is not
surprising in any way. Attempts by Europe to consolidate power will be met with
hostility. Some might even take the essay as something of a warning.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Everything is chummy as long as the Ukraine War continues and
Putin is perceived (or sold to the public) as a threat. Trump brought the EU-US
problems to the fore – Biden has put them temporarily on the backburner. But
the tensions and issues are still there, and the rivalry and the coming (if
inevitable) conflict can be clearly seen hovering in the background. And as the
Ukraine War fizzles, the looming problem of EU-US relations can be seen on the
horizon once again. This is not to say the EU and US are going to end up in a
war anytime soon but they will increasingly become rivals and unless something
changes, the already ossifying alliances will wither and perish. And while
Washington will remain close to the UK – Brexit resulting in a scenario in
which US interests are no longer represented (by proxy) in Brussels. The
French, Germans, Italians, and others can go their own way. The US has tried to
use the V4 Bloc but this too has largely fragmented and is not nearly as
effective as London once was. In many ways the V4 alternative has been wrecked
by the other means to save NATO and Atlanticism – the Ukraine War.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">European politicians are using the Ukraine episode and
Hungarian obstructionism as an excuse to push forward these measures which
eliminate the individual nation-veto, and allow power to consolidate in Brussels.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It's clear this think-tank author is hostile to this
trajectory and subtly falls back on Exceptionalist assumptions to argue against
it. Everyone will be watching the course of American politics throughout 2024 –
and respond accordingly. For Europe, increased power and autonomy are the only
logical course even if it means a breaking with the post-war order created by
American architects and their many collaborators within Europe – some who
believed in it and others who became believers when allowed to profit from it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The article criticises Paris and Berlin for their
self-interest – though it's not presented in exactly those terms. They're not
quite rebel satraps but in need of correction. It's clear the author wishes to
raise the alarm within Washington's power centres as this 'problem' is
re-emerging. Biden put a bandage on the wound inflicted by Trump, but the wound
itself has not healed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The argument that the US supplies and provides European
security is often invoked – especially by those on the American Right that are
bitter toward Europe's 'insubordination' and argue (in self-serving terms) that
the US couldn't have the social programs seen in Europe because it had the
'burden' of 'security'. In other words the Europeans owe everything to America
and should grovel in gratitude.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The truth is that many Europe did not see American military
presence as security but generating insecurity – trapping Europe into the
status of a frontline state, making it the central battleground in a war with
the Soviets. Today, the security argument/appeal doesn't carry as much weight
which explains why the US and its European cronies are so desperate to argue
that Moscow is a threat and the need to invest all out in Ukraine. The Ukraine
War has given NATO (and Atlanticism) a new lease on life – and yet it may in
the end just be a flash in the pan. As the war in Ukraine stagnates and fizzles
so is the renewed zeal for Atlanticism and the new energy surrounding NATO.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">With a population of 450 million and an economy that is
rivalling the United States and by some metrics surpassing it – the fundamental
assumptions of Atlanticism are in jeopardy. And in a multi-polar world the US
will not only find China to be a threat but increasingly the EU.</span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-65185546960151858282024-02-06T18:09:00.000-05:002024-02-06T18:09:24.155-05:00Belgic Article XXXVI and Kuyperianism (II)<p><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">These discussions and debates are further confused by the
influence of Neo-Calvinism (not to be confused with New Calvinism) and Theonomy
which build on Kuyper and in some cases apply his ideas (by means of holistic
assumption and inference) to their monistic models. Under such thinking, Sola
Scriptura is effectively redefined not only in terms of philosophy but with
this recasting comes a notion we might call hyper-sufficiency.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a> <p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Scripture is not just sufficient for the Church and thus
individual Christians in order to know how to live in this world – a point
functionally rejected by most Evangelicals.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Rather, the Scriptures become a kind of launch pad for all
manner of philosophical inference and speculation. In this manner the
Scriptures become (by means of deductive exercise) the basis for a universal or
unified theory, a comprehensive basis for addressing every facet of life – the
axiom for the reconstruction and redemption of the world. This is an abuse of
the notion of sufficiency.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Under these assumptions, the Scriptures are effectively
decovenantalized and universalized – applied to all times and places and thus
the gospel message is radically altered into an imperative for the conquest of
culture and the molding of civilisation by means of this so-called 'worldview'.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">On the one hand the covenant aspect is de facto removed as
the revelation of the Holy Kingdom is applied to the world – the work of the
Spirit being replaced by culture, polity, and legislation. And yet in another
sense we could speak of hyper-covenantalism as the advocates of this way of
thinking see everything in covenantal terms – the world is holy, and the world
is the Kingdom. Under this framework of thought, national charters and
constitutions are covenantalised, civil law is sanctified and so forth. The
covenantal categories of Scripture are blended ad hoc to the systems and
institutions of man.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The end result is the concepts of covenant and Kingdom are
rendered meaningless as they are re-cast and lose their very identity. The goal
is to sacralise the culture but the end result is the secularisation of the
Church, making it indistinguishable from culture and the world. Once again this
is an oft repeated if tragic tale known to us from history. The contemporary collapse
of this false paradigm continues to generate what can only be described as
misguided lamentation. We ought to rejoice and I would argue there is
Scriptural warrant for doing so.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And though the more extreme views espoused by the
Neo-Calvinists and Theonomic Postmillennialism are not in keeping with Kuyper's
views – and in fact in many ways eliminate their basis, nevertheless Kuyper is
still infected with the same sacral poison. The form is different but the
substance is the same. Kuyper is still driven by what are the same assumptions.
Was he inconsistent? Some think so. It could be that he had not really worked
out the implications of what he was saying. And likewise it should be noted
that in addition to his theological errors, his assessments of history are also
lacking and at times confused. His 1898 Stone Lectures at Princeton Theological
Seminary demonstrate this as he misreads and romantically reinterprets the
American Revolution and its ideological roots – as if the liberalism of the
Founders was somehow commensurate with the sacralism of the confessional
tradition. Needless to say Article xxxvi is antithetical to the assumptions
found in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They are diametrically
opposed in their understanding of epistemology, duty, and what constitutes
moral government.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The fact that all the documents in question are wrong and
laden with error is an option few seem willing to entertain.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">To continue with Kuyper, many will understand Common Grace as
delayed judgment, the tool of Providence to preserve a minimal or necessary
degree of restraint and order in the world – a curtailing of post-lapsarian chaos
that allows the Church to function and pursue its mission and testimony in the
world. This undeserved and universal benevolence (a kind of non-redemptive
grace) will in the end result in further judgment as those that rejected Christ
took these blessings in life but were not thankful or repentant and are thus
condemned. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Those who share in this understanding would not see Common
Grace as a means to explain this age or harness its realities – thus redeeming
the fallen world and its culture and bringing them into the service of the Church
and the Kingdom.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And yet this is how Kuyper understood it. Common Grace was a
critical or essential means by which the Kingdom is to be built. In the context
of pluralism, the unbeliever (due to Common Grace) makes 'advances' in
knowledge and (though lost) these unbelievers effectively contribute to the
growth of the Kingdom – which Kuyper defines in sacralist categories of culture
and civilisation. The New Testament definitions are effectively jettisoned. The
end result is the very pluralism Kuyper advocates for is dissolved (an
illusion) as these diverse elements are (unknowingly) participants in and
contributors to the construction of Holy Zion. It's almost as if they are
unwitting resident aliens in the Kingdom. It's the same old sacralism fitted
with new garments, the same substance with a modified form. Sacralism survives
in the post-Revolutionary period by sleight-of-hand. Kuyper just moves the
goalposts and you can still have a 'Christian' culture.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This worked out very well in the places where his influence
has been the greatest – the decadent and worldly Netherlands, and twentieth
century South Africa and its attempt at creating a sanctified and insulated
culture for its Dutch Reformed majority – a political theory we know as
Apartheid.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But again this Common Grace-Culture thinking can only
function if New Testament teachings are ignored. The Kingdom is the work and
realm of the Holy Spirit and the unbeliever has no part in His ministry of
righteousness, peace, and joy. With Kuyper, the providential creational reign
of Christ is confused and conflated with the Holy Realm. Worse, there is
another critical doctrinal layer that is omitted – the post-lapsarian reality
that this present age is described as evil and Satan is the god of this world. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We agree that 'every square inch' belongs to Christ but that
is not manifest in this age, but in the age to come after the final judgment
and after this world and all its works (including the culture so cherished by
Kuyper) are burned up. The Kingdom is spiritual, heavenly, and eschatological.
To bring it into the now is to redefine its nature, the ideals that undergird
it, as well as its ethics. Sadly, Kuyper gave his life, theology, and his name
to this misguided, erroneous, and (functionally) egregious project – one I
frequently describe as a Tower of Babel topped by a cross.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Because the Dominionist spectrum of thinking (which includes
Kuyperianism) cannot (due to its commitments) logically embrace the eschatological
dynamic of the New Testament and the fact that Christ is both reigning King
even while Satan is the god of this world and prince of this present evil age,
the end result is that these truths and this dynamic are downplayed or ignored.
As such, Kuyper's thought falls into the same syncretist patterns of
over-realized eschatology, confusing the cursed bestial realm of the world with
the holy eschatological realm of Zion. The Kingdom is redefined and the very
understanding of the term Christian (to be in Christ) is redefined and not just
expanded – it's exploded into another realm wherein institutions, states, and
empires are essentially 'baptised' into Christ – somehow in union and communion
with Him, sharing in His death and resurrection and (presumably) recipients of
the Spirit as well. How this can be is a point that is never raised and
(obviously) cannot be explained or justified.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">One is hard pressed to imagine a more destructive heresy, and
one that ranges well beyond Paul's anathemas directed at the Galatians. The
Early Church long wrestled with questions of Christ and the Trinity and the
challenge of heresy was arrested – at least on those points. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But when it comes to the great Kingdom Heresies that emerged
post-Constantine, these won the day, which is why they're not spoken of as
heresies. The Church embraced power and a set of new values and ethics
regarding not just politics, but mammon, violence, and the core Christian calling
to take up the cross and live as pilgrims and strangers on the Earth. It was
almost as if a new religion was born. The Bride quickly turned Whore and found
itself very much at home on the back of the Roman Beast – and many of its
offspring in the centuries to come.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And the Magisterial Reformation (of which the Belgic
Confession is a critical part) did nothing to correct this heresy but
perpetuated it, and figures like Kuyper helped to recast it for modernity –
making it compatible in the context of Liberalism and industrial society. This
is his true legacy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As stated, his plurality is an illusion, his notion of
antithesis rendered functionally moot. It's the same old error simply re-cast
for a different context and willing to incorporate a great deal of
Enlightenment thought and assumption along the way.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">His paradigm is in some respects better than the kind of
crude sacralism of earlier eras but in another way it's actually much worse. It
allowed the Church to function more potently in the post-nineteenth century
context and grants theological justification for co-belligerence, not just with
Rome but with other political forces. Some will understand that Kuyper is the
(perhaps unwitting) architect of a socio-theological paradigm that is still
with us – and one that continues to generate a great deal of compromise.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">When these Kingdom and Common Grace notions are inevitably
combined with Classical Liberalism, it leads (and continues to lead) to real
confusion in the realm of Christian ethics, as the Church comes to fully
embrace a host of Enlightenment assumptions and imperatives about 'rights',
resistance, ethics, economics, and much else.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The great irony here is that under the older more absolute
system, there could be a greater sense of antithesis when contrasted with
post-revolutionary modernity. The line of demarcation was pretty clear but this
quickly became confused as some justified the American Revolution – even while
condemning the French. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">However, such a Throne and Altar or Paleo-Authoritarian system
would likely have not survived the storms of the twentieth century. The anti-modern
popes of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century tried to hold the line
but failed. These failures as well as the world wars would ultimately lead to the
compromises of Vatican II.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Today, most of the Western Church embraces the erroneous
assumptions of Classical Liberalism without hesitation and this (already
compromised) paradigm is being challenged by the likes of Theonomy and Catholic
Integralism. Both must be represented as spectrums rather than specific and narrow
schools of thought. And yet (ironically) both of these anti-liberal challengers
are nevertheless affected by Liberalism and both struggle to escape its
influence. Even among the most extreme Catholic Traditionalists there are very
few advocating for a true return to the old Throne and Altar paradigm. Many are
libertarian capitalists masquerading as Traditionalists.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As such, many of the debates are actually quite pointless and
fail to address foundational issues. So it is with the debate between Belgic
Confessional fidelity and the views of Abraham Kuyper. Both camps are in error.
Both are born of the same polluted sacralist font – and both factions have also
imbibed additional poisons such as Liberalism. And the absurd nature of the
debate is further confused by outside factions (such as Evangelicals more fully
embracing the assumptions of liberalism and thus drunk on the same poison)
hurling their misguided criticisms into the debate.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In the end, the debate over confessional subscription and the
portions of Article xxxvi that have been bracketed – are meaningless to me
apart from historical curiosity. If anything, this episode only further
demonstrates the problems with such subscription and the unacknowledged but
implied idea of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">progressive theology</i>
arrested by the Reformation-era confessional tradition. It's a baseless
narrative and in no way do documents like the Belgic or Westminster Confessions
represent a repristination of New Testament Christianity or Sola Scriptura.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In the post-Revolutionary context, a kind of hard subscriptionist
confessionalism became practically impossible to uphold. A subscriptionist
would have to argue all Liberal governments such as the United States and
eventually the UK and all of modern Europe are illegitimate. And what does that
mean in terms of ethics? It implies either political quietism or revolutionary
activism. Unscriptural thinking generates such false dilemmas and the end
result is even more Scriptural imperatives are ignored – and even the pilgrim
ethos of the New Testament is functionally rejected and abandoned. One cannot
help but notice that the many related discussions in articles and in Christian
media dance around the Scriptures. They are referenced but not seriously
employed. The debates are all on a philosophical and systemic level or rest
solely on debates over Historical Theology – another outcome of the
confessional approach. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">One wishes they would return to the New Testament for even a
cursory read dashes their assumptions and renders many of these debates moot –
exposing just how far afield these people have wandered in their thinking.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Hoedemaker was right about Kuyper but it doesn't matter –
both men embraced wrong assumptions and the end result is in reality the same.
Kuyper was a pragmatist as Hoedemaker charged – but to argue that Article xxxvi
is the result of exegesis is simply laughable. Only by Judaized gymnastics
wielding a Rationalist hammer could one chisel out something like the doctrine
found in Belgic xxxvi.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Hoedemaker wishes to cast a shadow over Kuyper's legacy for
his infidelity to the confessional tradition. In actuality, Kuyper's great
theological crime is that he created a platform for the integration of the
Magisterial Reformation's sacral tradition and that of Enlightenment and
post-Revolutionary Liberalism. As such he is the intellectual grandfather of
modern Evangelicalism and unwittingly one of its inspirations if not
architects. From its cultural compromises to its Faustian bargains with
political forces, it's as if the ghost of Abraham Kuyper is always hovering in
the background. The once aimless movement which emerged in the late 1940's
found its cohesion in the teachings of Kuyper as transmitted by his disciples –
men such as Francis Schaeffer and Charles Colson. And so much more could be
said about the theological influence of Kuyper in the acculturation of groups
like Christian Reformed Church (CRC) and again, the pro-apartheid Reformed
Church in South Africa. Kuyper's teachings and approach to culture have proven
to be malleable and unstable – a clear testimony to their unbiblical nature.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This is his dark legacy and this man, considered a hero by so
many must in actuality be reckoned as a destroyer of the New Testament faith,
one of the great villains of the modern Church. We can only hope that someday
this will be acknowledged and understood.</span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-42583912057050685842024-02-06T18:08:00.003-05:002024-02-06T18:09:51.265-05:00Belgic Article XXXVI and Kuyperianism (I)<span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://reformedperspective.ca/on-the-proper-role-of-government-and-article-36-of-the-belgic-confession/" target="_blank">https://reformedperspective.ca/on-the-proper-role-of-government-and-article-36-of-the-belgic-confession/</a></span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The Reformed Perspective/Bredenhof article in question
provides a worthy discussion of the some of the dynamics concerning Article
xxxvi of the Belgic Confession (1559) and the views of Abraham Kuyper
(1837-1920). To many in the Reformed sphere, their teachings are effectively one
and the same and yet this is not actually the case. For some Kuyper actually represents
a serious departure creating an uncomfortable situation for those who would
both champion Kuyper as the twentieth-century Reformed Theologian par
excellence, and yet demand a strict Confessional Subscription.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In Belgic Article xxxvi we read: <span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p style="background: rgb(252, 252, 252); margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 6.0pt; margin: 6pt 0in 12pt;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #383838; font-size: 18pt;">We believe that our gracious God,
because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and
magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and
policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all
things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he
hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil-doers,
and for the protection of them that do well.</span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;"></span></i></p>
<p style="background: rgb(252, 252, 252); margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 6.0pt; margin: 6pt 0in 12pt;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #383838; font-size: 18pt;">And their office is, not only to have
regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they
protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and
false worship; that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the
kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of
the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by
every one, as He commanded in His Word.</span></i></p>
<p style="background: rgb(252, 252, 252); margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 6.0pt; margin: 6pt 0in 12pt;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #383838; font-size: 18pt;">Moreover, it is the bounden duty of
everyone, of what state, quality, or condition so ever he may be, to subject
himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to
them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of
God; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them
in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all
godliness and honesty.</span></i></p>
<p style="background: rgb(252, 252, 252); margin-bottom: 12.0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 6.0pt; margin: 6pt 0in 12pt;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #383838; font-size: 18pt;">Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and
other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers
and magistrates, and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and
confound that decency and good order, which God hath established among men.</span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">----</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 18pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Written in 1559, the article is more or less in keeping with
the Sacralist assumptions that governed Christendom since the days of
Constantine. It calls on the state to be intolerant, to suppress false worship,
and thereby to protect and promote the Church. It therefore assumes a paradigm
in which Church and State work in concert. Functionally the state (under this
paradigm) would have to be subservient to the Church, though the language tries
to dodge this problem. There's no suggestion of an ecclesiastical hierarchy wed
to the state, nor the idea that the legitimacy of the state is tied to the
approval and appointment of the Church or vice versa, but it's certainly
implied. No one is suggesting that pastors run the state or magistrates run the
Church. They function separately and yet due to their symbiotic nature they
cannot be separated.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The truth is, that despite an already evident departure from
Scripture, there are serious internal contradictions in this article (xxxvi)
that are not spelled out or reconciled – but left for history to decide.
Presumably the officers of the state are members of the Church and subject to
its discipline – thus indirectly subordinating the state. And yet if the state
ultimately has to arbitrate and pick winners and losers – punishing and
suppressing those it deems to be in error, the Church is very much subject to
the state. What's to say that a Church challenging the state won't be deemed
heretical and thus subject to suppression? We see this over and over again in
Church history. Some will argue this sort of thing can be avoided by a
constitution – but is that really any guarantee? Such documents must be
interpreted and contexts (and interpretations) change over time – and necessarily
so. History shows that in every case – the state wins and the Church loses its
identity. The only exceptions are found among the churches that break away – at
which point as Free Churches they abandon the assumptions and forms of Article
xxxvi, and rightly so.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">History demonstrates that the politics of the moment drive
this dynamic as do strong personalities and other social forces. The
unscriptural ideal presented in the article is in fact a kind of Ivory Tower
White Paper and little more.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">It is critical to understand the context of the Belgic article
and what it wishes to condemn. The Münster Rebellion of 1534-35 was still a
fresh (if raw) memory, as well the influence of earlier figures like the
Zwickau Prophets (1522). And many at the time would still shudder at the
mention of Thomas Müntzer and the larger question of the Peasants' War which
ended in 1525. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The legacy of the German Peasants' War is complicated because
of the multitude of factions involved and the fact that many rebels were driven
by economic and sociological reasons – which often overlap with nascent
Protestant sympathies and in some cases outrightly so. And while the Sack of
Rome (1527) was conducted by rebel mercenaries under Charles V, there were
nevertheless significant numbers of Lutherans in the army turned mob – men motivated
by strong anti-Catholic sentiment.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Was the Peasants' Revolt an outcome of Protestantism? No.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Was the Sack of Rome an outcome of Protestantism? No.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">But you can't honestly discuss either apart from the context
of the Protestant Magisterial Reformation. Protestantism played an important
part in both of these episodes. One must also consider the emerging wars of
religion. Zwingli was cut down in battle in 1531 – fighting for Zürich against
the Five Catholic States of Switzerland. The Schmalkaldic Wars between
Lutherans and the Habsburg Crown were fought in 1540's and 1550's – and these
were just the opening salvos of what would become a century of war and
upheaval. The Magisterial Reformation was (from the beginning) reliant on the
state and this is expressed in the sixteenth and seventeenth century
confessional tradition.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The final section of Belgic xxxvi condemning the Anabaptists,
accusing them of anarchy and primitive communism is a caricature, a takedown of
a straw man as many Anabaptists did not hold these views and certainly by 1559,
very few if any still did. The author Guido de Bres is playing on fears by
means of sweeping generalisation and anachronism. And keep in mind he too advocated
rebellion, playing an active role in the opening chapters of the Eighty Years
War and was executed by the Spanish as a rebel and traitor. Whether de Bres was
a rebel deserving death, martyr, or something else is an open question. If he
was a martyr it was to a political cause, not in the service of Zion. He may
condemn the Anabaptists for their perceived anarchy but from the Spanish
Habsburg perspective – he was guilty of the same.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">But I digress.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In addition to condemnation, Article xxxvi also makes
positive statements or assertions of doctrine which upon examination are
revealed to be just as erroneous as the errors it would condemn – and over time
would result in just as much death, depravity, and destruction. The second
paragraph of the article has no basis in the New Testament and opens the door
to many evils and misguided policies – and in the process re-casts the concept
of Christian vocation and wreaks havoc on Christian ethics.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The contemporary discussions are confused and all the more
when one considers a titanic figure in the Dutch Reformed world like Abraham
Kuyper – one esteemed even by today's Calvinist and Evangelical communities.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Some thinkers (and one cannot help but think of those associated
with Westminster-California) present Kuyper as something of a positive<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>break with this Magisterial Reformation heritage,
an advocate of what they would call a Reformed Two-Kingdoms Theology – in
opposition to the kind of Two Kingdom thinking seen among the Anabaptists and
other pre-Reformation groups.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In other cases, the Westminster-California reading of Geneva
under Calvin is subject to significant revisionism as well. As a rule this
faction plays a bit fast and loose with the Westminster and Reformed
Confessional heritage – often appealing to the 1789 American revision of
Westminster, as if it is in keeping with the larger tradition and historical
legacy – and not representing a fairly radical shift.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Though Kuyper is so closely associated with a Reformed
sacralist view of society (and thus the larger Reformed Magisterial tradition),
the truth is his thinking does represent something of a limited break – at
least at first glance. His pillarisation and sphere sovereignty models as well
as his views of Common Grace were born of his post-Revolutionary context and
the inescapability of social pluralism. In many respects his views are a kind
of Reformed-Protestant variety of Catholic Social Teaching which was attempting
to wrestle with the same problems. The world had changed and so the old
Constantinian Sacralist model needed to be recast in order to function within
the new matrix of Liberalism and Industrialisation.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">These are complicated questions, but for many Reformed today,
Kuyper is like a breath of fresh air – all the more as many (even
Dominionist-minded) people are uncomfortable with the kind of hard sacralism
seen in the Westminster Confession and Article xxxvi of the Belgic Confession.
The older traditional teaching (evidenced in the confessions) seems a little
too close to the kind of overt Constantinianism and authoritarianism which not
everyone wants to see revived.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In fact, it could be said that in many ways the debate is not
over whether or not dominion should be exercised – but how. When criticising
the larger Magisterial tradition, Kuyper's name is often evoked as his
influence has spread even into Evangelical circles and some would accuse
critics (such as myself) of conflating and confusing the near pluralist views
of Kuyper with the old mono-sacralist and holistic views of the older Reformed
Orthodoxy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The answer to this is one of 'yes and no', as the point is
not groundless but misses larger critical questions. There is a divide between
Kuyper and the old Reformed Orthodox, but they're both on the wrong side of the
line (as it were) and thus are (from my perspective) quite closely related.
They represent a difference on paper but in practice it's a distinction without
a difference.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In other words, the differences are not nearly as great as
some would make them. The contexts are different but the core assumptions regarding
the Kingdom and questions of dominion are more or less the same. And even if
one is to grant that Kuyper's views are a little closer to Scripture (and thus
better), this isn't really saying much at all. Regardless, his views are not
congruent with New Testament teaching, categories (or as stated) even basic assumptions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2024/02/belgic-article-xxxvi-and-kuyperianism-ii.html" target="_blank">Continue reading Part 2</a></span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-28925470095803233982024-01-23T20:25:00.000-05:002024-01-23T20:25:10.007-05:00The Evangelical Roots of New Calvinism <span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While attending a New Calvinist congregation this last
Sunday, we were disappointed to discover that a woman connected to the pro-life
movement was there to give a pre-sermon presentation. It in fact amounted to a
mini-sermon, and then an exhortation to support local pregnancy centers and the
like as well a rather skewed narrative of the movement, and an overall call to
action.<span><a name='more'></a></span></span>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Aside from her speaking being a shame and disgrace, the whole
thing (regardless of one's opinion on the matter) was totally inappropriate to
be taking place in the context of worship.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Later when discussing it at lunch, I was certain to point out
that this point exemplifies the different roots of New Calvinism vs. more
traditional expressions of Reformed theology.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The older tradition has centuries of struggle and reflection (and
thus scholarship) on issues of liturgy and ecclesiology. Obviously there's a
considerable spectrum and plenty of disagreement but one can find the
discussion reduced to basic points that provide a basis for thinking and doctrinal
development – questions such as what constitutes 'elements' of worship and so
forth.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Many in the Reformed sphere would rightly say that even if it
were a man speaking, the whole thing was inappropriate – and they might say
this even if they're really devoted to the movement and zealous to promote it.
That wouldn't be the way to do it. It's the wrong context for a talk like that –
and they would be right.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">New Calvinism does not have these roots – and despite the
pastor arguing that he's Reformed, he's not. Embracing the Five Points of
Calvinism doesn't make one Reformed – and I find that many don't even have a
proper understanding of the context which birthed them, let alone the Scriptural,
hermeneutical, and theological problems engendered by absolutizing them the way
many are wont to do.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">New Calvinism comes out of Evangelicalism and as such there
are a host of foundational questions that are not only 'not' asked – they've
never really been thought about. Thus the intuitions are different as are the
principles. All too often it's not a question of turning to Scripture, or even
arguing that it's permitted if Scripture doesn't forbid it, but rather what
works. It's good old American pragmatism and all too often it functions under
the aegis of the end justifies the means. The Sunday experience exemplified
this in rather stark terms.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">They are Evangelicals that have embraced a set of beliefs
about questions concerning decretalism, providence, and soteriology. The larger
questions that concerned historical Reformed Theology – the nature of theology
and authority, confessionalism, ecclesiology – and thus worship, sacraments,
and the like are not something New Calvinism has seriously entertained – and as
such tends to have an Evangelical and thus rather low view of these things.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Another point that frustrated me was the reciting of the
Apostle's Creed. I'm not terribly interested in reciting creeds but I don't
totally object either – especially if it's just the Apostle's Creed. But even
this has been distorted by New Calvinism's theological shortcomings and a-historical
sensibilities.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As some readers will know it's not uncommon in these circles
to drop out the bit about Christ descending to Hell (or Hades), since the
theological leaders of the movement – men like Wayne Grudem and John Piper
object to it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I would argue this stems from a rather low view of Scripture
and a very truncated understanding of Biblical Theology, but regardless I find
it rather audacious that they bother to recite it and then modify it. What's
the point then? How then is the creed unifying the congregation with historic
Christianity and the confession of the Early Church? The fathers of the Church
would condemn this abandonment of what they (rightly) considered to be a
Biblical doctrine. We can talk about what it means to be sure – but to just
drop it?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I'm afraid this started years ago when certain offensive and
misunderstood words were tweaked. Many coming out of Fundamentalism would get
quite upset over the term 'Catholic', thinking of course it means Roman
Catholic. The problem is not the word but rather their ignorance. Teach them
what it means and dispel their superstitions about the word. Catholicity is not
a bad thing – Roman Catholicism is.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But this is changed to 'universal' – I realize the meaning is
the same but the connotation is a bit different. And so bit by bit, the creed
is chipped away and I would now argue has been undermined by New Calvinism.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If you don't want to recite it – then don't. But don't change
it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Again, the movement is Evangelical – or what used to be
called Neo-Evangelical. It's not rooted in the old Evangelicalism of the
eighteenth and even in some cases the nineteenth century. That was just another
name for gospel-driven Protestantism in the context of state churches and
nominalist Christianity.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">No, the Neo-Evangelical movement emerged after World War II
and was cut from a very different cloth and driven by a different set of
priorities, standards, and goals.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">To make things even more confusing, there was a pronounced
shift and downgrade in the movement during the 1990's – as Mega-Church and
Praise Team culture really started to take hold and spread, and you saw the
explosion of celebrity culture, para-church ministries, and the open embrace of
things like feminism, divorce, and psychology within the Evangelical sphere.
One might also add there was a definite embrace of conspicuous consumption and
clerical and 'ministry' salaries skyrocketed and many pastors and celebrity
ministry types became very wealthy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Older (once Neo-) Evangelicals began to contrast themselves
with these 'new' or Neo-Evangelical types. Fundamentalism was still around but
rapidly disappearing. That just added another layer of nuance to the already
confusing scene. And in the midst of this – enter New Calvinism.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Ironically, New Calvinism shares a lot of characteristics
with the 1990's neo-neo Evangelicalism, especially with its approaches to
ecclesiology. That should give one pause (I think) when reflecting on the
movement.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There are nevertheless some good things happening. The church
in question is one of many old Fundamentalist congregations that have made the
switch. Twenty years ago it would have been teaching Dispensationalism and some
form of Arminian or Semi-Pelagian theology. Some New Calvinist congregations
have retained the Dispensationalism, some have thankfully jettisoned it. Of
course if it's simply replaced by Dominionism, I'm not sure that's a net gain.
At least (I suppose) they are less likely to champion the Zionist state's many
episodes of mass slaughter in the Levant.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But it really struck me how this has become a whole new
tradition. From the ESV and the John MacArthur hymnbooks in the pew, to the big
and busy screen and its promos for a Bible study using some Grudem book, to the
modified creed and so forth – it's a strange new Calvinistic but not quite
Reformed world.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As one who used to be conscientiously and quite zealously Reformed,
I do confess it's somewhat off-putting but as I am no longer part of that camp (and
in many respects opposed to the Magisterial Reformation heritage), my response
is different – but I must admit, I'm still a little ruffled by it. Maybe it's
the swagger that irritates me as I tend to view the leaders and these
well-meaning and energetic but often young and less-than-informed pastors as
somewhat ignorant – proclaiming things and claiming a heritage they clearly do
not understand.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Functionally I can exist in a New Calvinist context while
it's all but impossible for me to do so in the context of Confessional Reformed
Baptist or Presbyterian congregations.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But I still don't like it much. But as the worship is relatively
simple and the Word is preached, and I'm running out of options – I may have to
seriously consider it.</span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-65140204107059864722024-01-14T16:25:00.001-05:002024-01-14T16:25:20.378-05:00Musing on The Verge: Reformation, Renaissance and Forty Years that Shook the World (II)<p><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">All things considered, I don't disagree with Wyman's general
narrative regarding the rise of the modern West and how it surpassed previous
super-power states and cultures like that of the Ottoman Empire.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But rather than celebrate Capitalism and the way it has
reshaped the world, I would offer some different narratives to consider.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I think a case can be made that the process began centuries
earlier – long before Capitalism began to come together as a coherent economic
system and to be fair Wyman might even agree.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The stability that emerged in the eleventh century along with
the consolidation of power in the hands of the Papacy laid the groundwork for
the Crusades. And contrary to the narratives of those who would defend these
ventures, the knights and petty noblemen of English, Norman, and French
extraction were not liberators of the so-called Holy Land. They had no
intention on handing these lands back to any emperor – whether Holy Roman or
Byzantine. They were conquerors who sometimes mixed in some self-deluded piety
with their visions of grandeur while others most certainly used it as a pretense.
This period was marked by rapacious expansion and as Eastern goods poured into
the West, it unleashed what can only be described as unbounded avarice. The
Church did not always condone this but tolerated it and in many cases the grasping
projects of Western men of might were dressed up in the garb of Christian
concern. And yet if we know a tree by its fruit, their real motives and
character seem clear enough.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">One could just as easily say that (read through the lens of the
New Testament) the West was dominated by false Christianity that was reaching
for the stars to pull them down and to build its Tower of Babel, its Mystery Babylon.
It was an evil drive and motivation and while Wyman can simply shrug at the
millions dead that resulted from this period of 'growth and progress' – and deluded
and deceived men like John Robbins can celebrate it, the Bible-formed Christian
must condemn it as the Satanic and Bestial abomination that it is, and one not
yet fully reckoned with – as is so painfully clear in our present context.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This is not to say the Orient (as represented by the Ottomans
for example) was godly but rather realistic (and on a street level even humble)
in its limitations. There are of course notable exceptions, in addition to the
expansionist sultans, one immediately thinks of monsters like Genghis and
Timur. Westerners see a lack of imagination in both Oriental rulers and their
subjects. Again, I am reminded of the Biblical imagery of pulling down stars – associated
with Satan and with antichrist figures like Antiochus Epiphanes. The
blasphemous celestial aspiration is also found in the likes of Timur and
Genghis Khan but other leaders are (interestingly) more restrained and frankly
the submissive humility of many Easterners puts the swaggering demeanour of the
West to shame.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I am reminded of CS Lewis' The Horse and His Boy and the
scene in Tashbaan when he contrasts the 'grave and mysterious' ways of the
Calormenes (Middle-Easterners) with the carefree, open, and casual manner of the
Narnian lords – and how lovely it was to behold.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Read and re-read the New Testament. You'll find the idealised
picture presented is certainly not the 'grave and mysterious' manner that Lewis
condemns but it's not quite the Narnian posture either. Joy and kindness are
Christian virtues and yet even these are often misunderstood – especially the
nature of joy. The overall picture of the New Testament life and calling is
completely at odds with the Narnian swagger – let alone the American one. And
this doesn't even touch on the bogus Western tradition of nobility and chivalry
that Lewis also takes for granted and at times celebrates. The humility that
characterizes many people across the lands of Asia and Africa is all but
despised by Westerners and yet in some respects (and at times) it is actually
closer to a Christian demeanour than what is expressed by the arrogant children
of the 'Christian' West.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Another episode that comes to mind is in the film Seven Years
in Tibet when the Harrer character (played by Brad Pitt) tries to show off for
a Tibetan beauty but she explains how such putting one's self forward is alien
to their culture and deemed offensive. It's one of those East-meets-West
moments that either can generate some reflection on the part of a Western
viewer or generate contempt.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Dominionism (though not a term in use) drove Christendom as a
result of the Constantinian synthesis or Shift. The Kingdom of God was defined
in earthly terms and equated with worldly glory. Western history is filled with
episodes of dynamism – the creation of the Holy Roman Empire in the ninth
century, the Gregorian Reforms of the eleventh, the Crusades and the
mini-renaissance of the High Middle Ages, followed by the Renaissance and
Reformation periods. Byzantine history by contrast is apart from the Iconoclast
and Hesychast controversies one of stasis (often described as stagnation) and slow
decline. Byzantium fought long battles with Persia, the Bulgars, and of course
both the Arab and Turkish waves of Islam. There were periods of reform and
reinvention but they are not as consequential or sweeping as what we find in
the West. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">After its initial and rather impressive expansionist period, Islam
under the Turks stabilized and all but burned out – settling into a kind of political
and cultural realism. And if we consider other great powers like China, we find
that it never looked beyond its domestic and regional spheres. Apart from the
Tang (and in some sense the Yuan) there was no concept of cosmopolitanism or a trans-national
empire.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Wyman argues that the Ottoman model required constant warfare
and expansion which reached its limits in 1529 with the failed siege of Vienna.
And it is thus implied that period of 1529-1683 was marked by a kind of
stagnation which was then followed by the period of decline – resulting in the
Sick Man of Europe period from about 1700 to the empire's final collapse in the
1920's.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We've seen this sort of model at other times in history.
Historians have pointed to Napoleonic France as having a similar system. Its
economy was militarized and relied on war and success in war. Everything went
well until 1812. After the retreat from Russia which was complete by December,
the War of the Sixth Coalition began in March of 1813. Just over a year later
France was broken and defeated and the Allies had taken Paris. Within weeks
Napoleon was ousted and exiled to Elba.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Wyman is suggesting that it was Capitalism which gave the
West the dynamism and energy to eventually eclipse the Ottomans. But there are
other ways to consider this. All empires fall into decadence regardless of
their ideology or economic models.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As the Ottomans went into cycles of decline and decadence,
the West was in the process of re-invention. The Renaissance and Reformation
both set in motion forces that would break the Medieval model dominated by the
Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy. The Empire was only formally ended in 1806 by
Napoleon, but for all intents and purposes it was a dead concept by the Peace
of Augsburg in 1555. And after years of struggle, any attempt to revive the
corpse was abandoned by the 1648 Peace of Westphalia which ended the Thirty
Years War.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Papacy survives to this day, but the Reformation broke
its power in Northern Europe and the Renaissance set in motion forces which
would limit and curtail its power even in the Catholic sphere. By the
nineteenth century the Papacy was all but broken as a political power. It
survived by reinventing itself and continues to do so to this day.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Revisiting these topics, one is also led to muse on popular
Evangelical narratives regarding the West and in particular the denialism
regarding the state of the West during the Dark Ages as well as the cultural
advancement and superiority of the Orient and in particular the Islamic world.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">They mistakenly think that admitting this rather patent
reality implies some kind of inferiority, but this is a mistaken
interpretation. To admit the weakness and cultural inferiority of the West
during this period says nothing of intrinsic status, but rather recognizes the
catastrophic nature of the Western Empire's collapse in the fifth century.
Western Europe was left broken and unstable and for centuries faced constant
external threat – the exact opposite of the Orthodox-Slavic world which
(despite periods of great crisis) remained relatively stable and didn't face
its real 'Dark Age' until about the fourteenth century – a period that would
last until the late 1800's and up to World War I. As stated, their decline
began just as the West was beginning to bask in the sun of the Renaissance –
which would include the Magisterial Reformation.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Dark Ages ended around the year 1000 and the West entered
a period called the Middle Ages or by some reckonings the High Middle Ages.
Those who eschew the Dark Ages label will tend to refer to the entire
c.500-1500 period as The Middle Ages but it requires distinctions as the first
five hundred years was very different from the second.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Renaissance introduced dynamism but also created
something of an epistemological crisis that was foreshadowed by the
Nominalist-driven implosion of Scholastic theology and events like The Great
Schism (1378-1415). The subsequent Magisterial Reformation poured fuel on this
already smoldering fire and it is this following period (roughly 1517-1648)
that is marked by crisis-turned-chaos with everything from the philosophical
revolution (or Age of Reason) and with it the rise of science, as well as the
witchcraft craze and the terrible wars of religion.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It was the period of epistemological chaos that provided the
matrix for new philosophies and the subsequent systematization and philosophical
justification for Capitalism.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Someone might ask or argue, isn't this all Providential – and
thus a blessing connected to the Reformation? Of course all of these
developments fall under the aegis of Providence – but try as you might, you
can't read or interpret it – or spin it. And avoid those who think they can.
The means to understand what God is doing is beyond us. We know how the story
ends with the Parousia of Christ, the end of this age, and the fiery
destruction of the Earth – followed by the New Heavens and Earth in
eschatological glory.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In terms of Providence, we see that empires are beasts (even
Protestant ones), and that they fall into patterns and cycles of judgment –
hydra heads dying and yet being reborn as it were. We are told of the
beast-cycles leading up to the birth of the Messiah and the Church age –
Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Some of the beast powers represent a mix of good and evil and
yet they are still Bestial powers connected to the Dragon and as such are accursed
enemies of Christ. This lesson has been forgotten in the West as the final and
most terrible Beast of the old order – Rome, was adopted and sanctified by a
Church fallen into apostasy. For all the changes since that time, nothing has
changed and the Magisterial Reformation did nothing to correct or undo this
legacy of error.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Instead it created the conditions for new empires to arise –
which some ecclesiastics in their spiritual blindness and moral bankruptcy have
sought to sanctify as well – ignoring or even sanctioning some of the most
horrendous and horrific crimes in history.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Verge is an interesting read – if one has discernment. I
can agree with his framing of the history and the story of development. And yet
I break with Wyman when it comes to not just its interpretation but its meaning
and how such history should be judged. Wyman's excitement is palpable – he
wants people to understand this period so they can truly appreciate the world
it created. As a Christian, I also think the period needs to be understood but
for completely different reasons – ones I do not celebrate.</span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-84268173792947423742024-01-14T16:24:00.004-05:002024-01-14T16:25:54.754-05:00Musing on The Verge: Reformation, Renaissance and Forty Years that Shook the World (I)<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Patrick Wyman's <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Verge: Reformation, Renaissance and Forty Years that Shook the World</i> (published
in 2021 by Twelve) focuses primarily on the years1490-1530. He argues this
period was critical for understanding the modern world as the West moved through
these four decades of transition.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In the process of surveying some of the main historical
events of this period, he teases out key cultural markers that (he argues) set
the stage for the coming period and the world we know today.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">A fair bit of time is spent on the unification of Spain and
the voyage of Columbus as well as the Italian Wars which eventually range
beyond the period he covers. These events were important in themselves and yet
Wyman is particularly interested in the transformation of economics and things
like Renaissance warfare, the gunpowder revolution, and tying them together – how
economics affected the new of age warfare and made it possible.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Students of the period know this discussion cannot be had
without considering the Fugger banking empire. Wyman explains how the ancient
and medieval prohibition on interest (or usury) was evaded by means of things
like currency exchange and fees. Of course this period would also mark a
fundamental shift as interest was ultimately embraced and usury redefined as
meaning not just interest, but excessive interest, the definition familiar in
contemporary society. It's clear enough that Wyman supports this shift and
wants to make a substantial argument in favour of capitalism as not just a
means of generating wealth and prosperity, but a means of transformation – as
the world and the horizon of possibilities was limited when credit was absent.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In addition there's the question of the printing press which
was invented before Wyman's time-frame and yet he argues that it did not come
into its own or become a cultural force until this period. Or viewed
differently, without the press and the nascent printing industry, many of the
developments and advances of the 1490-1530 epoch would not have been possible.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">This brings us to the Reformation which he covers, though
primarily through a sociological lens – which is deficient and yet many
contemporary fans of the Magisterial Reformation often exhibit a similar kind
of myopia and focusing on the theological revolution, miss many of the larger cultural
aspects and impacts of the movement as well as its greater context. In some
respects the Reformation failed as in many quarters it did not produce genuine
conversion and godliness but was embraced for other reasons. This must be
understood if one hopes to grasp the events leading up to The Peasants' War of
1524 or even the Sack of Rome in 1527.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The Habsburgs are covered as they consolidated their power
during this period. An already connected and powerful family, their many
marriage schemes bore real fruit culminating in the Holy Roman Emperor Charles
V who ruled much of Europe and the New World. In fact the larger Habsburg
Domain (which ranged well beyond the Imperial constituency) was so vast that
after Charles abdicated in the mid-1550's, it was split into what would become
the Spanish and Austrian branches. The inbred Spanish line would of course die
out by 1700 and be replaced by the Bourbons, while the Austrian line continued
until the end of World War I.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">And then we have the Turkish advance, and as Wyman points out
if someone had been granted a bird's eye view of the period, all bets would
have been on the Ottomans. They had the military power, efficiency, and order –
and during the period from the late fourteenth century until the seventeenth
century they seemed unstoppable.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Twice, they were famously stopped at Vienna in 1529 (by
weather and attrition) and again in 1683 by military defeat. And yet many
forget that the Ottomans conquered nearly all of the Balkans, ruling the
peninsula for a full four (and in some cases five) centuries. And for almost
two hundred years, most of Hungary was also part of the Ottoman Empire with some
churches transformed into mosques with bell towers serving as minarets. The
Balkans remained under their control until the nineteenth century with conflicts
over remaining territories continuing until the eve of World War I.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">And so Wyman wrestles with the question of why did Europe end
up surpassing the once all-powerful Ottomans in terms of military might? It
took time to be sure but once the tide turned, the Ottoman Empire became the
Sick Man of Europe and endured a more than two-hundred year decline until its
ultimate collapse in the aftermath of World War I.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Of course it might be added the Habsburgs also collapsed
within the same time period. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">One might say that economics overshadows all the discussions
in Wyman's work. It could be summarized as a celebration of Capitalism and a
testimony to the power of credit and an unfolding of its possibilities.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">He argues that with credit, great and visionary projects can
be funded. It opens up the possibilities of innovation and this in turn fosters
competition.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In the course of the discussion regarding the Ottomans, he
reveals numerous interesting points such as the fact that European states were
always in debt while the Ottoman Sultans ran budget surpluses. Once again in
terms of sheer efficiency and discipline, the Ottomans were the force to be reckoned
with and with a centralized power structure, the Sultan could quickly amass
huge armies that dwarfed European efforts.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">And yet Wyman argues that the Ottoman system stagnated – its
command economy lacked the power of innovation. On the contrary in Europe, the
profit motive drove the already mentioned twin forces of competition and
innovation and as such the race to get ahead eventually pushed Europe as a
whole to surpass the Ottomans. Technology was able to overcome numbers and
eventually the tide would turn so thoroughly that the Ottomans had little hope
of standing up to Western might.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">To his credit, Wyman does not shy away from the fact that
millions died in the many wars of struggle and millions more died in the New
World. And it must not be overlooked that millions were also enslaved through
the subsequent centuries, but from his standpoint these ills are reduced to
bumps in the road, necessary evils, or growing pains for a mighty civilization.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In fact the economic angle to the story could be described as
a fixation or even central organising principle – almost akin to what one reads
in Marxist analysis and yet in this case it's a Capitalist read. It was
interesting to say the least.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Typically these types of arguments and framing are found with
Libertarian circles but Libertarianism is just a more extreme form of Classical
Liberalism – the assumptions and general principles are shared. Wyman's
argument is more in keeping with Liberalism and notions of progress.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">For all the fears of woke indoctrination in a secular state
college these ideas are almost exactly what my son has encountered over the
last year – not all that different from what he might have heard had he
attended a place like Grove City College. The Christian angle in The Verge is
not as flattering but to be fair it's probably more honest. As a mainstream
dissident this doesn't upset me. Some might think that if the tale is told this
way Christianity is impugned. Doesn't that bother me? No, because the
Christianity being spoken of has nothing to do with the belief system and
religion that is revealed in the pages of the New Testament. I have no interest
in defending the heresy of Christendom and its many evils – and because it's a
heresy it shouldn't surprise us that its ethics are also heretical – a
baptising of mammon and murder. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The secular liberal professors my son encounters teach
post-Renaissance Western civilisation in a manner very reminiscent of Wyman's
The Verge. It's ugly but it had to be – it was for the best. They are
thoroughly capitalist and yet they're not necessarily Libertarian types. Their
view of the state and its responsibilities is more complex. They are
capitalists but more Centre-Right as opposed to Far Right which has become the
normative ideology within the GOP and today's conservative Evangelicalism. They
may in some cases give a nod to certain aspects of Identity Politics, but this
is not a central theme, and critics fail to note that the Right (and especially
the Christian Right) has its own version of this bias.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The same (Centre-Right) orientation might be identified with
regard to people like Biden and Pelosi – but this of course will not be heard
as so many are convinced (wrongly) that they are communists. It's absurd and
unhelpful. The fact that they believe in patronage – in bread crumbs being
tossed to the lower classes for the sake of social stability and cohesion does
not represent a fundamental challenge to the system. I know the Libertarians and
Evangelicals won't have it but their judgment is clouded by the fog of political
struggle.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">And speaking of Evangelicals, some might be a little
uncomfortable with Wyman's narrative. What made the West better and more
powerful in the end? They would want to say Christianity, while for Wyman it's
clearly Capitalism.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">To be fair there are some Evangelicals who would argue it's
not an either-or question as Capitalism is an outgrowth of Christianity – some
of them absurdly suggesting it's derived from Biblical principles. They'll
quote the Eighth Commandment which prohibits theft as implying a right to
private property. It's a ridiculous oversimplification and completely ignores
the historical discussions regarding these points and how such terms are
defined. I guess it's news to them but private property also exists in other
economic and social systems – even Socialism acknowledges it, albeit within a
different framework and set of ethics and obligations.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Contrary to these pro-Western and pro-Capitalist narratives, the
New Testament militates against Capitalism. The ethical imperative of Zion is
antithetical to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">caveat emptor</i>, to profiting
at the expense of others, to thinking godliness is gain – let alone the deeper
philosophical questions regarding money and its relationship to power, and the
notion of profiting from the disadvantage of others or their insecurity, or
even their muddled thinking. Such exploitation and the relationship of money
and power as exhibited in the Capitalist system is the antithesis of turning
the other cheek, the New Testament's call to reject lawsuits, its condemnation
of those who use the courts, and those who are trapped and deceived by mammon.
The Scriptures forbid all interest, not just the modern definition of usury and
Christian history overwhelmingly testifies to this – until the Renaissance when
the conflict emerged and then with the final victory of Usury at the time of
the Enlightenment.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Of course these points cannot be taken for granted even
though they are plainly taught. The False Church has an extensive set of
arguments and theological frameworks to counter these teachings and explain
them away and given that the sell-out theologians who participate in this dark
apologetic often themselves grow wealthy and gain access to power – the list of
volunteers is inexhaustible.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">One might say Capitalism (as per Wyman) provides a good
secular narrative – but it still must be condemned. As such, a very different
reading of Western history – indeed of Church history is required.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Others like Gordon Clark and those associated with the
misnamed Trinity Foundation argue that modern Western Civilisation is built on
the foundation of Justification by Faith Alone. This prima facie ridiculous
narrative relies on mythological reading of the Magisterial Reformation and
tends to treat it as a revival akin to a Second Pentecost. When put that way,
it will of course be denied but it is the de facto understanding of many in
that camp and since the history becomes effectively redemptive (all but
starting over in 1517) – the many darker aspects of the tale are simply
whitewashed. The individualist aspect of this argument is subsequently wed to
later Enlightenment notions of economics and the rise of capitalism.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">And yet to the frustration of men like the Clarkian John
Robbins who proffered this distortion of history (which was in keeping with his
general distortions of Scripture), the narrative is collapsing. Protestants who
want to claim the entirety of the Western heritage are bound to reject this
narrow Protestant reading of the history and not a few finding themselves
wading in the Tiber, decide to go ahead and swim across finding comfort is a
larger and more coherent Western tradition represented by Rome.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2024/01/musing-on-verge-reformation-renaissance_14.html" target="_blank">Continue reading Part 2 </a></span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-85053132668167173472024-01-01T16:35:00.002-05:002024-01-01T16:36:53.681-05:00Discerning Trueman's Confusion<p><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/12/has-hitler-won-on-the-left" target="_blank">https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/12/has-hitler-won-on-the-left</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Carl Trueman of Grove City College laments the moral decline
in society and the kind of confusion that would lead to people celebrating the
7 October Hamas attack on Southern Israel.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Undoubtedly there is a great deal of moral confusion at the
present hour and I think some people allowed emotion to overtake both reason
and moral focus when the attacks occurred.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But why the emotion? Because they hate Jews? Overwhelmingly I
would say the answer is 'no'. Those who reacted that way are people that have
followed events and the long and tortured history of Israeli-Palestinian
relations. It's a terrible story and one that is all the more frustrating when
it is so little known and understood – and even more poorly reported by the
Israel-friendly media.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Palestinians exploded in rage and there's a reason why
they did this. Those who haven't been following the story will tend to see it
as a case of innocent Israel minding its own business and being ruthlessly
attacked. That's a misrepresentation. In many respects the actions of Hamas on
7 October were more akin to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as ironic as that may
seem.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And that is the great irony here – a truth stranger than
fiction. The state that builds it very narrative of existence off the
experience of the Holocaust has itself succumbed to a fascistic party and racialist
ideology – and we need not shrink from that term. That's what Likud is. Revisit
the history of Israel in the lead up to 1948. There were fascist factions and
they coalesced in Likud and came to power in the 1970's.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Israel was the darling of the Left for twenty years – from
1948 until the Six Day War in 1967. At which point the ugliness began to emerge
as Israel seized even more territory and became more oppressive. World opinion
began to shift and Israeli society in response shifted far to the Right. Even
Netanyahu has been forced to the Right as his latest coalition has outflanked
him. Under the current government the extremists have come to power – something
unthinkable just twenty years ago. These are not the former militants and fascists
of Lehi/Stern Gang or the Irgun. No, these are fanatics from beyond the pale –
who have now been mainstreamed. They openly refer to the Palestinians as
animals.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">None of this excuses the celebration of violence and yet is
Trueman concerned when his fellow Evangelicals celebrate America's wars and
assassinations? One thinks of Trump's assassination of Qasem Soleimani in 2020
– a murder defended and celebrated by the Evangelical community, including John
Stonestreet of the Colson Center. Should this not raise eyebrows or be a cause
for concern? Shouldn't we talk about the moral compass of the Evangelical
movement or its rapid slide?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Returning to Israel, the shift to the Right led to other ugly
chapters in the history of the Zionist state. Under Right-wing governments
Israel collaborated with South Africa (resonating with their racialist
statecraft and apartheid project) and Tel Aviv has engaged in widespread
assassination – with impunity it might be added. It has an undeclared but well
known nuclear weapons programme even while it and its American ally scream in
protest when anyone else even seeks to develop nuclear energy. Israel bombed
both Iraqi and Syrian reactors – moves that would lead to international outrage
had another nation done the same. Israel has committed atrocities in the
context of the Lebanese Civil War and so much more could be said.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Did Hamas take hostages? Yes – from their standpoint, the
Israelis are holding thousands of their innocent women in children in incognito
detention with no hope of trial. They are outraged by this and it the
bitterness has simmered and percolated for years and decades – and if this were
explained, some might understand why they would be prone to kidnap innocent
people on 7 October.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Did they gun down innocents at a desert rave? Yes, they did.
But as anyone knows who has been paying attention for the past twenty or thirty
years – thousands upon thousands of innocent Palestinian children, teens, young
men and women have been killed by IDF soldiers and Settler militias. This
reality doesn't justify the actions of Hamas – but it's not in a vacuum, a kind
of dreamt up pure evil. Rather, it's an evil response to evil.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Is Trueman not concerned that the American Evangelical lobby
supports all of this – and largely due to the heresy of Dispensationalism? He
speaks of Hitler – what of a theology that supports mass murder and atrocity?
One need look no farther than American Evangelicalism.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And while he equates the evolving of ethics of the Left with
some kind of triumph of Hitlerism (due to a perceived narrative of
Anti-Semitism), is he really going to ignore the elephant in the room? Is he
going to ignore the fact that the American GOP has slipped into overt fascism
and now almost unconditionally supports a fascistic immoral monster – a
criminal, murderer, rapist, serial adulterer, and compulsive liar? </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The media neglected to mention that figures like Elise
Stefanik (R-NY) who railed against the college presidents for their tolerance
of Anti-Semitism is a collaborator with actual Far Right Anti-Semitic groups,
ones that used to be beyond the pale, but are now well within the boundaries of
the Trumpite movement. Trump's son-in-law may be Jewish and his plastic surgery
daughter a convert, but large swathes of his supporters are actual Anti-Semites
and many who promote The Great Replacement Theory villainize Jews whom they
believe to be one of the responsible factions among the 'Liberal Elite'. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Stefanik is a promoter of GRT and has also endorsed Carl Paladino
– a Trump-like figure who has inserted himself into the politics of Western New
York. As I often partake of Western New York radio stations, I've been hearing his
name for many years. A patently corrupt multi-millionaire, Paladino has openly
praised Hitler and like Trump engages in thuggish rhetoric calling for opponents
to be executed and the like – including Attorney General Merrick Garland who (it
should be pointed out) is Jewish.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Stefanik for her part is a rising star in the GOP and quite
popular with the Christian Right. Does her rank hypocrisy not disturb Trueman?
There's a real moral problem here. She set herself up as some kind of moral
authority or judge of these college presidents. Had they been better briefed,
they could have locked horns with her and made her look the fool and hypocrite
that she is.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">For Trueman to ignore all of this tells me that either he's
waded into waters beyond his depth or he's deliberately choosing to obscure
these ugly realities and giving these people a pass in order to craft his First
Things narrative.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Lost people will be lost. We shouldn't expect any different
and history demonstrates how empires fall into decadence – which inevitably
leads to perversion and degenerate behaviour. Is it any wonder the
hyper-individualist culture of the United States and the West in general would
fall into this? Is this not the end result of Classical Liberalism and its
democratic regime of rights? The sad truth that no one seems willing to admit
is that both sides, both political factions have contributed to the social rot.
What passes for conservatism in the United States isn't always conservative but
is often Right-wing. They're not the same thing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And also, simply because there is a conservative element in a
society does not mean it's compatible with Christianity. Conservative only has
meaning when it's contrasted with something else.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We can talk about the conservatism of the Roman Republic
versus the post-Second Punic War slide into chaos and empire. One can
definitely contrast the old Roman virtue with that of the period leading up to
the Gracchi and after. Austerity and altruism were replaced by decadence very
much along the lines of what we're witnessing today. And yet, that doesn't mean
that the old Roman conservative values were Christian. Not for a moment. The
same is true in the West and specifically in America. When the 'Greatest
Generation' is compared to the Millennials they look pretty conservative –
maybe even moral. But don't be fooled into thinking that generation was
Christian. And besides, they're actually the ones who sold out and gave into
decadence. It's just that people didn't realize it until a generation later
when the seeds they planted bore fruit.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I'm far more concerned about the utter moral collapse that
has taken place within the Evangelical movement and its inseparable alliance
with Right-wing forces. The road has been paved to fascism and we see this with
not only the anti-democratic moves being made by this Trumpite faction but also
with the outright insurrection that took place three years ago. And Stefanik is
fully on board the Trump train when it comes to all of these narratives about
the 'stolen' election and January 6.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I am baffled that the author of Republocrat who in 2011
seemed rather concerned (and rightly so) over the Right-wing culture of
Evangelicalism and its slavish devotion to propaganda outlets like FOX – seems
now to have joined the camp. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I am concerned that Trueman (who I once respected) has now
signed on with the Evangelical project – is a rising star in the movement, and in
addition has moved over (it would seem) into the ecumenical camp. From his
contributions to ECT-inspired First Things, to his collaborations with
Colsonites like John Stonestreet, Trueman seems to be on board with the ECT/ecumenical
agenda – regardless of whether or not he officially 'signs' on.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While some of his recent work on the self and modern
confusion with regard to gender and the like has been helpful, I'm not sure he
should be listened to without qualification and without some doubt and some
questions with regard to his level of discernment. This article is case in
point. I think he too is losing his way and this latest offering only adds to
my already growing doubt.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Lost people being outraged over Israeli conduct and fifteen
years of a Gazan siege is understandable. Anyone with any understanding or
moral sense should be outraged by the actions and policies of Tel Aviv. The
response to the break-out was ill-advised and misguided. Let it also be said
that while a mass murder did take place, the numbers of October 7 dead were
greatly amplified by the Israeli army response – the very sort of
indiscriminate counter-attack that would lead to Russia being condemned by the
Kremlin's response to the Chechens in the Moscow theatre (2002) or at Beslan
(2004). And the mass rape narrative is highly suspect to say the least and thus
far lacking evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">That said, no slaughter should ever be celebrated – even
though Evangelicals routinely celebrate atrocity in their churches by means of
lies and romanticised narratives regarding America's wars and proxy wars which
have resulted in millions of deaths since World War II. It is truly an
abomination.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The moral collapse in society is a cause for concern but
there's nothing to be done about it apart from the preaching of the gospel. I'm
sure Trueman would disagree and that's fine. The point can be debated but the New
Testament Scriptures are quite clear on this point.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">While the collapse of societal morals should trouble us, we
should be far more concerned about the state of Evangelical morality and its
rapid collapse. Trueman's efforts are not helping and in this case he's not
even addressing them.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">To cast the whole Palestinian question in terms of a
pseudo-woke Cultural Marxist narrative is offensive. There might be some who
think that way but there are many more that do not and the outrage over Israeli
policy goes back decades before anyone was even talking about this nonsense.
Trueman knows this and thus I find his tact to be not only myopic but
self-serving.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There's no doubt the term genocide has been abused and I
would hesitate to use it even with regard to the mass slaughter in Gaza but
there's no doubt that Netanyahu's policy is to drive the people of Gaza out.
Their choice is to leave or die. And what about the shocking things being said
in Evangelical circles? To be honest they do in fact sound genocidal and I
don't think too many within that unfortunate movement would care if Netanyahu just
started slaughtering them. It's interesting that Western media seems quite keen
to ignore the large-scale executions of Palestinians that are taking place. It
certainly generates a lot of questions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If Trueman wants to argue the American system of higher
education is completely corrupt and money driven I'll be the first to agree. I
have a son in college.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But why is it this way? As a British citizen, one would think
he would have a little more insight. The American system is money driven. The schools
are technically non-profits but that's not how they operate. They operate like
businesses and thus the system of higher education has degenerated into a big
racket that has little to do with academic achievement or prowess. There are
kids in my son's classes that shouldn't have graduated high school but because
they have the money (or access to it) – they get to go to college. And because
it's all about the money, the quality of the education has most certainly been
'dumbed down' to accommodate them.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Is Trueman ready to criticise the privatised models of
American education that are rooted in capitalist ideology? It's a long overdue
conversation but I have a feeling that's not the direction he wants to go. His
employer (Grove City College) would certainly not encourage such a conversation.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If he wants to have a larger discussion about Hitler's 'victory',
then by all means lets revisit the post-World War II period and the role Nazis
played in the government of West Germany, within South America, and also the
many 'ex-fascists' directly in the pay of US intelligence. We can talk about
the Cold War and how various war-era fascists were rehabilitated and used to
organise anti-communist blocs within their respected countries. We can talk
about the resurgent Right in Europe and the way actual fascists are even now
shaping EU policy with regard to questions like immigration.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In other words, Trueman's arguments are shallow at best and
misleading at worst.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I have appreciated Trueman at times in the past. Something
has happened and once again this article only confirms my growing concern with
the direction he has taken.</span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-11884574408367275042023-12-28T20:23:00.003-05:002023-12-28T20:23:34.498-05:00Rejecting the Aquinas Jubilee<p><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://theaquilareport.com/what-the-jubilee-of-aquinas-says-about-rome-and-roman-protestant-relations-in-some-quarters/" target="_blank">https://theaquilareport.com/what-the-jubilee-of-aquinas-says-about-rome-and-roman-protestant-relations-in-some-quarters/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I appreciated some of the issues raised in this piece by
Hervey. Thomas and Thomism have certainly been in the air as his memory and a set
of larger questions concerning Roman Catholicism are being debated. In these
unsettled times as Protestants and Evangelicals thirst for so-called Christian
Civilisation, there's a desire to find some kind of historical and cultural
continuity. Protestantism falls short in this regard, and as such many are
looking farther back to a time that at least seems to be more cohesive. Whether
it was something to celebrate or not is debatable. After all, error can (in
theory) be coherent, and paganism can create cohesive societies.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Additionally there have been some heated debates over the
Trinity and questions of mutability. For my part I see simply old philosophical
debates being re-hashed and yet it's interesting, especially as one outside the
circle of combat.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There is some truth to the claim that theology has shifted.
Contrary to how many Confessionalists would present a portrait of continuity
with the original Reformers, there was shift in thinking, method, and emphasis.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Later debates unsettled the very nature of epistemology and
this becomes a more poignant question as one moves into the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. For some, Thomism represents a solid marker, a sure guide
in the realm of epistemology to the point that some Confessionalists even
reckon Thomas a Christian – which again testifies to their embrace of
progressive orthodoxy. For if I were in 2023 to espouse true Thomism in their
midst I would be decried a lost and hell-bound heretic. If Thomas were alive
today they would condemn him. How is this sound thinking apart from a
progressive orthodoxy framework? If they refuse the concept then Thomas is not
a Christian. If they embrace it, they undermine the foundations of
Confessionalism. The only way to save the narrative is to make Confessionalism
into a Second Pentecost and the Confessions at that point have to be treated as
canon. Many in fact do this – though they will not admit it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">For me the answer is simple – God's grace is greater than I
can know or understand but I have no reason to believe Thomas is anywhere other
than in Sheol-Hades awaiting a future Gehenna. The Christ of Thomas was no more
the Christ of Scripture than was Aristotle's Prime Mover equivalent to God the
Father. Hervey is right to emphasize the fact that Thomas taught idolatry. As
such he has no part in Christ's Kingdom.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And yet in High Middle Ages the same theology makes one a
solid Biblically-founded Christian – so says the likes of John Frame and John
Gerstner. I found it interesting that Sproul was omitted as his ghost all but
hovers over the discussion. Sproul was well known for his appreciation of
Thomas, a point that was evident with his embrace of so-called Classical Apologetics.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And I say this not as a Van Tillian (for I am not) but as one
who goes much further and embraces the anti-philosophical (even fideist if I am
willing to own the label) positions of men like Kierkegaard and Pascal. In fact
I'm more or less with Montaigne and believe that philosophical scepticism in
destroying epistemology and philosophy in general opens the door to embrace
revelation and faith – even necessitates as the only alternative is nihilism. This
position can also be highly problematic if understood within certain frameworks
and assumptions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">For those who rest in Thomas (as it were) and Hervey gently
hints at this – the problem is that Thomas is literally the foundation stone of
what must be called an Anti-Christ system. The entire Catholic structure of
soteriology and its system of empty man-made works rests on his philosophical
musings – and in addition (as pointed out) Thomas has a great deal of blood on
his hands as his system called for and sanctioned the capture and execution of
dissenters.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This cannot be ignored. It's like the elephant in the room
when all of these scholars bandy about and debate questions regarding the
nature of theology, epistemology, and apologetics. We also shouldn't ignore it
when certain Protestant theologies call for the same.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I appreciate Hervey's distinction between using Thomism in an
approving manner versus those who go further and celebrate him. The former are
in error, the latter are blind and dangerous to themselves and others.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">What a confusing mess this has all created – on this issue
someone like James White comes down on the right side but you can be sure for
many of the wrong reasons and certainly with many wrong-headed conclusions. If
you could tear him away from preening in front of the mirror, you might even
get him to see some of these points.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There are larger questions here too – ones that no one wants
to revisit. Hervey calls for a kind of selected use of Thomas – an
impossibility in the Roman system. But one might raise this point with regard
to some of the ecumenical councils whose pronouncements are treated as
deutero-canonical even by many Protestants. How can one embrace these councils
in part on a very limited scope of issues and yet absolutely reject the rest of
their work? That's what happens and it's a problem that everyone has chosen to
ignore. The same is true when it comes to the embrace of Thomas.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And Hervey is right – the early Reformers (with their
humanist impulses) were not terribly interested in Thomas. In many respects he
was emblematic of what they were trying to combat, a theology they were trying
to undo.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But then the name of Zanchi is invoked and despite the
arguments of Richard Muller and others, a distinction needs to be made – one
that at times they'll even begrudgingly admit.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There was a shift with the rise of Protestant Scholasticism
and the approach of Confessionalist Orthodoxy. Aquinas was re-embraced at least
in part. He was not celebrated but a great deal of the old Scholastic
methodology was re-employed in order to flesh out a more holistic system – so
necessary to create Confessionally-shaped societies. The pilgrim-antithesis of
the New Testament won't do for their purposes.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">One wishes Hervey's rather pointed and yet sound warnings had
been heeded all those centuries ago. Rome is rotten to the core and the
Confessional tradition all but testifies to this – in terms shocking to many
today and yet in reality not quite as assertive as they might have been.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Ranging a little closer in the direction of modernity, it
should be noted that despite denials, there is a degree of continuity between
the Aristotelian scholastic tradition and Enlightenment Empiricism. Aristotle
relied a great deal more on logic, deduction and what we today might call
thought experiments rather than the scientific-experimental approach of later
times. And yet in the primary realms of epistemology the two camps share a
confidence in the primacy of man and his senses and in what it is possible to
determine from the study of nature.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This is not to compliment Thomism or Empiricism (and its
Positivist offspring in today's Scientism) but rather to show the same
fundamentally flawed epistemological root is still generating its rotten fruits
– now in a host of permutated forms.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">One need not embrace all of Van Til's thought to find Hervey's
sharp rejection of Thomas and Thomism refreshing</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But what is the alternative? For Christian culture builders
and those who would attempt to find a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">modus
vivendi</i> with the Western cultural tradition, the idea of recasting all of
law, art, philosophy and the like is not only daunting but highly undesirable.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">One might say the breaking of Christendom has left many
traumatized. And with it the rejection of modernity and/or postmodernity leaves
many floundering and unable to engage.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It's clear enough that a lot of the practical thinking has
been outsourced to political actors and they have filled this void within the
Church and thus (to add chaos to confusion) we find an eclectic epistemological
and ethical center coupled with a series of cultural myth-narratives that simply
cannot hold – even when it is mislabeled as a Christian or Biblical worldview.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The pilgrim-exile status of the New Testament Christian with
all its implications is clearly unsettling and very upsetting.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And so amid the instability and the desire for solid ground,
one might speak of the almost irresistible draw of Rome for such people – and
that means Thomas, or we might say it starts with him.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It's worth pointing out that if the civilisational concern or
impulse is actually removed from the equation (which a closer read of the New
Testament will produce) then Thomas is no longer necessary or attractive and he
will be rightly seen (as argued by Hervey) an idolater, the purveyor of a false
gospel, and the defender of an evil system – an enemy to all who would follow
the Christ of the New Covenant.</span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-81053935523425176732023-12-25T09:14:00.000-05:002023-12-25T09:14:15.644-05:00Cessationism, the Charismata, and Messy Chapters in Church History<p><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://www.christianpost.com/voices/reformed-cessationists-should-not-quote-church-history.html" target="_blank">https://www.christianpost.com/voices/reformed-cessationists-should-not-quote-church-history.html</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I have no wish to provide comfort or aid to a false teacher
such as Michael Brown, but on this issue he has a point. The Church History
argument (taken by itself) is not really on the Cessationist side. This however
does not mean that so-called Continuationism wins the day – it simply requires
a different reading.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As BB Warfield pointed out, the claims concerning miracles,
prophecies and the like did not really decrease as one moves further into
Church history and away from the apostolic period. Rather, it increases and
sometimes at a substantial rate. This has to be reckoned with.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But first it should be noted in unmistakable terms the
so-called Charismata found in the pre-Reformation Church of Late Antiquity and
the Middle Ages has nothing in common with the modern movement. In fact the
modern Charismatic movement has little in common with the Pentecostal movement
that inadvertently spawned it. The original Pentecostals (erroneous as they
might be) were (and in a few cases still are) more of a Restorationist-Fundamentalist
inspired group, genuinely trying to return to the basics of New Testament
Christianity. Sincere though wrong, there's something admirable in this. The
Charismatic movement which emerged later is a fusion of certain aspects found
within Pentecostalism unhappily wed to the worst aspects of the world-affirming
Evangelical movement.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Brown, as well as not a few of the New Calvinists of the
Continuationist stripe belong to the latter camp – which again has no real
historical roots.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As far as the numerous appeals to Roman Catholic mystic
visionaries, prophets, miracle-workers, relic-related miracles and the like –
it was not the faithful Church that promoted and embraced these things, but a
false Church. And the miracles they testify to are not at all on the order of
what is seen in the New Testament but smack of superstition and sometimes
magic.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I do not condemn all who fall under the label 'mystic' – by
no means were all of them claiming some kind of special charismatic unction or
the gift of wonderworking or prophecy. For some mysticism is related to questions
of epistemology rather than miraculous phenomena. But the others, those who
claimed visions and the like are highly suspect and the entire Roman paradigm
or spectrum is to be rejected as Mystery Babylon (or at least a manifestation
of it), the Whore and Antichrist which for centuries misled and persecuted the
Church. The apostasy of Old Testament Israel with its false altars, false
priesthood, and syncretism typify this.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So I can appreciate (in part) the likes of a' Kempis, the
author of the Theologica Germanica, Nicholas of Basel, and even to some degree
men like Tauler and Nicholas of Cusa – but when it comes to Teresa of Avila,
Joan of Arc, or Constantine, I stand in doubt as I do the many miracles
associated with relics and so forth. Understand that in some cases I'm not
denying that something supernatural occurred but I don't think it was the work
of the Holy Spirit. And for the record I'm willing to go a great deal further
on questions of the supernatural than are many within the post-Enlightenment Reformed
Confessionalist camp.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So in some respects Brown is right – that on the one hand the
appeal to history not only is unfavourable to the Calvinist-Cessationist
reading, but his argument carries little weight if you're going to discount
Roman Catholicism altogether – as I more or less would. And yet, since the
modern Charismatic understanding and framing of such gifts and manifestations
is without historical precedent – that doesn't leave him on solid ground
either. Either way his argument fails.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As I have discussed in articles and essays on the Medieval
Dissenters or proto-Protestant groups, Biblicism was at times in competition
with or overshadowed by hints of prophets and the like. And yet apart from very
early groups such as the Montanists, most of the later dissenting sects found
their authority in Scripture. They didn't always consistently follow it (as
seen with the Lollards and Taborites) but there was a consciousness of its
authority. But it must be admitted even in these contexts there were 'prophets'
too – they always tend to arise in seasons of turmoil and great strife.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Though it seems counterintuitive, this phenomenon actually
increased significantly with the Magisterial Reformation. For all the talk of
Sola Scriptura, there were many running about claiming to be prophets. Some
like John Knox were careful and cautious about what they openly claimed and yet
it's clear enough he thought himself a true (and literal) Jeremiah for the
sixteenth century. Others like Jan Amos Comenius were completely duped by
prophets (such as Drabik) who tickled their ears by proclaiming the fall of the
Habsburgs and the like. And of course the Anabaptist record on this is pretty
dubious.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In times of real chaos and war we see 'prophets' appear. One
also finds them among the desperate Huguenots after the Revocation of the Edict
of Nantes (1685) and certainly in Mitteleuropa during the Thirty Years War.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Magisterial Reformation shattered the epistemological
consensus – or at least finished the process already underway since the
fourteenth century. The world of the Renaissance seemed wide open – which also generated
a greater interest in the nascent sciences. The chaos fed a real or imagined
occultic craze, and unleashed a new age for philosophy. It's not that
surprising that in such an environment one finds prophets appearing – or those
claiming to be. The world seemed as if it had been turned upside down.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">One could argue that Confessionalism began to shut this
process down as did the Enlightenment and yet among certain circles it
continued. One finds it among some of the Pietist groups and there is a tangible
and traceable connection to the prophets among the Camisards and the later rise
of the Shakers in Britain. One might also mention the Quakers at this time
though their style was significantly different.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I find it curious that Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) has
been claimed by many modern Continuationists – especially among the New Calvinists.
I do not believe he would endorse them nor do I think they would have enjoyed
sitting under his ministry. His statements on this issue should provide them
little comfort. He leaves the door open (as it were) but I have yet to be
convinced that he would find such Charismatic practices (such as tongues) to be
either acceptable or normative. He's approaching the issue from a rather
different vantage point and has been largely misunderstood.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And I must begrudgingly admit Brown has a point when it comes
to Augustine – but again, not the one he would make per se. There are issues
regarding Augustine's theology vis-à-vis the Early Church Fathers, but mores
there are real issues with regard to Augustine and the Magisterial Reformers.
Their decretalism was not that of Augustine who retained a strong 'means'
theology including a view of sacramental efficacy that Calvinists find contradictory
and heretical. Was the Bishop of Hippo merely inconsistent as some argue or was
his theological scope and spectrum simply much larger than what the Reformers
and especially the later Scholastics could comprehend within their
epistemological framework? It should be noted, that Lutheranism while dropping
Luther's views of predestination did maintain a theology that is in some
respects more compatible with Augustine and one could obviously point to
Jansenism as another example, though the movement was deemed heretical within
the Roman Catholic fold.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The argument for cessation has always been
Redemptive-Historical and as such is quite different than the theological
methodology relied upon by many. The nature of the argument and debate is
directly related to other controversies over issues of law and so forth. I
would take someone to the opening chapter of Hebrews for a start but I realize
that would mean little to those who want a proof-text spelled out in
propositional terms. As such, many of the arguments are quickly sidetracked.
The real problem is one of prolegomena – what is the Bible and what is the
nature of theology? What purpose does prophecy serve? And finally how does
Christocentricity define this issue?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Paul for his part elaborates this in clear enough terms in 1
Corinthians as to why the signs appeared and hints at why they are secondary
and temporary. 2 Corinthians is critical in understanding the nature of the
apostolic office and (by implication) its relation to what the New Testament
Scriptures in fact are. And in this vein, the epistle sheds light on the nature
of some of the final proclamations made by the likes of not just Paul, but John
and Peter as well. They were concerned with the apostolic written word and the
preaching of the gospel – not the signs and wonders. In the end the Charismata
were a temporary manifestation connected to the advent of the New Covenant and
the Final Prophet – Christ. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The ministry of Christ extends to and through the apostles
and as such the special signatory gifts began to wane with their passing at the
end of the first century. This is not to say they immediately passed. There is
no clear-cut line. There often isn't when it comes to history. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It seems clear that by the fourth century there were new
forces at work in the Church and it was undergoing a transformation – mostly in
the direction of apostasy. Superstition was clearly creeping in and the door of
authority was kicked wide open when Constantine initiated the massive paradigm
shift in the early fourth century. At this point in time it would seem that
wonder-working exploded and it is during this period we also see the rise of
monasticism and many other innovations.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Like the examples given in the Old Testament, there were always
outliers, sons of the prophets (as it were), and individuals who maintained the
faith – often imperfectly given their confused and sometimes impossible
contexts. So it is today.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Magisterial Reformation contained many positive aspects
but it was not a second Pentecost nor was it anything like the great revival
it's made out to be. It certainly was not a return to New Testament
Christianity but in many respects it was a permutation – an outgrowth of many theological,
philosophical, political, and socio-economic forces already at work.
Theologians like Schaff and Nevin celebrate this progressive aspect and
prioritize it over and against any kind of Primitivist or Back-to-Scripture
narrative associated with Protestantism.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I prefer to take the Magisterial Reformation for what it is –
another chapter in Church History, one that leads to both positive and negative
developments. It is not the standard and it is admittedly somewhat ludicrous
when figures connected to a Neo-Evangelical movement like New Calvinism try to
'claim' it as their own. As far as traditional and confessional Reformed
Christianity, the case for cessation can be made but not if you want to embrace
Western Medievalism which is inseparable from Roman Catholicism. The attempt to
selectively choose the supposed good bits when it comes to this question is simply
naive and at times disingenuous.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As far as the history goes – I grant Brown that he's right –
but he's still utterly wrong. But I will also grant that the contemporary
approach (once less common) that is so keen to claim all of medieval history is
not friendly to the cessationist cause. Rome itself rests on continuationist
claims – the Papacy and Magisterium are guided by the Holy Spirit and have the
power to reinterpret, change, and reveal new doctrine and sanction miracles,
prophecies and the like. That very fluidity (which vexes so many at present) is
after all the logical end of such a paradigm.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Magisterial Reformation is rather sloppy – I'm afraid the
glory narratives so often presented in a Sunday School class or in some of the
popular histories put out by Reformed presses are a romanticised whitewash.
Things began to solidify under the regime of Confessionalism – which in some
respects didn't last all that long. And secondly this narrative is problematic
for those who want to present the seamless narrative between the sixteenth
century Reformation and the present. They can only do so by glossing over the
ugly bits.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">A great many contemporary proponents of the Magisterial
Reformation are on shaky ground when they try to 'claim' Church History as
supporting their views just as Brown builds his doctrinal house on an
unbiblical foundation of sand.</span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-90250041004077752582023-12-14T19:35:00.000-05:002023-12-14T19:37:28.812-05:00Historical Cycles: The Post-Napoleonic Context of Adolphe Monod, Reveil, and Some Contemporary Analogies (IV)<p><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The story of Monod is in some ways inspiring – in other
respects he is something of a disappointment. The men of Reveil are closer to
our times and thus they lack the mystique that some further back in history are
able to generate. That said, Monod's story is worth considering and reflecting
on. But his context has to be understood and it always strikes me how there are
both parallels and huge differences with the American and British context.
Indeed in many ways it's a key moment where the three cultural and
ecclesiastical sections sharply diverge – America and the Continent being the
most extreme in terms of difference with Britain moving along its own track
that today has brought it to the same place as the Continent. For Americans
this should serve as a stark warning – perhaps a harbinger of what is to come.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But Europe has other lessons for the American Church that are
not being learned. For all the parallels and close cultural history that exists
between Britain and America, the lessons of European decline and imperial
collapse post-1918 are probably the most pertinent. The US is at times striking
a course that is eerily similar and potentially terrifying. American Christians
would do well to revisit this chapter of history and learn its lessons. Instead
we find a host of hirelings and ear-ticklers rewriting the history and
effectively eliminating any of the safeguards within the Church that would keep
it from slipping down the path to political evil and widespread destruction. As
fascism rises to the fore within American politics it's already evident that
the American Church will not resist it – but embrace it with great energy akin
to what was seen in Germany ninety years ago.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The individuals of Reveil do not stand out, but at the same
time their context is evocative and itself inspiring – one that cannot be
wholly repeated and yet is ever with us in this contemporary context. The
contrast between the Church situation in America, the British Isles, and the
European Continent was so very different at that time and the differences
remain. Each group is likely to look askance at the other, both envying and
despising their cultural standing and yet for my part – as strange as it may seem
to the contemporary Evangelical mindset, it is the example of Europe that (from
a Christian perspective) offers the most hope, and America which then offered
and continues to offer the greatest dangers in terms of spiritual subversion
and compromise. In terms of actual legal or physical danger to the faithful,
Europe remains first, with Britain second, and yet the American situation is
likely to change in the coming years. Whether the Right-wing nationalist
Christians win or lose it bodes ill for the faithful. Both the Right-wing
groups and the rabid secularists will spell trouble for those wishing to live
faithful lives in conformity with the New Testament. Personally I think it more
likely that someone like me would face violence from fellow 'Christians' than
'Leftists' or even the arm of the state.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In the case of the compromised American Evangelicals who
attempt to retain their standing with the world by moving the goalposts in a
process of continual compromise, pseudo-reform, and redefinition – one wonders
if in another generation they will become indistinguishable from today's
Theological Liberals. In fact I don't really wonder, I'm pretty well convinced
of it. Their half-pagan sacral dream of Christian America will be visible on the
horizon even as it evaporates and becomes dust in the wind. God be praised.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The tendency toward non-conformity and Free Churches as seen
in Reveil is inspiring but it didn't go far enough. The period is marked by
different trends in the Anglo-American sphere. British Non-conformity was in
the process of negotiating its re-entry into British Society and American
Christianity was by this period wholly acculturated in a manner similar to the
kind of Christian-Cultural synthesis seen in the European Middle Ages – a
totally different context and legal framework to be sure, but the same substantial
relationship. This would undergo a reckoning during the 1890's to 1945 period –
a struggle which would produce Fundamentalism and a series of small
Confessionally-oriented denominations. But with the rise of Neo-Evangelicalism
in the late 1940's, the process of re-acculturation (and triangulation) was
well underway and is now complete – Fundamentalism having been all but
eradicated. And those who retain the label and style are no longer separatists
in any meaningful sense. The Evangelical movement is undergoing a new crisis
which again brings us back to the European parallels of the 1920's and 1930's.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Americans reflecting on the last two hundred years of Church
history are likely to see the Continent in depressing terms and while
encouraged by Reveil, they see it as paltry if not somewhat depressing as well.
Its successes are not akin to the kind of stadium-level numerics seen with
figures like Billy Graham. Whether the Graham and Lausanne Movement model represents
actual success is another question.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">For my part, Europe at this point in the early nineteenth
century sparks not only great interest and endless reflection but hope. Finally
after a three-hundred year detour generated by the flawed Magisterial Reformation,
there was (for a moment) a hope of turning things back on to a Biblical track.
This happened in part and yet failed in many respects.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Such Restorationism was also seen with the Plymouth Brethren
but in terms of historical Christianity they were sidelined by their Dispensationalism,
their schisms, and the general change in nonconformity's status in the United
Kingdom – not to mention the new economics, industrial society, nationalism,
and the wars.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In America, Restorationism was born not of adversity but of
the kind of restless and innovative spirit of the frontier – a chance to start
over anew in keeping with the American frontier ethos. And clearly it failed
and proved unable to break with dominant forms of American ideology especially
in the realm of epistemology, as all of these groups (with the exception of
cults like the Mormons) were dominated by Scottish Common Sense Realism which
is incompatible with a faithful reading of the New Testament.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">One could argue the lack of a Restorationist spirit marked
one of the long-term failures of a movement like Reveil as great efforts were
made to stay within the confines of official 'respected' Christianity – as the
Monod story testifies. As this proved impossible, the kind of determined and
deliberate break that was needed was simply not there. It was very much a
bourgeois movement which also marked one of its great failings.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">For my part, I would like to know more with regard to how
these breakaway factions would eventually succumb to Theological Liberalism as
the few that remain clearly have. And as many will already know, this European story
is further complicated by the rise of Neo-Orthodoxy in the 1920's.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The situation is ever more complicated and yet very much the
same. In all three contexts, the Evangelical model seems to dominate – for the
present. But it's not too hard to imagine a situation in a coming generation in
which the Reveil scenario will once more seem pertinent – perhaps in all three
settings.</span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-17165412733464647382023-12-14T19:32:00.007-05:002023-12-14T19:40:20.264-05:00Historical Cycles: The Post-Napoleonic Context of Adolphe Monod, Reveil, and Some Contemporary Analogies (III)<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">As has so often been the case in Church history, persecution
failed to defeat the faithful. They were instead defeated by peace and
flourishing, and through compromise, the ability to attain status and respect
in society. The American Beast did not persecute the Church, instead it seduced
it. The crisis for American Christianity came at the turn of the twentieth
century when the Classical Liberalism of its founding (with its secular
assumptions) finally overtook and began to openly subvert the (by then)
weakened and deformed Christian consensus – thus creating the crisis that would
generate new cycles and chapters of reaction and compromise in American Church
history throughout the twentieth century right up to the present.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Who can doubt the optimism that British Evangelicals felt as
the nineteenth century progressed. Access to politics, growing prosperity, and
even a growing social respect was theirs for the taking and abandoning their
once marginalised status, they became card-carrying members and cheerleaders of
the British Empire. Buying into the deceit surrounding the narratives of a
Liberal and Moral Empire, they turned a blind eye to many other realities and
evils. As full supporters of the Victorian-era reaction to the Revolutionary
ethos that emanated from the continent, they helped to create a society of
manners to be sure – but it was later revealed to be but an empty form. And
once that order faced the crises of 1914-1945, it quickly imploded and the form
was revealed to be utterly lacking substance – and was quickly swept away. It
is truly astonishing to witness how quickly Christianity collapsed in the
United Kingdom – and continues to do so. Contemporaries can lament this all
they want, the lesson is that it wasn't all that it was made out to be. The
house may have been impressive but it was made of cheap paper and the
foundation was sand.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In many respects one wishes the contemporary British
nonconformist narrative was different. Rather than lament The Great Ejection of
1662 and the loss of the Puritan dream, that Restoration event should in fact
be celebrated and the entire English Civil War condemned. The years of second
class status from the mid-seventeenth to the mid-nineteenth century should
instead be looked back upon as a golden age – even an ideal. For it was when
the Nonconformists emerged from this period and re-entered society with
standing and the hope of influence that their numbers swelled, only to be met
with a quick collapse. The victories these Evangelicals thought they won in the
nineteenth century were revealed as hollow and devoid of substance. They
counted victories but failed to note what was being lost in the process.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In 1945, Europe was once again devastated on an even greater
scale and Liberal Theology had eradicated what was left of any kind of
doctrinal substance in the state-affiliated denominations or those that
remained within that heritage. Apart from the Plymouth Brethren, there was
little in the way of Biblically-minded testimony on the continent. There were
still conservative elements within the Dutch Reformed sphere but in the grand
scheme of things their numbers were small and these groups remain under the
shadow of long-standing entanglements and traditions. In the former Habsburg
lands, one could find the Anabaptist- Fröhlich Nazarenes but again their
numbers were small and apart from America, they had little impact outside their
narrow sphere which would soon fall under the shadow of Communist
administrations.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Britain was on the winning side of the war but the victory
was Pyrrhic. Facing economic ruin, the country languished under rationing for
another decade. Its Empire began to be liquidated as it could no longer be
sustained and the British economy began to shift focus and would only become a
power-house once again in the 1980's and 1990's – with the financialisation of
its empire, leading to dreams of Empire 2.0. Fed by the victory in the
Falklands, and being openly expressed in the 2000's, the new vision reached its
most poignant expression in the nationalist-driven Brexit referendum of 2016
and the subsequent Johnson premiership.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">During the course of this period, British nonconformity
continued to support liberalism, mostly allying with the Labour Party which had
become dominant in the 1920's. The twenty-first century would see many
Nonconformists under the influence of American Evangelicalism and due to the
continued fragmentation of British society move over into the Tory column and
for some the embrace of a kind of wistful remembrance of the supposed halcyon glory
days of Empire – 'Rule Britannia' need no longer elicit eye rolling and snickers.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">On the continent, the devastation wrought by the World Wars
is hard to quantify and the loss of faith is palpable. The Brethren have
maintained a steady witness but challenged by the Lausanne Movement and
American-style Evangelicalism in the 1970's, even they have been affected by
the new mood and style. Their Dispensational theology has never been of the
politicised variety as seen in the United States and from what I can tell they
remain somewhat aloof from politics – at least on the continent. I know this is
not the case in the UK and places like Australia. And the Brethren I've
encountered and interacted with in the United States have been greatly affected
by the same Right-wing impulses that dominate the Evangelical world. The shadow
of the FOX channel looms large in their thinking and sermonizing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In Europe there has been a shift (if slight) in terms of Brethren
worship and perhaps a bit of struggle to maintain their own unique ground in
light of Evangelical energy concerning societal influence, personal wealth and
flourishing and the like. That said, the overall ethos within Europe is one of
historical cynicism and understandably so. Even the EU, once a harbinger of
great optimism has soured and one gets the impression that Europeans (generally
speaking) feel rather trapped by the forces of history and this certainly
breeds not only a kind of realism but a latent pessimism.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Again, how different is the American Experience. After 1945,
America was riding high, the most powerful country in the history of the world,
a devourer of empires it seemed. And for the Christians in America any doubts
concerning the synthesis of America's Classically Liberal ideology and the
religion of the New Testament were eradicated. Americans suffered very little
during the war and in fact there is little heritage of suffering in the
American story. There were deprivations on the frontier and a living if highly
overblown angst concerning the American Indian and the long skirmishes and
small-scale wars that were largely ended by the turn of the twentieth century.
The Americans suffered during The Great Depression but no more than other
peoples and certainly less than some. It is only with the late twentieth
century that America begins to find itself feeling stretched in terms of
resources and feeling the population strains that Europe has known for many
generations.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Southern Americans have a little bit more in the way of a
suffering heritage that has affected their thinking as expressed in the arts.
The Civil War represented true suffering for them as a bloc – they are the only
social segment of America to know (personally) something of the horrors of war.
And yet this tale is interwoven with romanticised and largely false notions
surrounding the lost cause, and the ugly history of Jim Crow laws and a
bitterness regarding the relative poverty which would dominate until the middle
period of the twentieth century.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">This legacy has come back to haunt not just the South but the
larger Right-wing movement that has come to dominate American Evangelicalism.
These currents are familiar and when one considers the devastated landscape of
the Church today, the way in which nationalist politics are able to form a
symbiotic relationship with this weakened form of Christianity (comprised
mostly of empty forms and traditions), and the daunting task of evangelising a
massively complex and diverse culture that is post-Christian as opposed to merely
pagan – one can begin to understand what the men of Reveil were looking at in
the early 1800's on the continent. In some cases they too made their
compromises and while they were all gone from the scene before the horrors of
1914, many lived to see nationalism rearing its head. One wonders how many of
them looked on with alarm – all the more to see the role the compromised
churches played in this episode.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In some respects we live in a parallel time – in another way
Britain is much closer to this reality than in the United States. Here, the
Evangelical movement is still flourishing but looking over its shoulder with
not a little concern. Its collapse will be terrible and it will generate a
wasteland and we're already experiencing a taste of this in the kind of rural
areas such as where I live. The collapse of the Church has been sudden and
pervasive – but the kind of spiritual situation seen on the continent after
Napoleon may still be quite a few years away. It may be that I'm gone by then
but my adult children will be reckoning with it in their middle age and as
their children are entering adulthood.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2023/12/historical-cycles-post-napoleonic_16.html" target="_blank">Continue reading Part 4</a>
</span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-60015377276748437992023-12-14T19:30:00.004-05:002023-12-14T19:39:25.125-05:00Historical Cycles: The Post-Napoleonic Context of Adolphe Monod, Reveil, and Some Contemporary Analogies (II)<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The American context at this time was completely different. The
new Republic had been able to successfully fuse Enlightenment ideas with
Christian ideology. <span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">This is not to say the result was in keeping with New
Testament Christianity, but given the North American context, the inherent
contradictions were diluted by the distractions of the frontier – a nearly
endless supply of land and resources for what was (at the time) a small
population. In other words the contradictions and the crises these
contradictions would produce were postponed and left for future generations to
work out.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The American colonies did not have to overthrow the king,
there were no extant feudal structures, and there were no stresses in terms of
land and resources apart from the relatively small-scale battles with natives.
And the Anglican Church never held supremacy and was not a major land owner or
political force. Though close ideological cousins, the French and American
Revolutions existed and came to bear <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">in
very different contexts</i>. And this is further confused by the fact that the
French Revolution went off the rails, degenerated into The Terror and
eventually succumbed to Bonapartism.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In intellectual terms, America remained a generation or more
behind Europe and given the different context, the ideas (when they arrived in
America) functioned differently. The upheaval of nineteenth century Europe was
very different from that of America – which experienced its version of upheaval
in the context of the 1861-1865 Civil War. And so for example Romanticism (or
Transcendentalism in the American context) produced very different results –
the latter context carrying little in the way of cultural potency.
Transcendentalism affects American culture but it is not the catalyst seen in
the European context.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">American cities would by late century face upheaval but the social
and economic conflicts had already been raging in Europe since the early and
mid-portions of the nineteenth century. One thinks of events like the Peterloo
Massacre in 1819 – a British government desperate to quench any spark of
revolution. Europe was also dealing with demographic stresses which again the
US was able to avoid – at least in most cases, due to the seemingly endless
room.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">And with regard to the United Kingdom, the situation for
Nonconformists or Dissenters, the Protestants outside the Anglican Church was
also unique. With the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights issued
the following year, their worship was tolerated. The Puritan social and
political project was once and for all ended, but there was no longer a fear of
persecution. This meant that Nonconformity was reduced to a kind of
second-class citizenship. They could not hold political office and could not
attend universities like Oxford and Cambridge but it was legally protected.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">This situation began to change with the repeal of the Test
and Corporations Act in 1828. This allowed nonconformists entry into government
service. This was followed by marriage laws in 1836 that allowed nonconformists
to legally marry outside the Church of England and the repeal of compulsory
taxes or rates paid to the Church in 1868. This trend continued as
nonconformists became an important component in the growing move toward a
liberal political platform leading them to eventually ally with the likes of
Gladstone and Lloyd-George. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Biblically-oriented Christianity on the continent emerged in
the nineteenth century as a scattered remnant struggling to retain its identity
in a sea of political upheaval and vibrant but declining Roman Catholicism.
They wistfully looked back on the past and tried to recapture and retain something
of its memory.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">American Christianity was forward looking and in a friendly
and economically prosperous climate it quickly adapted and assimilated the
values of the host culture. This was largely true even of the groups that tried
to retain historical expressions of the faith. Old prejudices (at least in
terms of Christianity) were softened by the distance of time and geography and
in the face of the kind of pragmatism that often ruled on the frontier.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">One cannot be but sympathetic with the European situation
though at times a more robust and nonconformist streak might be wished for. It
is amazing though when one dives a little deeper into the social situation to
discover just how oppressive and intolerant Europe remained even into the
twentieth century. In this case I am referring to religious terms, the
tolerance of independent church works and the like – a point I hope to visit in
another upcoming article.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In the United States, one is forced to sigh in despair and
drink deep of the irony. The land that was the refuge for Christians fleeing
the troubles of the Old World created a cultural climate in which defenses were
dropped, vigilance failed, and prosperity seduced. The sheer magnitude of
building a new civilisation across a continent consumed men – work and money
dominated thought, in some cases more than anything else. Christianity was
ubiquitous and ambitious, but increasingly an empty form subjugated to the
dominant and largely unchallenged American ideology. Absent the conflicts of
old Europe that forced men to wrestle with their faith and reckon with the consequences,
the struggles of daily life became questions of economics and the
pseudo-dilemmas of progress. The inroads made by Freemasonry into Protestantism
also testify to this compromise and syncretism – which remains a problem in
some quarters. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2023/12/historical-cycles-post-napoleonic_39.html" target="_blank">Continue reading Part 3</a></span></p>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">
</span>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-70018982818398994312023-12-14T19:28:00.005-05:002023-12-14T19:38:40.548-05:00Historical Cycles: The Post-Napoleonic Context of Adolphe Monod, Reveil, and Some Contemporary Analogies (I)<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">I recently finished Constance Walker's small biography on
Adolphe Monod (1802-1856) which I would recommend to anyone interested in
nineteenth century conservative Protestantism on the European continent – of
which there is not a great deal. This is why figures like Monod stand out.<span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The period continues to fascinate me. Just as the Thirty
Years War (1618-1648) had shaken Europe to its foundations and represents the
culmination and failures of the Magisterial Reformation period, the Napoleonic
Wars constitute something of a parallel. The French Revolution had gone
sideways and morphed into something else – for some, Napoleon was its
culmination and its custodian. For others he betrayed the Revolution and what
it purported to be. In many respects the ideologies driving these events were
all part of the Enlightenment – or it could be said, the Enlightenment
imploding.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Both epochs (1618-1648/1789-1815) are marked by
epistemological crisis that plays out in terms of the political order, the
social polity, and even basic morality. The same is also true of 1945 which
also represented the conclusion of roughly another thirty year crisis period
(1914-1945).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In 1648, 1815, and 1945 many people knew and were aware that
they were witnessing an epoch – a cultural shift. Things were different and
would likely never be the same. The latter date (1945) is probably (for obvious
reasons) the easiest for contemporary people to understand. It remains within
the scope of living memory and even as it fades and those generations that
remember that moment die off – there are still extant generations that grew up
in its shadow and retain at least the memory of our parents or grandparents
speaking of that time and reflecting on it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Europe in 1815 was a continent shaken and much has been
written about that fascinating time period and the great and sweeping changes
on the horizon. It was the time of revolutions, industrialisation, reaction to
the Enlightenment and the new technological order and so forth.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">All of this is certainly very interesting, even captivating.
But the angle that is of particular interest to me is the Christian one. One is
left startled or perhaps astonished to take in the real state of things at that
time.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Theological Liberalism was making inroads into the
Anglo-American world to be sure but in Europe it already had the mastery. Apart
from some of the pietist sects in northern Europe, the substantial but
shrinking Confessionalists in the Netherlands, and some outliers in Hungary
(which included Transylvania), the bulk of the Magisterial Reformation's
heritage had been subverted and was (spiritually speaking) wiped out.
Theological liberalism decimated German Lutheranism and the Reformed
communities in not only Germany but in Switzerland and France as well. The
Hungarian Reformed movement would soon be affected as would the Calvinist
(Waldensian) communities in Italy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">One could say with regard to the European Continent in 1815 –
Christianity was everywhere and nowhere. People went to church and skylines
were dominated by steeples, but Christianity was in clear decline and for those
committed to a more robust Biblical understanding of the faith and the gospel
message – it was almost non-existent.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">This was the context of the Reveil, the Awakening or revival that
came to Europe in the aftermath of Napoleon. In many respects it was like a
mission to re-Christianize Europe, which it failed to do. This was not a
programme of Magisterial or Top-Down national conversions as seen with figures
like Clovis in the Dark Ages or with the Magisterial Reformation of the
sixteenth century and its reliance on legislation.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">No, this was grassroots evangelism in the context of an
increasingly post-Christian Europe. It's rather interesting when considered in
light of contemporary discussions in the United States. In the case of Reveil,
there were no earth shattering events with great sweeping political ramifications.
However seeds were planted that would lead to Christian survival into the
twentieth century when the entire situation would again face upheaval due not
only the events of 1914-1945, but significant shifts brought about through
likes of Vatican II and the arrival of American-style Evangelicalism in the
Lausanne Movement (1974).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Through the efforts of Robert Haldane and others, traditional
Protestantism returned to the Continent – albeit in modified form. In many
cases the changes were healthy as a great deal of the 'Magisterial' aspect of
the sixteenth century Reformation was thankfully abandoned. This was an era of
free churches, restorationists, and remnants. State Churches continued to
decline and the era is marked by conservative groups breaking away as seen with
the 1849 Union of Free Evangelical Churches in France, the 1892 formation of
the Gereformeerde Kerk in the Netherlands, and in the British context, the Free
Church of Scotland in 1843.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">There were those that continued to work within the framework
of the state Church and in post-Revolutionary France, the Huguenot Church was
effectively a state Church. It was not the Established Church of France –
something that did not exist in the post-Revolutionary context. However, the
French government controlled religion, appointed pastors, and paid their
salaries. This unacceptable situation would continue until 1905 and the
secularisation decrees (</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: FR; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">Laïcité</span><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">) that govern France today –
essentially making all the churches into free bodies.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">This is why the arrival of the Plymouth Brethren on the
continent in the nineteenth century was in many respects revolutionary. They
were not tied in any way to the state and did not want to be. Many Americans
are surprised to learn of this state of affairs on the continent as the true statist
nature of the Magisterial Reformation lived on in Europe until the cusp of the
twentieth century, a thoroughly rotten and corrosive arrangement that in the
case of the French speaking world offers a poor testimony indeed. The men of
Reveil all wrestled with this state of affairs and most were eventually forced
out of the state church – either by conviction or coercion.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Adolphe Monod (1802-1856) was part of a second generation as
he was only a teenager when Robert Haldane arrived in Switzerland in 1816. And
yet he would be greatly affected by the early efforts of the Reveil movement
eventually becoming a minister in the Reformed Church of France. His brother
Frederic was instrumental in creating the Union of Free Evangelical Churches in
France in 1849, but Adolphe remained in the state-affiliated Church. Depending
on one's ecclesiology this is either a stain on his record or worthy of praise.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">To be fair, it was a difficult time and in many respects
there wasn't much to work with. The men of these generations were labouring
among the ruins (as it were) and in conflict with Enlightenment ideology which
dominated society and had deeply penetrated the Church.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">This episode is also instructive with regard to the
intellectual split that exists between Europe and the United States – and then
one might triangulate with the British situation which occupied a kind of
middle ground between the two.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">As stated, nineteenth century Europe was something of a
spiritual wasteland and a continent reeling from the upheaval born of 1789. For
large segments of the population, Christianity was a largely irrelevant
tradition. The foundations of the social order had been shaken and they were
entering what might be called a brave new world. For Christians, it was a time
of starting over – depressing to be sure in some respects but at the same time
a period of great hope and possibility. For those connected to Reveil, there
was all the baggage associated with state churches and traditions. For groups
like the Plymouth Brethren who would begin to evangelise in earnest during the
nineteenth century, there was a kind of liberation in that they were not bound
or burdened by the centuries of convoluted Magisterial Protestant tradition.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2023/12/historical-cycles-post-napoleonic_14.html" target="_blank">Continue reading Part 2</a></span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-4919034730549564682023-12-06T20:19:00.000-05:002023-12-06T20:19:45.626-05:00Saving Christendom by Repackaging the Roman Beast<p><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://americanreformer.org/2023/10/providence-and-empire/" target="_blank">https://americanreformer.org/2023/10/providence-and-empire/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This unfortunate article was reposted at The Aquila Report
and there seems to be more and more of this sort of thing as of late. The whole
of theology (and even thought) is increasingly subordinated to the concerns and
interests of Dominionist ideology and hence the growing concern with political
and cultural thinking. Ironically, the more these 'civilisation' paths are
pursued, the more readers are likely to turn to Rome as in many respects the
narratives of the Magisterial Reformation and its legacy begin to collapse. And
so in that regard one might say that such articles are doubly pernicious.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a> <p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In a series of visions, the prophet Daniel reveals a
succession of Beast-powers that would lead up to the appearing of Messiah. The
Chaldean or Neo-Babylonian Empire of Nebuchadnezzar was felled in Daniel's own
lifetime and replaced by that of Medo-Persia. The Persians in turn were
defeated by Alexander and the Diadochi kingdoms born of his short-lived empire
were cast down by the most dreadful and terrible beast of all – Rome, the dreadful
and terrible kingdom that breaks and devours all things.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The New Testament reveals that the Kingdom established by
Christ is heavenly and in God's longsuffering and mercy the eschaton is
delayed. As such, the imagery in Daniel finds its ultimate fulfillment in the
Age to Come – announced and inaugurated but not yet fully realized. The New
Covenant Kingdom exists in an already-not yet dynamic, creating a kind of
in-between time called the Last Days or the Age of the Church on Earth. And yet
as seen in Daniel, Revelation gives the impression that it is the same Roman
beast that is in power when the Day of the Lord makes its appearance. It
therefore could be implied that Rome serves as the Bestial archetype for the
Last Days period – and indeed nearly two thousand years after the Crucifixion
and Resurrection, Rome's ghost and memory still loom large.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Hyper-literalists err in thinking that this means there must
be some kind of literal revived Roman Empire fulfilled in the EU or some
variation of it. Not at all. Rather, one can read Western history as a series
of permutations – variations of the Roman model and vision. From the papacy to
the Holy Roman Empire, to the founding of the American Republic – and then
empire, the spectre of Rome haunts the minds of all Western thinkers. It is the
Beast that is still with us. Rome is the West and there is no West without
Rome.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It is Rome that Daniel describes as destroying the city of
Jerusalem and the sanctuary, an obvious foretelling of Titus and the war that
culminated in 70AD with the destruction of the Temple – and with it the end of
the Old Order. This abomination of desolation, an even greater profanation than
what was committed by Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century BC, hints also at
the apostasy and destruction awaiting the Church during the Last Days – a time
when the Temple (or Church) is profaned and effectively destroyed and silenced
(as hinted at in many passages such as Revelation 11).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Rome is the culmination of all the previous beasts and it
dominates the imagery of Revelation which spans the Last Days – the second half
of Daniel's Seventieth Week-Year imagery. Again, Rome is the West – it is the
New Babylon (even in the New Testament) that outstrips all that old Babylon
was. We need not look to a reconstituted city in the Fertile Crescent as some
have thought. Babylon lives in Rome and is enhanced and amplified.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Rome is the West. Rome is also Christendom because that's
what Christendom represents – the syncretism, the wedding of the Church to Bestial
Rome and its legacy. This is the imagery in Revelation. This is what
Christendom is – a false and unbiblical paradigm from the very beginning. The
Church could not be defeated through persecution so instead the enemy seduced
it by means of the test presented to Christ in the wilderness. Unlike our Lord,
the tired and unvigilant Church took Satan's offer, changed its identity,
ethics, doctrine, and purpose in order to have worldly power and glory. It
became Mystery Babylon, the Bride turned Whore riding the Beast. It was indeed
a Great Apostasy and the episode lives on and has been repeated more times than
can be counted. It's been happening yet once again for many years right before
our eyes.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Clearly the lessons have not been learned. The proponents of
Christendom ignore what the Scriptures say about Rome and its persistent
presence throughout the Church age. Even though the original Rome lies in
ruins, Rome's vision and values live on and are with us today. And just as the wicked
values and ideals of Rome were promoted by Court Theologians and Historians in
Late Antiquity – so it is in our day as well.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Modern 'conservatives' will look askance at Babylon, Persia,
and the Greek kingdoms, but Rome – Rome is different. They admire it. They look
up to it. They view it as a necessary component or step for the Christendom
project which in so many ways merely appropriated its symbols and power – or baptised
them if you like.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">To their peril, they have forgotten that Rome was and is a
Beast and as such they turn the Church into a whore that rides the Beast,
serves it, and in some respects is indistinguishable from it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">An so once more the blind lead the blind. The Scriptures are
clear: Empires are bestial and Rome is the model for the Last Days. As these
deceived deceivers glory in its accomplishments, the Scriptural imagery and its
implications never come up and consequently these dazzled teachers play a
harmful part in misleading the Church, in helping the baptized masses sleepwalk
into the arms of the Church-Empire fusion that is Christendom.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Such teachers need to be denounced as agents of this Beast.
They have infiltrated the Western Church on a massive scale and more or less
rule the day. It is but another iteration of the same Great Apostasy that so
shook and negatively transformed the Church seventeen hundred years ago.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Providence brought Rome to power and the same can be said for
the likes of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Alexander – and later empires like
Britain and America must be included as well. The outworkings of Providence
cannot be judged. Foolish men count the rise of the empires they happen to like
as blessings when in fact their rise and vindication can just as easily be a
form of judgment – judgment on other wicked nations and empires, or a kind of
blinding judgment for the people of these empires – and those that would serve
them. Their consciences are seared and calling good evil and evil good they justify
imperial theft and whitewash the countless atrocities that are always the
result.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The author is right about one thing – there are definite even
startling parallels between Roman history and the path that America is
following.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The fact that empires recur throughout history leads Daniel
Strand to shrug his shoulders. This is how the world is – so you might as well
embrace it. That's worldly wisdom to be sure but such fallen thinking and
reasoning has nothing to do with the New Testament and the apostolic
expectations and exhortations regarding the renewed mind, heavenly mindedness,
and cross bearing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The argument that some empires are good is again a case of
worldly thinking framing the issue. Providence might use an empire to bring
technology, industry, or transport networks to another land. The legacy of
these changes is mixed at best. The real lesson Strand is teaching is very
simple – let us do evil that good may come.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Even a 666 on the forehead can be made to look attractive and
people can be fooled into think it's glowing with heavenly light. Of course
they will not understand what they are seeing.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">His Christian argument is (when taken at face value) naive
and when reflected on, wicked and stupid. Empires are rooted in a simple
concept – you have lands and resources we want and if you won't give them to us
we will kill you and take them. And often this is further buttressed by
arguments that suggest it was our right and even duty to do so. It's Satanic reasoning
as are the arguments of Strand – all the more since he couches them in
Christian terms.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">He has confused Providence with endorsement and as such he divorces
these questions from the ethics of the New Testament. Additionally it's clear
he has also learned nothing from Divine revelation and what it reveals in a few
select cases about Providence and how it works. It would be just as easy to say
that America is like another Canaan awaiting destruction – God is
longsuffering, allowing America to stew its own juices as it were, to build up
the judgment that is due. This can be argued just as easily as what Strand
proposes. The difference is this – I can make a Biblical case for my argument.
His apologia for empire has no Biblical basis but is instead rooted in a biased
read of history and philosophical speculation.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Augustine was brilliant on certain points but on these
questions he was wrong. His position may have been moderate in his day – a kind
of balanced position when compared to those hostile to Rome or those who had
sold their souls to it – and there were many. And yet it doesn't matter if his
premise and assumptions and wrong – and they are.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The fact that 'barbarian' nations in some cases wanted to be
part of Rome is immaterial. Men look for security and wealth. It's called
worldliness. These are the values celebrated by Strand and other Christians of
his ilk but they are values antagonistic to the New Testament call to be
cross-bearing pilgrims and martyr-witnesses.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We could walk through Strand's tiresome and often ridiculous
essay and repudiate him point by point but to what end? It's enough to know
that his basic assumptions are wrong and therefore so are his subsequent interpretations.
Even Christians who are weak on the history should (if they are grounded in
Scripture) detect that something is off in his reasoning and deductive process.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">One could wish that Americans would acknowledge their empire.
The failure to do so just adds another layer of lies to this already evil
order. And yet, the reality would not lead to a great deal of repentance. The
British are an example of this as they gloried in their abomination-empire and
still do. And sadly there are many deluded Christian leaders (including far too
many in the Reformed camp) that propagate this filth, dressing up sin in the
trappings of glory and romanticised reminiscence.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Strand is blind to the evils of empire and thus to the
American Empire and the millions upon millions of deaths for which it is
responsible. The fact that this servant of the war machine, the death legions
of empire is a professor of ethics makes one want to laugh and cry at the same
time.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The fact that this rubbish is promoted on Christian websites
and that these sorts of false teachers are elevated in the Church is a sure
sign of judgment – a strain of Providence that Strand is unable to fathom. The
blind lead the blind. And why are they blind? Because their consciences have
been seared – they no longer posses consciences and lack all discernment. This
article is Exhibit A.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Flee such men! They are the agents of death. To fellowship with
them is to commune with darkness.</span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-35290399034696973052023-12-02T17:11:00.002-05:002023-12-03T17:51:18.657-05:00Lying Missionaries and Brutalised Victims of Their Times: A Revisionist Historian Spins the Gnadenhutten Massacre<p><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">When sections of the American public were forced to admit that
it was American soldiers that committed the horrific massacre at My Lai in 1968,
some attempted to justify their actions on account of their brutalisation. In
other words, the sheer brutality and normalised violence that characterized
their setting dehumanized the soldiers and thus, their culpability was at least
in part lessened. They too became victims as it were and instead of being
punished and answering to justice they were to be pitied and forgiven.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"><span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a> <p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">It's a convenient argument and convenient is the operative
term because without trying too hard one can think of countless other examples
in which the argument is deemed invalid. When Vietnamese massacred
collaborators or tortured American pilots, such a justification would be met
with scorn – even though millions of their people had been killed. When
American Indians lashed out at White settlers or militia, their dehumanised
brutality was decried as savagery and no pity was to be found. And indeed at
this very moment, one possibly faces criminal sanction in some jurisdictions if
a similar argument is made with regard to the Palestinians and the 7 October
2023 attack on Southern Israel. The decades of sadistic violence that they have
endured cannot be appealed to in an attempt to understand why they lashed out
with such violence.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">While in Gnadenhutten, Ohio earlier this year I picked up <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Anatomy of a Massacre</i> by Eric Sterner (</span><span style="background: white; color: #202122; font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman";">©</span><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">2020 Westholme Publishing, Yardley PA) in which he addresses
the famous 1782 slaughter of Moravian Indians at the hands of an American
militia during the end phase of the Revolutionary War.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">As appalled as I was to read this work, his trajectory did
not surprise me. The incident is highly problematic to the American sense of
self and as a good many American Christians embrace Right-wing politics, and
given that American Christians are most likely to be drawn to the historical
site – the ugly reality of it creates a dilemma for them. The villains in the
story are American soldiers. Is was inevitable (at least to me) that someone
would come along and attempt to spin the story – enter Eric Sterner.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The arguments he employs are essentially the same as the
apologists for My Lai – which incidentally was not a one-time incident. Rather
it was the one time such an incident was exposed and covered by mainstream
media. There were in fact numerous such massacres – more than the world will
ever know.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Sterner suggests that the frontier wars were brutal and while
contemporary historians will focus more on Indian suffering he wants to look at
the suffering of White settlers many of whom lost wives and children during
Indian raids. The endless guerilla warfare drove some to the brink – once again
the same arguments used to excuse American atrocities in Vietnam.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Sterner however goes much further and blames the Moravians
for trying to play a double game. As explained in previous writings regarding
this incident, Zeisberger did not support either side and as a New Testament
Christian opposed all war – indeed it was the repeated nemesis to his life of
missionary efforts. And yet, he knew that the Moravians would have to live with
and alongside the Americans regardless of whether or not they succeeded in
their rebellion against George III of Great Britain. And so on a few occasions
he sent warnings to American forts in order to spare lives. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">But then Sterner also argues that since Indians would come
and go from the Moravian settlements it's not hard to see why American militia
might be confused as to actual identities and allegiance. Further he argues
that some Moravian Indians did abandon the missions and fight alongside their
pagan compatriots against the Americans. That this number is miniscule doesn't
seem to matter.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">So given the fact that American militia was traumatized and
brutalized, coupled with perceived double-dealing on the part of the Moravians,
and the reality that a handful of Moravian Indians took up arms – the American
soldiers cannot be viewed as the monstrous war criminals they are. Their
extreme violence while not justifiable is understandable. He cannot deny the
atrocity but instead explains it away and in good revisionist fashion shifts
the victim-narrative on to the Americans – at least on equal terms with the old
men, women, and children they slaughtered.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">He also accuses Moravian missionaries David Zeisberger and
John Heckewelder of lying and insists they painted their converts in too
innocent a light – and maybe even exaggerated the nature of the massacre.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">I'm sure Sterner would reject the argument that he makes in
defense of American mass murderers if it were applied to Hamas.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Actually I wonder if he's aware that his 'victims of their
times' argument is very much akin to the defense offered by many Nazis in the
aftermath of World War II? I do not say that lightly.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">With regard to the Israel-Hamas conflict, we can safely
proclaim a plague on both their houses as both parties are monstrous and given
to great violence. But in the case of Hamas, it did not arise from nothing.
Hamas was born of years of violence, subjugation, and betrayal. This doesn't excuse
Hamas but there's a back-story. Broken societies breed extremism and produce
monsters. We've seen it over and over again just in the past few decades.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">But what about Gnadenhutten? Doesn't the American back-story
have to be taken into account? One can express a modicum of pity for the
suffering of American settlers – indeed my own family history is connected to
numerous such events such as the famous Deerfield Massacre of 1704. Such
histories are complicated to be sure.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">But the Moravians in this case were not the Indians that had
oppressed these settlers or contested their expansion. It must be noted that
Sterner doesn't seem interested in the question of whether or not the raiding
Indians possessed a legitimate grievance. It was they after all who had been
pushed from their land, repeatedly lied to, slaughtered by both war and disease
– and worst of all subject to endless manipulation that undoubtedly drove some
of them into a rage.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">But these weren't the Moravians. His arguments to this end
utterly fail. They were a third party trying to stay out of it. In a manner
reminiscent of the American posture toward the Non-Aligned countries during the
Cold War, Sterner seems most irritated by this – the idea that someone or some
party would simply refuse to back a side or take a stand in the war. It's clear
he doesn't like the Moravians nor respect them.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In reality the greatest source of brutalisation was due to
American expansion. The Indians had a more of a case to 'lash out' if one wants
to weigh and evaluate such immoral claims and actions. The same is true of the
Palestinians vis-à-vis Israel. And students of the New Testament will also
reject the Judaized Dispensational theology that is erroneously appealed to in
order ethically justify the actions of the Zionist state and to validate its
claims.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">And yet the Moravians had specifically eschewed all of this.
Upon conversion, these Indians effectively set aside the historical grievances
of their people and embraced a new life and identity – a rather difficult one
it might be added as they were largely rejected by contemptuous and racist White
Christians and at least in part by their native cousins and former tribe
members.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">If a few defected or apostatized that does not justify the
slaughter or lessen the scope of its evil. The bottom line is (as I have
previously stated) the Americans did not acknowledge the Christianity of these
Moravian Indians and thus viewed their non-violence as inconsequential.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">And they were motivated by rage, hatred, contempt, and
undoubtedly a type of coward's revenge. Remember, they slaughtered women and
children who died singing hymns. Once again, Sterner does all he can (which
isn't much) to try and dispel the narrative and cast seeds of doubt because
even he knows the whole episode was beyond obscene.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Sterner's narrative will please the kind of Right-wing
military-connected people he affiliates with. He's connected to the
Neo-Conservative movement and reading the book felt like I was being subjected
to FOX channel revisionism – for that's what the book is in the end, an
exercise in revisionist history. It reminds me of other hack attempts to re-write
the Crusades and similar terrible and unflattering periods of history that
offend the glory-narratives of contemporary Christian propagandists and their
attempts to launder such filth.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Historically his argument fails, and in terms of ethics it is
offensive. His assumptions and pre-commitments shape his reading and
interpretation of these events – as undoubtedly do mine.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">One need not despise American soldiers to find their actions
at Gnadenhutten detestable. And yet as a Christian I feel the need to point out
that like all nationalists and patriots Sterner is an enemy of Christ and hates
His Kingdom – and therefore he is quick to resort to lies and spin in order to
make the warriors of his holy kingdom (America) appear righteous and vindicated
while the ultimate blame is placed on the a-political non-resistant
otherworldly posture of the members Christ's Kingdom, something Sterner clearly
holds in contempt.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">He may hate Christ and the testimony of His servants and the
fact that they reject all Babels – even those like America which claim to be
righteous and true. Christians know better.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">On all fronts, historically, ethically, and in terms of
Christianity – Sterner's thesis fails and must be rejected.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">And yet I do not doubt that his ear tickling volume will
become the esteemed go-to book on the subject, the authoritative volume that
American patriots will appeal to and revere. For as already stated all patriots
hate Christ – all of them. Would that more Christians understood this but then
what would become of the largely apostate churches that dot this land? Would
they empty out? I doubt it, for most American Christians love to have it so.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">See also:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-gnadenhutten-massacre.html" target="_blank">https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-gnadenhutten-massacre.html </a></span></p>
Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-76310360667386070912023-11-23T15:16:00.001-05:002023-11-23T15:16:37.175-05:00A Thanksgiving Model that Must be Rejected<p><a href="https://churchandfamilylife.com/podcasts/6540dea48035f112bf38cdf8" style="font-size: 18pt;" target="_blank">https://churchandfamilylife.com/podcasts/6540dea48035f112bf38cdf8</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Modern Thanksgiving was born out of the US Civil War – In
1863, Lincoln wanted the country to be thankful for the turning of the tide
post-Gettysburg and following his lead the government issued proclamations in
the 1870's. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In 1939 FDR moved the date up a week wishing to extend the
Christmas shopping season – and this remains the practice today.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In other words it's a familiar theme to us even today – it's
about the troops and the consumerist economy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">After all Mammon and the Sword are America's real religion,
its real sacraments, so it makes sense that Americans would be thankful.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As I have previously suggested, there's no problem with
having a fall celebration and given that culturally it's a time when people are
off work and it's convenient to gather – then by all means eat your turkey and
all the trimmings if that's what pleases you.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Mayflower-Plymouth Pilgrim iconography was born out of
American Romanticism in the 1870's – the country was celebrating its centenary
and Jamestown and New Netherland (the older colonies) were not terribly
inspiring or unifying – an important point in the decade after the Civil War.
The Pilgrim story was and remains compelling though few understand it. To this
day I frequently meet Baptists who insist the Pilgrims were Baptists – which of
course they were not. This is only to suggest at how much it's all
misunderstood.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But neither were they Dominionist-driven Theonomists like
Scott Brown and the folks at the somewhat misleadingly named <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Church and Family</i> website – these people
were formerly associated with Doug Phillips and Vision Forum. They're
Theonomists but (as a tactic) they don't fully reveal who they are and what
they're about to their audiences and consequently many of them don't really
understand what they're being sold. They just think it's good old fashioned
Bible Christianity with flag and family and all that – which isn't Bible
Christianity to begin with. But little do they understand the real theology and
motivations of these people. Scott Brown would have made a good car salesman –
he certainly has all the skills and demeanour for such a task.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Pilgrims were separatists – these Theonomists most
certainly are not. It must be admitted that the Pilgrims were confused at
points, quickly lost their way and were subsumed by the more powerful interests
of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but that's beside the point.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As Christians we're thankful every day and I reject the idea
of the state telling me when to be thankful – and all such expressions of civil
religion that Evangelicals just love and revel in. This rejection of the
holiday and the problems with the state calling for it become all the more
pertinent when you study the history and realize that in the end it is just
another nationalist mammon-driven scam.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In reality we all know the celebration is really a national
day of gluttony and for most it's about overeating and football. Some enjoy the
familial aspects, others dread it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In my house we ignore it and have for more than a quarter
century. We often get Chinese food or today we're eating enchiladas and going
for a hike in the woods. That said, if invited over someplace we might go –
again with the understanding that in the end it's really just a secular
holiday. Fine, I'll come and eat some turkey and enjoy the company but it's not
a holy day.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But what about Brown and his fellow Dominionists? No, they
want to redeem this largely farcical holiday – as if that were possible. How do
they do this? With the Bible? No, that's not possible. The motivation isn't
even there. So what's their approach and why?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In good Constantinian fashion they want to transform it and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">make it great again</i> – evoking Trump's
motto but applying it to Thanksgiving. Of course this is assuming that either Thanksgiving
or America were ever 'great' to begin with. Oh, how this Babelish pride is so
easily sanctified.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">They lament the 'disappearance' of Thanksgiving but I cannot
fathom why. They are advocates of Free Market Capitalism as their other
productions make abundantly clear. Let's face it, the market is limited. The
mammonist culture that is America cannot make a lot of money on the holiday –
it's pretty limited to grocery stores. And as Halloween and Christmas have
eclipsed it, then so be it. A good utilitarian ethic says it must be right if
that's what the people want, if that's what fills the need. It's just people
'voting' with their dollars they might say.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Thanksgiving falls in between Halloween and Christmas. Why
not petition to move the date back to the first week of November or even before
Halloween and then the Christmas retail season can be longer. What difference
does it make? It's all made up anyway.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">To suggest it has been 'canceled' is pretty ridiculous. It's
a case of more Right-wing whining. There are discussions in academia regarding
colonization and certainly Columbus was a nasty sort that should not be
venerated by Christians (I won't apologize for saying that) and yet it's clear
enough in the culture that the day is celebrated and a major US holiday. I
certainly don't see any popular resistance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">These Dominionists also seem to forget that a good deal of
the population at Plymouth was not part of the Separatist movement – unless
they want to frame the event in terms of Kuyperian Common Grace, but I don't
think so. The point is, the whole Plymouth arrangement isn't nearly as
Christian as they would make it out to be and it was a little more complicated
than their narratives will allow.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As far as the Mayflower Compact – there's nothing to say it
was correct and in fact in many respects it typifies the confusion of the
Pilgrim Fathers and the general theological error among the Reformed at that
time. This was fully on display just a few years later with the completely
misguided and unbiblical Scottish Covenants that birthed (in blood) the
Covenanter movement and its tarnished legacy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And the Mayflower Compact really had little if anything to do
with the founding of the United States one hundred and fifty years later. The
ethos and ideology of the Pilgrims has nothing to do with the Classical Liberal
ideology of the American Founders. Their notions of government and society were
rooted in completely different notions and based on different foundations. The
Rebellion of 1776 was not religiously motivated. It was about notions of
'rights' and anger over taxation and other legislative issues – ideas and
arguments both foreign to the New Testament and rejected by it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The Pilgrim story is inspiring but I fail to see why these
men would find it so or want to claim it. I suspect their motives.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If one wants to read accounts of the Pilgrims – that's fine
but I hope they realize the connection to the Federal holiday of Thanksgiving
Day is not actually historical but again, a manipulation of later generations
that effectively hijacked their iconography and attached it to the day to
generate emotions and to create a narrative for America.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">So again, the whole thing is actually a farce and worse it's
rooted in lies and in some cases rather wicked things like war and mammon. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Again, if it's just families gathering because of a common
day off with a slight nod to the agrarian past and times of harvest – fine. But
now if you're going to weave a narrative of deception about the whole thing and
give it a Christian gloss that is then further confused by associations with
the state and even heretical notions of history and politics – then no, I
refuse to take part. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The fact that at the 18:00 minute mark the one guest turns it
into a quasi-worship service is problematic – now you're keeping days, and
again days that effectively are a denial of Scriptural Sufficiency. If we need
to celebrate so-called Thanksgiving Day, then we would have been told to do so –
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">brethren, set aside days of remembrance
and thanksgiving for special times of worship and celebration – and encourage
Caesar to do so.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It's ridiculous and such notions are not even within the
scope of concern in the New Testament. The Bible is not the source or
foundation for these folks advocating their hyped-up version of Thanksgiving.
This is about culture war and a Constantinian view of civilization, and
listening, I'm wondering if I'm hearing a bit of the Feasting Triumphalism so
characteristic in the ethos of Dominionism and Postmillennialism and the
latter's over-realized eschatology.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If costume buffoonery and other religious-flavoured carnival
antics are what these people think is so great (18:00-20:00), then they would
do well to revisit the Middle Ages – something the likes of Doug Wilson are
keen to do. The Medieval period is characterized by a culture with a Christian
veneer and yet it was more like an inoculation – enough Christianity that the
real message had little hope of getting through. God was on everyone's lips but
far from their hearts. Everyone thought they were Christian and yet almost no
one was. That at least was the traditional understanding among conservative Protestants
– another reason why the period was referred to as the Dark Ages – a period
that was not celebrated or emulated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There's nothing wrong with dressing up in costumes and playing
games – as long as it's not some kind of pseudo-masculine-militarist thing
which is become more and more popular in their circles. But again, how is this
Christian, how is this tied in with the Sufficiency of Scripture? If you're
going to argue that it is – then the concept itself explodes and the sky is the
limit. The concept no longer has any real meaning if it simply means a starting
point that can be developed in any number of directions. With this
understanding, Rome has a very viable and even venerable argument to make. Rome
after all affirms the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God – but it
denies its sufficiency and thus innovates. The difference here is not in
substance but in degree.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">At roughly the 20:00 mark it's suggested that if we 'cancel'
things like Halloween, we have to replace them with something better.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Why is that? It does not follow.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In fact, the rejection of these things is a testimony against
them and to our neighbours. To try and replace them with some kind of
over-the-top Reformation Day (what another Holy Day?) celebration isn't fooling
anyone. It seems sleight-of-hand because it is. And it must be said again, the
Magisterial Reformation has also been heavily romanticised. Listening to his
descriptions of Thanksgiving celebrations I'm almost driven to say that the
memory of these men and these events is being trivialised. If it really is a
solemn affair, then they're effectively mocking it – and then to confuse these
juvenile antics with hymn singing @23:00 – it strikes me as akin to sacrilege.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And of course we have to incorporate some guns @26:00 – what
could be more Christian than that?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">For those who want to deal with this topic in a more serious
manner I recommend (for starters) Nathanael Philbrick's 2006, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community,
and War.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It follows the Plymouth story into the Massachusetts Bay
period (1630) and up to King Philip's War (1675-1676). The Pilgrims lose a bit
of their romantic gloss and yet the story is important and instructive. It's
messy to say the least. Read it and then you'll see how foolish these people
are in their dress-up understanding of these events and how astray they are in
their grasp of the Kingdom and the application of Scripture to the Christian
Life, worship, and the reading of history. They're interested in myths about
Christendom and America and Brown's egregious call to read statements by George
Washington in connection with your family's Thanksgiving dinner further demonstrates
this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Someone might say at this point – what is your problem? Why
are you condemning people for trying to make the most out of a holiday and
combine what they do (feasting and fun) with Scripture and so forth?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This is to miss the point. There are underlying assumptions
which undergird why they're asking these questions, how they're reading
Scripture, and how they're interacting with the culture and with history. If
you understand this, it casts these questions, these discussions, and their
actions in a very different light.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The passages about doing all to the glory of God need be
revisited and re-read. They've been misunderstood and torn from context. The
doing all to the glory of God is about self-denial in our relationships and
conduct. Modern Evangelicalism (and the Dominionist movement which inspires it)
has perverted these passages and their concepts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">For my part I thank God every day regardless of what day of
the week it is or what the government tells me to do or not do. The family
gathering nearest us is a wretched gluttonous affair dominated by misbehaved
dogs that we do not enjoy and so we avoid it. For me it's a day to be thankful
because we can get some extra sleep. Some years I have worked but that's not
always option. We will spend the day as a family – just as we would any other
day off. Praise be to God – but it's not a special day.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I will not bind the consciences of others and say it's wrong
to gather for Thanksgiving but I do condemn the posture taken by Scott Brown
and his Dominionist cohorts. And I will not be bound in my conscience to
celebrate a day that is a sham, nor will I take up the yoke of financial
burdens and consumer frenzy in order to make it all 'just so' and buy the foods
that everyone feels compelled to eat. Scott Brown is so thankful to be an
American so he can revel in his theologized myths. For my part, I'm a true New
Covenant Pilgrim and citizen of Zion. America may be where I live as well as
many of my ancestors but I do not call it my home. I am actually a Mayflower
descendant – from John Alden and Priscilla Mullins and yet like the apostle I
count such heritage as dung and have no confidence in the flesh.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Finally, does not the apostle speak to this in Romans 14? No,
he does not. This passage is frequently misused and utilised as a fig-leaf for
all manner of innovations and cultural syncretism. Paul was dealing with Mosaic
retention and debates over kosher laws, Sabbath, and other Jewish holidays. It
would all be moot in a few years when the old order was permanently ended in
AD70. Christians were bound to tolerate their weaker brethren that still felt
bound to keep these practices – but their consciences were rightly clear and
should not be brought into bondage. God accepted the worship of these Jewish
Christians who in misguided sincerity still felt bound to keep aspects of the
Law. They keep the day as to the Lord just as the Gentile Christians did not
keep Sabbath or the other days associated with the Jewish calendar and that was
fine too and actually a sign of maturity. The passage suggests that some of
these brethren (presumably in Church gatherings) would eat only herbs and would
eschew the meat contaminated by contact with the pagan markets or the wine used
in libations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Paul argues here and in 1 Corinthians 8 that the meat can be
eaten. We're not subject to the superstitions of the pagans but this had nothing
to do with the question of worship, nor does he for a moment suggest we should
demonstrate our disregard for their superstitions – by appropriating and transforming
their superstitions. This is effectively the argument that is given today – and
it really is rather absurd when one looks at it. In an exercise of what might
be called wish-eisegesis, they are reading a great deal into these passages
that just isn't there and in many cases have inverted its meaning.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Nowhere does Paul suggest that the Church should invent holy
days and/or borrow from and transform pagan ritual days. It's not even in his
mind or on the table and it is a gross (and sometimes wicked) perversion of
Scripture to suggest that those who reject Christmas and other contrivances are
somehow 'weaker brethren' because they refuse to go along with it. What a
travesty and what a shame that so many Bible teachers fall for this bogus
exegesis and in turn extrapolate teachings that aren't to be found in the text.
It is not what is being taught in the passage nor does it even remotely
resonate with the rest of the teaching found in the epistles.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Romans 14 grants no comfort or vindication to the defenders
of such holidays. It's not that I'm of the weaker brethren and they the strong
or vice versa. They're outside the scope of the discussion in Romans 14. The
problem is they've adopted the hermeneutics and theological methodology of the
Hellenistic Judaizers condemned throughout the apostolic writings – the kind of
practices being condemned in the Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-55512830673368902542023-11-20T20:44:00.000-05:002023-11-20T20:45:39.067-05:00Conspiracies versus Conspiracy as a Worldview: The Epistemological and Ethical Rot of Libertarianism (III)<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;">Due to the necessity of expansion and sheer avarice, Capitalism
will inevitably turn to the international sphere and with that comes intrigue
and war – and that in turn leads to secrecy and propaganda. As the public
begins to grasp this, there is an erosion of trust. And if the forces of
finance capital have also purchased the news media – the end result is at first
mass conformity, but later this will turn to mass cynicism. For those who only
see one small piece of the puzzle their already skewed viewpoint will be
subject to easy manipulation. There are those who profit from fear and anger
and if allowed to fester these emotional responses can take on a life of their
own. And it's not just the Right that plays this game.</span></p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Globalism would inevitably lead to bigger and more widespread
outbreaks of disease – something like Covid was actually long overdue. But for
many Libertarians they had reached a point in which they no longer trusted
anything institutional. In many respects I don't either but I also know the
powers that be don't want to harm their bottom line and (as already stated) things
like lockdowns and vaccine mandates were not about social control per se but an
attempt to get the situation under control so that all of us wage-slaves can
get back to work and get the economy moving – which translates into their
pockets being lined with gold. As with all things on a large-scale it was a
mess and competing interests generated no small degree of chaos.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But for Libertarians it was all conspiracy. You can't trust
the government, you can't trust science, and you can't trust history – again, I
have a degree of sympathy will all of this but it has to be tempered. It
requires wisdom to navigate this and apart from Scripture, history is probably
the most helpful guide. But history is not something that can be pursued on the
Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, or Bret Baier level – or even the Rachel Maddow or
Anderson Cooper level for that matter. A five-minute PragerU video is not going
to give you depth and wisdom. There are no shortcuts, it requires a great deal
of investment in terms of time and patience and as such the American public is
not interested.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">For some during the Covid crisis, the ruling figures that
appear on television were transformed into complete frauds – not just immoral
people pretending to be moral, not just scheming avaricious people pretending
to stand for certain values or to sincerely care about this or that situation.
I'll be the first to admit these people, these politicians, celebrities and those
connected to the media are mostly hypocrites and frauds. They are in some
respects the most vile people on Earth.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But that doesn't mean everything they say is false or utterly
a lie. They frame things in a self-serving manner. They manipulate stories but
most of it is still true. Maybe it rests on false assumptions or they omit
critical aspects of the story – and they often skip the context as it would
undermine their point of view. That said, the stories that are reported are
rarely altogether false. Sometimes they are, but that's not often the case and
it's rare to get all the major media outlets and politicians to operate off the
same script. It happens sometimes (like after 9/11) but not for very long.
There's enough competition within the circles of power that overt lies will be
called out and exploited. No, the lies are more often cases of omission and
manipulation. From my standpoint, the disagreement is often in terms of the
assumptions and the framing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Conspiracies are real but the Conspiratorial Worldview is not
and I think it's tragic to see the young woman running Catholics Against
Militarism completely lose her way. She has become (in my mind) an emblem of
where this kind of thinking leads.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">She sees so clearly the lies surrounding war – and they are
pervasive. She sees problems with the economic system – but doesn't understand
them. She fears state power and tyranny but seems to lack a way to frame it or
understand it in its context. It's highly problematic but not in the way she sees
it. Because of suspicions surrounding Covid and the more recent trajectories in
Gender-driven medicine and science there is a tendency to doubt all science and
even all authority.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Again, the materialist mindset that undergirds our culture's
assumptions is utterly false and it cannot create the unified theory or
worldview that it hopes to discover. It cannot answer the most basic questions
or give man a means to live a meaningful life. Instead it tries to sidestep
these issues. That said, science has made advances of a kind. You can't doubt
this, nor can the Catholic podcaster as she utilizes these technologies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Again, how these technologies can be accounted for is
problematic and what it all means or how to contextualise it is something that
escapes the modern materialist. And there are many scientific claims –
especially in the realm of theoretical physics and the like that can be
doubted. A lot of the cutting edge science that so fascinates people is really
just philosophy and some of it even qualifies as religion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">All of this is to say that we needn't fear modernity. The
modern world has deep problems and yet we cannot return to the pre-modern
period. I have even argued for something of a medieval worldview, a return to
supernaturalism. I believe reality is metaphysical, spiritual and thus beyond
the ability for us to understand and in total defiance of modern Scientism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">That said, I don't believe we need to doubt the discoveries
of the scientific era. When I say return to the Middle Ages, I do not mean that
we need to return to Galen, Ptolemy, and Aristotle. That was another flawed
paradigm, a corrupt syncretism that the Medieval Roman Catholic Church bought
into. It was false, just as today's models are in many respects false. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And so for some (like the host of Catholics Against Militarism)
the answer to a world she doesn't like and doesn't understand is to retreat to
these forms, to a world she deems safe – and yet it's a world that didn't
really work either and thus fell apart because it was not sound or real. It
professed to be Christian or Biblical and yet it wasn't. The Scriptures were
read through a corrupted lens, forced to say things they didn't say.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We see this happen again with the Age of Reason and the
Enlightenment – resulting in new forms of philosophical theology and a kind of scholastic
rationalism that would ultimately implode resulting in theological liberalism.
This in turn has led to various 'conservative' reactions meant to be
correctives but in reality are just permutations of the same flawed
epistemological paradigm.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As a result of all these forces at work, we're seeing a
resurgence of notions like a Flat Earth or Geocentricity and it struck me as
tragic to see the host of this anti-militarism podcast fall into these traps.
Her confidence in the world has collapsed. The ship is sinking and so she's
reaching desperately for a life boat but instead has simply found an older ship
that has already capsized – or in reality that has already sunk. What she and
others think is solid ground is but another death trap. She has lost her way.
Her misguided commitments have led her into a state of crisis and collapse. The
false worldview she embraces has come to dominate, and now she's trapped in a
dark room and romanticism and fantasy are the only escape. This is why she's
inviting Robert Sungenis on her show and giving him a platform for his
geocentric views.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It's sobering and sad – and so terribly frustrating. I grow
tired of the smug fact-checkers on the news or those who decry and denounce
those who don't embrace their narratives about Russia or even the goodness of
the USA as 'conspiracy theorists'. They mock the notion of the Deep State, a
notion which has been around for decades and is easily embraced by the academy
when it comes to other contexts that don't threaten the American order. All of
this was thrown into an intensified chaos with the rise of the Trump cult and
the way they employ conspiracy to explain away their failures and truths that
stand in their way. As such, legitimate conspiracies have been utterly tainted
and discredited and they've given birth to a new generation of conspiracy and
conspiracists that are even further divorced from reality. It's as if we're
living in a labyrinth so complex that even Borges would recoil in horror.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I was so sorry to see what was an otherwise interesting
podcast succumb to this kind of mental rot. And now it goes on the ever-growing
list of authors, podcasts, websites and even pastors and Church leaders that I
must effectively write off – I'm no longer interested in anything they have to
say. They have lost their way. They have been consumed by the chaos-labyrinth
that is our world in the Last Days.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">It's fascinating to trace out how these things develop and
how people fall into these wormholes from which they cannot escape. It's
sobering and humbling too.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-31767293714285233432023-11-20T20:41:00.005-05:002023-11-20T20:46:12.089-05:00Conspiracies versus Conspiracy as a Worldview: The Epistemological and Ethical Rot of Libertarianism (II)<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;">It is both sad and frustrating to me that some who are eager
to take certain portions of Scripture at face value – like the commands to turn
the other cheek, or the teachings regarding the Kingdom of Heaven will at the
same time completely ignore the other parts, about mammon and the nature of the
world and worldliness.</span></p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Because their model is subverted, there is a tendency among
the Libertarian set to blame other forces and to see conspiracies of control
hiding around every rock and tree. This too is frustrating because there are
conspiracies and wicked men plot and attempt to manipulate events. The historical
record on this is clear. But there is no overarching comprehensive conspiracy
that manages everything. Rather there are a series of dynamics, overlapping
circles and factions vying against one another. For this reason some deny the
reality of conspiracy and instead simply point to the nature of things and the
way political and social forces compete. The conspiracy is in many ways open
and fully visible. And yet that's insufficient as there are those who subvert
the rules. There are powerful Mandarins who can transcend procedures,
manipulate, and create illusions. And they collaborate sometimes. And then
there are those we might call Praetorians who sit atop these power structures
and who often straddle more than one at a time. They collaborate and scheme
against one another. They rise and fall. And yet as they conspire they also
betray one another. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The kind of orchestration some conspiracists appeal to does
not exist and while powerful people are connected, and the circles shrink they
higher you go – it doesn't mean they're all working in accord. There are open
conspiracies to be sure and some would rightly appeal to groups like the
Council on Foreign Relations or Bilderberg. And yet it would be folly to think
these groups are able to micromanage everything. They push and promote and certainly
have influence – especially at certain choice moments and in certain contexts,
but the individual members will also work against one another and it's evident
that plans fail – sometimes badly, and people fall out of favour and fade away.
Just by way of example one might look to the events surrounding US policy post-9/11
in places like Iraq or Central Asia, or the opening of China back in the early
1970's, or broadly speaking, US strategy in the aftermath of the Soviet
Collapse. Big plans were made and powerful men were at work shaping these
events and yet in some cases there were sharp disagreements that were not able
to be smoothed over. In other cases, the plans failed in the long term
demonstrating a lack or loss of control.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">And conspiracies have to make sense – they have to fit with
the world as it exists. Conspiracies frequently rely on a coherence theory of
truth but a quick study in philosophy would reveal that you can create all
kinds of coherent systems and frameworks but it doesn't mean they're true. They
can make sense in isolation by being coherent and yet that doesn't mean that
they are coherent when interacting with the real world. The same is often true
of certain ideologies – they seem sound on paper or in the lab (as it were) but
fail spectacularly when put into a real-world context.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Likewise as Christians we don't believe the world to be
merely governed by chance or chaos. There are forces at work – there are
conspiracies on the celestial level we might say. In other words, it's all
rather complicated, and yet one common problem with conspiracies is the
tendency to oversimplify.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Many who fall prey to false or exaggerated conspiracies have
a paltry understanding of the world and how things work – and they fail to
grasp the complexity of motivations that govern the actions of men.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">There are conspiracies but for some conspiracies become a
worldview in itself and over the years I've seen not a few Libertarian-types
fall prey to this. Their economic theories fail – it must be a conspiracy. Why
does a capitalist society go wrong and fall prey to powerful interests that
ultimately undermine not only democracy but capitalism itself? It must be a
conspiracy. Why do capitalist societies turn into militarist empires? It must
be a conspiracy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">There are conspiracies at work when it comes to economics and
power but in some cases what they're calling conspiracy is simply the
outworking of these ideals – or as I sometimes put it, these ideologies run
their course or go to seed and are past the point of utility.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Capitalism like other competing ideologies reaches a
transcendent phase – it moves beyond its initial frameworks and even
ideological commitments. Is it no longer capitalism? The libertarian would say
so, but the billionaire capitalist would not. They would simply say these
ideologues think in small terms. Or (as suggested) in many cases they operate
on an ivory tower level and don't understand what happens to their academic theories
when they interact with the real world.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Limited resources, growing populations, competition on a
macro-scale and the intensity and tempo of modern markets have transformed the
way we live and the calculus of power. The Libertarians (who think we can still
live on the eighteenth century frontier) don't like it. Neither do I, but
that's the world we live in.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">And so, when Wall Street policies lead to instability, social
crisis, political crisis, and war – you can't say that's not an outworking or
outcome of capitalism. When you praise the likes of Wal-Mart but don't
understand what Wal-Mart means in other parts of the world and the upheaval it
generates, then your understanding of capitalism is too small. When you divorce
social health and cohesion from the concerns of the bottom line, then not only
do you have an impoverished and reductionist view of society and social life,
you fail to understand that the collapse of Main Street has serious social
ramifications – that in turn have economic ramifications – which lead to more
social ramifications. They completely miss the complex dynamics of this and the
circularity. And not to over-complicate the discussion, the question of freedom
and freedom of choice (or lack thereof) has to be raised and explored in the
context of economic desperation and the collapse of the family which are
related questions to the aforementioned dynamic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Advocates of the free market don't like regulation and yet
fail to understand the monopolies actually want regulation to a point – they
want to have boundaries within which to work. They need legal frameworks in
order to secure their interests. The Wild West is not a safe bet. They can't
see all the variables and contingencies in such a scenario. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">A quick example or parallel – Pennsylvania regulates
homeschooling and this has led many homeschoolers to find living in this state
to be less than appealing. They like states with no regulation at all and no
reporting. The idea is certainly nice but there are other laws and interests –
child welfare and truancy issues for example. A social worker or law
enforcement official if motivated can pursue these avenues and put a lot of
pressure on a homeschooling family.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">"Why are your kids home?"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">"We homeschool."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">"What's that? Where's the law? Prove that's what you're
doing."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In some states this is impossible. Without any statute it is
simply the parent's word but it doesn't rest on anything apart from open ended
theories about parental rights. Homeschooling (legally) doesn't exist.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">I will grant a lawyer can usually resolve these issues and
get the authorities to back off but there's a lot of stress and uncertainty –
and potential costs that are not easily calculated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In Pennsylvania we received a letter every year from the
superintendent acknowledging our homeschool programme. We had to turn in an
affidavit and so forth – slight inconveniences in the grand scheme of things. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">But here's the thing – if anyone ever showed up at our door
and asked us what we're doing with our kids, we could simply produce the letter
from the superintendent and say – take it up with him. There was a legal
framework and basis for what we were doing and with that comes a kind of
security.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Maybe it's not the best analogy but some will see the point
I'm trying to make and understand that for some interests, regulation can be a
good thing. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The fact that this goes a step further and the corporation
becomes part of the regulatory process itself – as it becomes inseparable from
the state is an obvious result. And when the state is committed to privatisation
of public functions, that's effectively an invitation for the corporate sector
to intertwine itself with the state. The state likes the stability of
monopolies and as we have seen will ultimately prop them up – the monopolies do
own the politicians after all. And the monopolies want the state to protect
their interests in terms of the courts and markets – and this plays out
internationally as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">More could be said about how certain economic sectors become
strategic and thus it is preferred that they are either state entities or owned
by monopolies. This is certainly true of utilities. The Praetorians are not
going to let the electric grid fall prey to the whims of the market and put the
country and all their investments at risk. On the contrary, they're going to
make sure the grid is secure and in the capitalist model is in privatised but
regulated hands – in which the state can intervene if need be to make sure the
institution doesn't fail.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The same is true of the finance sector as recent years
testify. When you look at the panic and the level of crisis that emerged in
2008 - one understands that this isn't just about people losing money or
companies going bankrupt. The crisis was much bigger and its implications were
such that the economy could collapse – the US Empire could have collapsed. They
were willing to go to extremes to keep it functioning.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">This is also why I reject the Libertarian narrative about how
figures like Pelosi and Biden are trying to take down the US economy or that
lockdowns (and later vaccines) were some kind of conspiracy to take control. On
the contrary this was (once again) an extreme reaction to a dangerous
situation. Short terms losses were to be endured in order to keep the system
afloat. Had Covid run amok, it might have destroyed the US economy and thus the
US system. These Mandarins and Praetorians that have given their lives to
upholding this model and upon which they rest all their power and wealth were
not deliberately trying to destroy it. On the contrary, they were desperate to
resolve the crisis and get people back to work. The contradictory mess that
ensued is worth examining but this doesn't change the fundamental nature of the
response.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2023/11/conspiracies-versus-conspiracy-as_57.html" target="_blank">Continue reading Part 3</a></span></p>Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-2151184674575321872023-11-20T20:39:00.001-05:002023-11-20T20:45:31.228-05:00Conspiracies versus Conspiracy as a Worldview: The Epistemological and Ethical Rot of Libertarianism (I)<p><span style="font-size: 18pt;">For some time I've occasionally listened to a podcast called
Catholics Against Militarism. It's flawed – it is Roman Catholic after all, but
interesting at times. Protestant Constantinians and Dominionists are quick to
dismiss all such anti-war sentiments as 'Anabaptist' even while they ignore the
long and fairly impressive 'peace' testimony found within the spectrum that is
Rome.</span></p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: 18pt;"><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Ironically Fundamentalism once had this testimony as well as
did some of the Restorationist groups. It's a mistake to associate all such
thinking with either the Anabaptists or Quakers. It's a disingenuous tool used
by some Confessionalists to discredit the notion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Even many Roman Catholics who embrace power and wealth (and
thus by implication war) have held up the monastic notion of poverty (which
also implies a rejection of power) as the ideal to which they would aspire to
and yet the circumstances of life have not allowed them to do so. Once again, I
would cite the numerous examples of kings, queens, knights, and others who near
the end of their lives cast off their worldly positions and trappings for the
austerity and submissive life of the contemplative monastic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The host of the show (CAM) is a thoughtful woman filled with a
palpable degree of conviction and yet I was sorry to note that lately things
have taken a kind of tragic turn. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">But first the background for this turn – it's a story and
trajectory that will resonate with others – a story of someone losing their
way.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">It begins with Libertarianism and the failure to understand
the connection between mammon and militarism. Many Libertarians, in particular
those of the Mises and Ron Paul sects are Roman Catholics and many decry American
imperialism and America's wars. They believe (wrongly) that freedom and
democracy in social life and economics will lead not only to competition and
vibrant markets but to peace. They believe that people don't want war and if
society were truly democratic, then wars would be avoided. Government
interference and the regulation of society and economics are the source of war
they argue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">This view is sadly naive and even terribly mistaken. It rests
in a faulty view of man and the consequences of the Fall, and it fails to
understand the dynamics within society and who and what are really in charge. It
is a view that resonates with the American intellectual and philosophical
tradition which itself rests in a kind of Enlightenment confidence regarding
man and his possibilities. Theologically, it is a reiteration of the teachings
of Pelagius and this too is a critical part of the American tale. The Calvinism
of the early colonies largely imploded and was replaced by the Pelagian spirit
of Enlightenment and this has overshadowed American Christian thinking ever
since. I would argue that it's prevalent even in Reformed circles, especially
in the realm of economics and individual rights – though more and more are
turning away from these notions in terms of government and the ordering of
society.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Man is fallen and given over to evil – the archetypes for
this are found in Genesis in men like Lamech and Nimrod, along with the
nameless ones involved in the building of the Tower of Babel. Pride, vengeance,
and the lust to make a name for one's self are at the heart of human nature.
Man is not good but rather given over to evil and a slave to covetousness and
thus avarice. This starts small in the realm of peer to peer relations but as
men rise in terms of their power and wealth, their vision expands allowing them
to see not just beyond the horizon but into other dimensions of influence and
ideas – markets (as it were) of thought, allegiance, and behaviour.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Men are never content and will always want more, and often more
to their own hurt – and the hurt of others. Libertarianism dreams of and
idealizes an old American frontier world where there are endless resources, abundant
land, and men can live their lives as they choose and mind their own business.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">But even this is to misunderstand the nature of the frontier.
Such scenarios only existed briefly. Before long, people moved in and competed
for everything from wood and water to land and game. Pioneer accounts
(including that of my own family) are tales of constant movement. People would
stay in one place for a generation at most and looking for that elusive freedom,
success, and security they sought, they would then pick up once more and 'Go
West' – as the saying went. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Consequently (at least in terms of the United States) one of the
greatest forests in known history was all but cut down and numerous animal species
were driven to the point of extinction. And even today, there are countless waterways
(especially in the East) that remain polluted from the carelessness and greed
of past generations. It's not a happy story. A lack of regulation led to the
flourishing of some, but the exploitation of others, and certainly a trail of
destruction left for subsequent generations to deal with. I'm reminded of this
every time I go out into the woods and see the scars the resulted from the
free-for-all of past generations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Libertarianism likewise exhibits a very flawed and
over-simplified understanding of economics, the business cycle, and the nature
of currency and its value in light of things like credit and inflation – and
deflation. And needless to say its understanding of the Industrial Revolution
and its social consequences must be described as impoverished and lacking any
moral or ethical compass. The individual comes first and cannot be restrained
in the idealized world of the Libertarian. They are always keen to appeal to
the 'success' stories but for every one of those there are thousands who
failed, and thousands more who were ill-used and they and their families
suffered as a result. Whole families and societies were destroyed and even
today we are still living with the fallout, the effects of this period – the era
of Robber Barons which they view as a kind of golden age, an ideal to return to.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Libertarianism clings to its beliefs and thus must find a way
of explaining the course of history and what has happened in the world, for the
results do not fit their narratives. It almost goes without saying that revisionist
history is quite popular in their circles. In some cases the assumptions of the
status quo needs to be challenged but nothing is gained if one set of false
premises and conclusions are merely replaced by another.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">As hyper-individualists that wrongly believe selfishness to
be healthy for markets and beneficial to society, they fear collectivism in all
forms and especially when it begins to function on a global scale. They reject
regulation but at the same time decry the effects of monopoly. Monopoly is not
a betrayal of capitalism (as they sometimes seem to suggest) but its logical
end and monopoly demonstrates that a reduced state or one that is subservient
to the power of corporations dominating markets does not result in more freedom
or less regulation. What happens? The corporation simply steps into the gap and
assumes the role of the state. On a small scale level this is clearly seen in
industrial towns dominated by certain industries, in the 'company town'
phenomenon often associated with mining, and there are numerous other examples
when it comes to the power of banking, oil companies, and on a grander scale
the military-industrial complex – the companies essentially wedded to the
military in a kind of symbiosis.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">They would absolutise the market but fail to understand that
its dynamic always leads to consolidation and thus its own implosion or
self-destruction in the form of monopolies. They're not going to voluntarily
break themselves up or restrain their consolidation out of loyalty to an idea.
Profit is the end game, the goal – not some idealized or even deified market.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">At the most basic level, Libertarianism fails to understand
what money is and remains largely trapped by academic definitions – unable to
grasp its social and moral value, and the fact that it translates into power.
As such money is not ethically neutral (as is often argued), at least not when
it reaches a certain level.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">In a capitalist context there are conflicting obligations.
Men heading companies or trading securities might be firm believers in the
principles of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">laissez faire</i> but they
have other obligations to stockholders and the desire to see their companies
grow. As such, they will most certainly rig the game, and manipulate the rules,
especially if given the latitude to do so in a non-regulatory environment. For
example, the entire marketing-advertising industry is not about informing the
consumer so they can make an honest choice and 'vote' with their money in the
midst of some hallowed market paradigm. No, it's about manipulation, deceit,
and distraction – and often idolatry. We see this clearly in terms of brand
loyalty and associating certain brands with a kind of life ethos and lifestyle.
In other words the brand defines your identity – <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">imago Apple</i> replaces the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">imago
Dei</i>. That's idolatry pure and simple, a false religion on full display.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Caveat Emptor</span></i><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"> (or buyer beware) is a prominent
motto for the Libertarian. The risks it represents are the 'price of freedom'
and yet the New Testament rejects this whole way of thinking and tells us not
to seek earthly riches at all and to put the needs of others above ourselves –
to treat others the way we would want to be treated. Caveat Emptor is not
Christian. And it must be pointed out, an empathetic, compassionate, and
sacrificial ethic in keeping with the New Testament hardly produces a business
model that will flourish within our cutthroat capitalist culture. Christians
who live as Christians are not going to flourish within its environment. They
will be odd men out.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The Christians who support this evil subversion of Scripture
have an answer of course. Modern Evangelicalism hides behind the Magisterial
Reformation's false doctrine of Vocation that allows the believer to set aside
Christian ethical imperatives as he fulfills a task that requires a different
set of ethics and rules. He can put on his banking or retail cap on Monday
morning and all the rules change. Monday thru Friday he lives by one set of
ethics and then another is idealized on Sunday – only to be ignored the next
morning when he returns to work.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Sadly, many have confused the ethos of Libertarianism with
the teaching of Scripture. So it is with Catholics Against Militarism. The
ethical and ultimately epistemological outworkings of this are devastating and ultimately
undermines its own position.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">The world is a mess and since the theories of Libertarianism
fail, they must find a way to explain the way things are. Rather than
acknowledge the failures and immorality of Enlightenment society, democracy,
and capitalism, they turn to scapegoats.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;">Rather than understand that finance capital is like the shark
which cannot stop swimming lest it die, and therefore must endlessly seek new
markets, and if it can't find them it must create them – instead they see a
globalist conspiracy. There is a conspiracy you might say, but it's inherent to
capitalism, the Babel-system that ever runs the world and seeks to alienate,
oppress, and crush those who oppose it. After all Christ said you cannot serve
God and Mammon and yet how many Christians today utterly reject these words.
How many fail to understand that this imperative is inseparable from his other
commands regarding turning the other cheek, seeking first the Kingdom of God,
and certainly the power-rejecting and non-resistant assumptions within not just
the Beatitudes but the larger Sermon on the Mount?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2023/11/conspiracies-versus-conspiracy-as_20.html" target="_blank">Continue reading Part 2</a></span></p>Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8620275659431813789.post-2474023324741657652023-11-16T17:04:00.001-05:002023-11-16T17:04:21.295-05:00A Recurring Exegetical Error Regarding Exercise<p><a href="https://g3min.org/how-valuable-is-bodily-training/" style="font-size: 18pt;" target="_blank">https://g3min.org/how-valuable-is-bodily-training/</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In 1 Timothy 4, Paul speaks of bodily exercise. He says it
profits little, or profits a little. Either way it is not of great or supreme
profit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">But what is he talking about? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Growing up in Fundamentalist/Evangelical circles I always
heard that the physical body of the Christian is a temple and thus we should
eat healthy and exercise. The verse in 1 Timothy was often appealed to in
addition to the passages in 1 Corinthians that make the temple analogy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">And yet, the passages in 1 Corinthians have also been misread
and misapplied. In fact Paul somewhat repudiates the temple/healthy living view
when he (a few chapters later) limits bodily harm to fornication, and speaks of
keeping his body under or in submission – a kind of asceticism which
Evangelicalism remains hostile to. One also thinks of Christ's numerous
examples of fasting, as well as His words regarding pollution not being
connected to what one digests but what one thinks and says. The Evangelical
body-temple notion (which led many I knew growing up to lift weights) is
misguided, if not an outright error. It certainly misses the point of the
passages in question.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There was another type of asceticism rooted in Judaized
applications of the Old Testament and often combined with elements of Hellenistic
philosophy. This is what Paul addresses at the beginning of the section we call
1 Timothy 4 when he speaks of mandated celibacy and piety based on the
abstention from certain foods. Such legalism is the result of and results in a seared
conscience that ultimately lacks discernment and falls into hypocrisy. This
kind of straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel is all too common in the
legalism of Fundamentalist circles. I've known many cases in which worldliness
is embraced and endorsed but (what is a literally) a superstitious posture
about alcohol, playing cards, or the movie theatre remain.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">His later statement about bodily exercise is in reference to
such religious expressions, to the question of asceticism. A full reading of Paul
(and for that matter the New Testament) reveals that such exercises are not
totally out of bounds or without basis and yet the ideology undergirding these
factions in Ephesus (that Timothy was engaged with) was motivated by wrong
reasons and in pursuit of the wrong goals. Paul even endorses celibacy in 1
Corinthians, and yet condemns these Ephesian teachers in 1 Timothy. It's clear
that something else was going on.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In both the 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians passages, the idea of
recreational exercise or a kind of workout routine is nowhere in Paul's mind.
That isn't what he's talking about at all. The bodily exercise he refers to is
not running, push-ups, weightlifting, or some kind of aerobic routine. That's
not even in the scope of discussion. He's talking about ascetic denial – a spiritual
exercise pursued by physical means.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Some erroneously think Paul is giving similar exhortations
when he metaphorically employs the image of a foot race or a boxer when
describing the struggles of the faith. He's not talking about running or boxing
any more than Christ was talking about agriculture or banking in the parables.
He's using illustrations that people will understand – but apparently even
today, many do not.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">I was not too surprised to see another misguided article from
the pens at G3. They often excel at missing the point and this was no
exception. It was yet another example of the divide between New Calvinism and
old. Why do I say that? Upon becoming a Calvinist almost thirty years ago, it
was refreshing to find others who rejected the Fundamentalist understanding of
the body-temple dynamic as indeed it has been wrongly extrapolated from the
passages in question.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Of course some Calvinists take their liberty to unwarranted
and unwise extremes – to the point of glorying in their cigars and alcohol
which is another mistake. By all means have a glass of wine, but don't revel in
it. But some circles (especially those most influenced by Dominionism) tend to
be governed by a triumphalist ethic and this plays out in their approach to
such questions. They too have no interest in the kind of piety and even
asceticism put forth by the apostle. Rather they want to 'live it up' and have
created a kind of sanctified party and feasting culture, and in some cases
openly condemn those who do not share it – let alone those who insist that the
guiding ethos of this age is cross bearing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">There is nothing wrong with exercise. I would encourage it. I
do not wish to tempt God and as I grew older with a wife and children Paul's
words in Philippians began to carry more weight for me. I am ready to die and
in some respects look forward to it and yet I want to stay and finish the work
before me. I want to stay for those I can help, for those who need me and rely
on me. It grieves me to think of my family weeping or my wife sad and alone.
God may take me and they will have what they need as He provides and yet as
long as I am useful to them and to the Father, I would stay. To live is Christ
and to die is gain.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Exercise and eating healthy are fine things but can become
distractions and for some they easily become idols. Live your life, enjoy
things in detached moderation, and focus on heavenly things. Lay up your
treasure there. Seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at
the right hand of God. Deny yourself, die to self and yet don't think this
denial is about bodily exercise. That may or may not be part of it.
Otherworldliness should characterize our conduct and character. We shouldn't be
in bondage to the things of this world, to this present evil age that is marked
by curse and death, to things which are passing away. As such our appetites
should be governed. We all fail in this and what one finds easy is a struggle
for another. Be charitable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Mr. Aniol of G3 seems to be responding more to Evangelical
worldview wrestlings with the created order and the fact that many leaders in
the movement (often corrupted and shaped by political interests and
motivations) are trying to respond to a bevy of culture war issues regarding
everything from marriage and sexuality, to gender and the environment. Their
reading (often forced) is that the secular world is expressing a kind of neo-Gnosticism.
The problems with this argument are compounded by misreadings of Church History
and especially the New Testament which in turn are fed by misguided assumptions
regarding the Kingdom and the dubious validity of the Christendom paradigm.
They approach these questions from the standpoint of a long cultural tradition
and a battle over civilisation which many clearly do not understand. The New
Testament is in the equation but subordinated and often used in a disingenuous
and unhelpful <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ad hoc</i> fashion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Thus, Aniol is driven (it would seem) by a series of
assumptions and concerns that have led him to misread the text. In fact it
would seem he hasn't even read the passage carefully as he completely misses
the point about exercise. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">He's right to point out the tensions, the ever present
dualities under which we live in this present evil age marred by the Edenic
fall. The creation groans and yet the apostles speak in stronger terms
regarding the body. Paul calls his body 'vile' in Philippians 3, and speaks of
our present reality as a kind of nakedness with something lacking in 2
Corinthians 5. Peter speaks of his body as a tent or tabernacle in 2 Peter 1,
in other words something impermanent and less than eternal.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This doesn't mean we despise and abuse our bodies, nor does
this grant one iota of validity to the contemporary gender delusion and its
cult of mutilation. On the contrary, we are stewards of what we are given but
our bodies are fallen, under curse, and will die. And we await something more,
a body in newness of life at the resurrection and with the new bodies we partake
of a new heavens and a new Earth.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">As such Paul speaks of our mortal bodies in Romans 8, bodies
doomed to die, bodies with temporal appetites that lead to death and as such we
are not to live after such as if debtors. Some have abused the idea of the
flesh (sarx) and limited it to the body but others err in always excluding the
often appealed to connection to the physical body and its mortal nature and as
such the proclivities it is given to when dominated by sin – the bondage of
pain and corruption Paul speaks of. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">This is why Paul speaks of temperance and keeping his body
under, bringing it into subjection – the antithesis to the triumphalism of
today's Dominionists. Once again their scope of their misunderstanding of the
New Testament needs to be emphasized. They have truly missed the mark.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The heart of Paul's piety is self-denial, a point that is
very clear in 1 Corinthians 8 as he leads up to his conclusions at the end of
chapter 9 and the call to bring his own body, his own interests, his own pride
and will into subjection, and with it comes a warning – once again ignored and
explained away by contemporary Evangelicalism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Alongside this misread of 1 Timothy 4, Aniol does provide
some sound teaching and wisdom and yet his use of the passage as a foil is
poorly done and thus he misses the larger set of truths and potentially
misleads on at least this basic question. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Physical exercise is fine but that's not what Paul is even talking
about in 1 Timothy 4. Build the case elsewhere and on a different foundation
otherwise the focus becomes skewed – as we so often see with the New Calvinist
authors at G3.</span></p>Protoprotestanthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18217567607160768261noreply@blogger.com