Well, I predicted it earlier in the year when it did not appear very likely. However, I must say, it still was not exactly what I thought. I actually thought UA would continue to be pretty good, and AU would improve greatly as the year progressed. However, what seemed to happen is that both teams were up and down all year and by the end of the year, AU was basically average, and UA was on a downward spiral. After the game I refered to it as the "Clash of the Mediocre", although mediocre might be a stretch for the Bama team that finished with four straight losses including La Monroe.....LA MONROE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have one word to describe this game....BORING. It was very boring. No really great plays. No memorable performances by either team or any individual player. Not much scoring but I do not believe this was because there were two great defensive performances but more because neither team has much offense.
Trying to look at it from an unbiased fan perspective, the Iron Bowl definitely hit a peak during the years 1981-1986. These games were all classic and were split 3-3. Both teams were good during several of these years.
1981 - Bear wins number 315 breaking the then record for most wins. AU had new coach Pat Dye who had them playing much tougher than in years past, but with limited talent and depth. AU played hard and actually led in the fourth Quarter. Bryant put in troubled running back Lenny Patrick who made some of the most incredible runs I'v ever seen to bring Bama the victory. 28-17.
1982 - Dye has AU competitive finally, Freshman running back Bo Jackson is starting to make waves, and Bama with Bear in his last year, is staring to show signs of weakening. A last minute drive that included a pass interference penalty against Jeremiah Castille, a screen to Bo that was stopped at the goal line, and the famous "Bo over the Top" winning TD. AU 23-22.
1983 - Dye's best year. Bo's best game ever. Some 230 yards including a TD run of 70+ yds. Later, a Bama back whose name escapes me had a long TD run giving the Tide a lead. On the first AU play from scrimmage after this, Bo runs around left end for 70+ yards again. By the end of the game the weather was horrendous with rain falling sideways in Legion Field and Tornado WARNINGS in the immediate area. AU 23-20.
1984 Ray Perkins first year and Bama is 4-6 coming in. AU (7-3) started the year with two tough losses to Miami and Texas, then a loss to Florida later in the year. AU was favored by everyone. UA played their game of the year, holding AU all game. A late drive by AU ended on a controversial play. With the greatest running back in the nation at the time in the backfield, AU tossed it to the other halfback, Brnet Fullwood. Supposedly, Bo, who was suppose to block, went the wrong way, leaving the Fullwood unprotected. He was tackled for a loss. Apparently, there was confusion on the sideline, and Bo was late getting into the huddle. When he came in, the QB gave him the wrong play - sending him in the opposite direction than the play went. AU had another late drive and kicked a last second field goal which was wide wide wide. Bama won 17-15. (Incidently, the FG kicker then left AU, went to Florida, and beat AU on a field goal the next year. Irony of Ironies!)
1985 Back and forth game. Long TD run by Bama's Gene Jelks. Late AU rally puts them up 23-22 with less than a minute left. Bama QB and later coach Mike Shula led Bama down the field quickly, hitting Bell on a crossing pattern to set up a long field goal. The fifty-two yarder by Van Tiffin would have been good from the next county. All time grat moment for UA. 25-23.
1986 Bama led 17-7 late. AU began making a comeback. At 17-14 with time running out, AU QB Jeff Burger hit Trey Gainous on a fourth down play to keep a drive alive. Brent Fullwood, now the number one back, had one of the most tremendous performances I have ever seen. Once he was carried off the field after a great run, only to come back in and make another great run later in the drive. As AU neared the goal line, once again confusion reigned on the sideline. Coach Dye was trying to call a timeout, because he did not have the proper personell on the field for the play called. The timeout did not get called, and AU ran a reverse with Lawyer Tillman - a player who had never run that play in the game before. After making a great cut around the five yard line, Tillman scored. This time, UA could not pull out a last minute drive. AU 21-17.
Six games. Total Score Bama 129 AU 122 (if I did my math right!) Great performances. Bo.. Van Tiffin. Great times.
How long has it been? Well, Jeremiah Castilles younger son is a senior on this years UA team. Van Tiffin's son (or daughter?) Leigh hit a long field goal late in the game this year.
But the game???
Early on it looked like AU had Bama on the ropes. They scored a TD the first time they had the ball and a FG the next and led 10-0 in the first quarter. As the camera scanned the Bama bench, they looked.....something......disheartened I think is the best word I can come up with. I felt like at this point if AU could just score again, it would be all over and the rout would be on. However, AU did not go for the knockout punch and the rest of the game was a snoozefest.
But, in the end, AU won 17-10 and have now won 6 straight and 7 out of the last 9. Not bad. Next year Cox will be gone, and hopefully either Field, Caudle, Burns, or some other unknown can more than fill the rather smallish void he will leave. Only time will tell.
War Eagle!
Monday, November 26, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Against conventional wisdom - Part One - The Civic Duty of Voting
I am thinking about starting this as a series....Against Conventional Wisdom.....
I have a lot of issues where I think what has become 'conventional wisdom' or the standard way of looking at things is not really the right way. Maybe I can start blogging about them, and maybe be more consistent with this than I have been with my music recommendations! (I do hope to add more to that topic also, though!)
So, for my first ACW post, I would like to look at that most sacred of civic duties, or so we are told: The DUTY of voting.
Conventional wisdom (CW) goes like this:
We are fortunate that we live in a country where we CAN vote, therefore we ought always VOTE. Period.
The more people who vote, the better. Low voter turnout is a sign of apathy.
If you DON'T vote you CAN'T complain about the outcome.
The method of voting is as follows - educate yourself on the issues, know what you believe, then find the candidate who best reflects that belief and vote for him/her.
In responding to this, I want to just speak generally, and not necessarily point by point. I do very much agree that before one votes, one needs to educate himself. Do we really want millions of ignorant people deciding who holds office? However, this education is not of the type usually espoused by the CW crowd. They seem to indicate that we should all be educated on the ISSUES - as if political questions are all matter of a collection of individual issues - and then vote for the candidate that best meets our opinions on these issues. However, issues are not really 'individual.' The issue of Abortion is not really totally isolated from the issue of gun control or foreign policy or tax rates or any of a million other issues. I am against abortion. I am against gun control. I have certain views on foreign policy and tax policy. My views can be summed up by saying I am for limited, constitutional government at all levels. If I am looking at these issues individually, how do I decide on a candidate? What if Candidate A is also against abortion, but is very pro-gun control, for interventionist foreign policy, for higher taxes. What if his methods of dealing with abortion are actually as unconstitutional as abortion itself is immoral. Do I place abortion at the top of the list and say that no matter what else, if a candidate voices an anti-abortion position I am obligated to vote for him?
Rather than 'educating' ourselves by looking at the issues individually, we need to educate ourselves by looking at the very form of government we have in this nation. We have a constitutionally federated republic. How many people out there can really explain or understand even what this means? Very few. Yet it is in forgetting this, or in never knowing this, that we make our biggest mistakes.
Most individuals in this nation either have no clue about issues either individually or in the 'big picture' sense, or they believe their individual view of a particular issue is what should govern how they vote. A person on the lower end of the economic ladder may in fact think any view which taxes the rich and disperses these funds in some way to the poor must be good. Therefore, he finds the candidate that espouses this view and votes for them.
Usually what ends up happening is this: Most people either don't care enough about much of anything to think about the issues and educate themselves (yet they are still encouraged to vote) or they care very strongly about certain issues (tax the rich, stop abortion, win the war, stop the war, more gun control, less gun control, environmentalism, or on and on) and they vote for candidates they think agrees with them on that particular issue with no concern over the constitutionality of the actions to be taken to meet the desired ends.
All of this has led us to move away from being a constitutional republic to being a democracy. All individuals vote and majorities win. This was not the goal of the founders. In fact, democracy was one of their greatest nightmares (read the Federalist Papers!!)
So, I believe in limited, constitutional government. While a few (very few) candidates occasionally talk as if they also believe in this, almost none of them actually practice it. (One of the biggest joke campaigns I can remember was watching Bob Dole go around with a copy of the tenth amendment that he would pull out and read saying that whatever power was not given to the central government in the constitution was reserved for the states. This is true and is a major part of our constitutionally federated system. Thing is, Dole had spent a long and distinguished career totally ingoring the tenth amendment. What a sad commentary on the ingnorance of our nation it is that most people really did not even know that amendment existed, did not know what it meant, did not know that Dole really didn't care, and nominated him anyway!) What most end up doing is voting this way and that on a variety of issues depending on what they believe will keep them in office. There is no underlying theory of government to back this up. Therefore, even a 'conservative' or 'right wing' or whatever you want to call it office holder or potential office holder may sound on many individual issues as if he holds the same position as I do, while in fact, very few if any will govern that way. Probably ninety-nine percent of office holders in this nation, whether on the 'right' or the 'left', whether dems or reps, are actually activists. They all ignore the constitution and the strict limits it places on what they can actually do. This central concept of governing (activist, big government, do whatever it takes to accomplish a certain end) flies in the face of what I hold as a central concept of government (limited, constitutional government). Therefore, please please tell me why I should vote for any of them??!!
If two candidates are running for an office , and I have serious and fundamental disagreements with BOTH of them, why should I feel some sort of obligation to vote for EITHER of them? The example I always use is this: What if Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler were the two candidates running for President. Am I a bad person if I don't vote? Both of these guys are evil and fly in the face of all I hold about government and everything else. I would proudly NOT VOTE. Wouldn't you?
Now, fortunately this is an extreme example, but, just to take the frontrunners as an example, both Rudy and Hillary are politicians who have absolutely no clue about limited constitutional government (or if they do have a clue, they are totally against it). Both of these candidates would bring further damage to our already precarious republic. Neither of these candidates have a worldview even approaching mine, and neither have a philosophy of government compatible with the actual government of this republic as described in the constitution. Now, why should I feel some sort of obligation to vote for either of them? I don't. I feel zero. If these two are in fact the last two standing, I will be sitting, or voting for some third party candidate or something.
One argument I hear frequently - especially from 'conservatives - to justify voting for a bad candidate is this: " If I agree with (Candidate A) on 80% of the issues, and (Candidate B) on almost none of the issues, then of course I think it far wiser to vote for (Candidate A) than to not vote or to 'waste' my vote on a third party candidate that I may agree with 95% of the time." This argument really reveals what is wrong with modern American Politics. I have heard this used to justify a conservative Christian voting for Rudy. "Sure, Rudy is FOR abortion, FOR gun control, FOR same sex marriage, FOR lots of spending, but otherwise I agree with him 90% of the time and he would be better than Hillary!" I ask, "what kind of governmental philosophy would he have if he could justify these positions?" He could not have the philosophy I have. If he is pro-abortion and pro gun control, how could we expect him to be drastically different from Hillary on any of a million other issues? Where else might his philosophy, or lack thereof, lead him to? But, we are told to vote for him because he stands the best chance to beat Hillary?? Well, then, Hitler stands the best chance of beating Stalin. So what? Neither are good candidates! Supposedly agreeing or disagreeing on some percentage of the issues is really meaningless. When there is no underlying governmental philosophy limiting what the person can and would do in office, then there is no limit to what he will do.
With all this in mind, I want to address a couple of the points above. 1) Low voter turnout is a sign of apathy....WRONG!!!! If I don't vote when there are no suitable candidates, that is not a sign of apathy in the least. Quite the opposite. If I was apathetic, I probably would not even know enough to know that both candidates are bad. If I were apathetic, I would probably know just enough to have some sort of sympathy for one of the two major parties and vote for that party, or be just shallow enough to fall for the slickest candidate in either party. The fact that I am not apathetic means that I know enough to understand that a vote for Hillary or Rudy is only a slightly less noxious choice than a vote for Stalin or Hitler.
2) If you don't vote you can't complain....WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!! If I DID NOT vote when there are no suitable candidates, then I actually have MORE right to complain. No matter who gets in, I can say I did not vote for them. Again, Hitler and Stalin. If that is our choices, the ones voting for them are the ones responsible. If I say both of them are awful and do not vote for either, then I have every right to complain and complain I will. I did not like AlGore (Or JFKerry) or W. I did not vote for either. I will complain and I have a right to! In state politics, I did not like Lucy Baxley OR Bob Riley. I did not vote. I am proud I did not vote. I WILL complain!
To sum all this up and say something that may be shocking in our vote vote vote society. Sometimes I believe it is your CIVIC DUTY to NOT VOTE!
Instead, educate yourselves not so much on individual candidates, issues, or parties, but educate yourself on government in general and constittional government specifically. Then look for and vote for candidates who understand and stand for these things also. If there are no candidates who espouse a solid view of constitutional government, then don't vote. (interestingly enough, occasionally a candidate who did hold to the same general philosophy may hold a different view than ours on how that affects a specific issue. I would still rather vote for that candidate even with his difference on that issue, than a candidate that supposedly agreed with me on that issue, but had a totally different underlying theory of government. The latter is far more dangerous than the former). It is frustrating. There are very few of them out there. Usually if they exist at all, it is during the primary season and they do not make it past that point. (This time, for instance, we have Ron Paul who is as close to being a constitutionalist as any candidate who has run in a major party in my lifetime). To make this clear, if Dr. Paul is on the ballot when the Alabama Primary rolls around, I WILL vote! Likely, though, he will not be on the final ballot in November, and I will likely not vote, or at least vote third party.
Is third party voting a wasted vote? Well, if Hitler and Stalin were running on the major party tickets, and Mother Teresa was running as a third party candidate but had no chance of winning, would a vote for her be wasted, or would a vote for Hitler or Stalin be wasted?
Let me close with a couple of quotes (I don't know who to contribute these to)
"Don't vote. It only encourages them."
"If God would have meant for us to vote, he would have given us candidates!"
happy Thanksgiving!
I have a lot of issues where I think what has become 'conventional wisdom' or the standard way of looking at things is not really the right way. Maybe I can start blogging about them, and maybe be more consistent with this than I have been with my music recommendations! (I do hope to add more to that topic also, though!)
So, for my first ACW post, I would like to look at that most sacred of civic duties, or so we are told: The DUTY of voting.
Conventional wisdom (CW) goes like this:
We are fortunate that we live in a country where we CAN vote, therefore we ought always VOTE. Period.
The more people who vote, the better. Low voter turnout is a sign of apathy.
If you DON'T vote you CAN'T complain about the outcome.
The method of voting is as follows - educate yourself on the issues, know what you believe, then find the candidate who best reflects that belief and vote for him/her.
In responding to this, I want to just speak generally, and not necessarily point by point. I do very much agree that before one votes, one needs to educate himself. Do we really want millions of ignorant people deciding who holds office? However, this education is not of the type usually espoused by the CW crowd. They seem to indicate that we should all be educated on the ISSUES - as if political questions are all matter of a collection of individual issues - and then vote for the candidate that best meets our opinions on these issues. However, issues are not really 'individual.' The issue of Abortion is not really totally isolated from the issue of gun control or foreign policy or tax rates or any of a million other issues. I am against abortion. I am against gun control. I have certain views on foreign policy and tax policy. My views can be summed up by saying I am for limited, constitutional government at all levels. If I am looking at these issues individually, how do I decide on a candidate? What if Candidate A is also against abortion, but is very pro-gun control, for interventionist foreign policy, for higher taxes. What if his methods of dealing with abortion are actually as unconstitutional as abortion itself is immoral. Do I place abortion at the top of the list and say that no matter what else, if a candidate voices an anti-abortion position I am obligated to vote for him?
Rather than 'educating' ourselves by looking at the issues individually, we need to educate ourselves by looking at the very form of government we have in this nation. We have a constitutionally federated republic. How many people out there can really explain or understand even what this means? Very few. Yet it is in forgetting this, or in never knowing this, that we make our biggest mistakes.
Most individuals in this nation either have no clue about issues either individually or in the 'big picture' sense, or they believe their individual view of a particular issue is what should govern how they vote. A person on the lower end of the economic ladder may in fact think any view which taxes the rich and disperses these funds in some way to the poor must be good. Therefore, he finds the candidate that espouses this view and votes for them.
Usually what ends up happening is this: Most people either don't care enough about much of anything to think about the issues and educate themselves (yet they are still encouraged to vote) or they care very strongly about certain issues (tax the rich, stop abortion, win the war, stop the war, more gun control, less gun control, environmentalism, or on and on) and they vote for candidates they think agrees with them on that particular issue with no concern over the constitutionality of the actions to be taken to meet the desired ends.
All of this has led us to move away from being a constitutional republic to being a democracy. All individuals vote and majorities win. This was not the goal of the founders. In fact, democracy was one of their greatest nightmares (read the Federalist Papers!!)
So, I believe in limited, constitutional government. While a few (very few) candidates occasionally talk as if they also believe in this, almost none of them actually practice it. (One of the biggest joke campaigns I can remember was watching Bob Dole go around with a copy of the tenth amendment that he would pull out and read saying that whatever power was not given to the central government in the constitution was reserved for the states. This is true and is a major part of our constitutionally federated system. Thing is, Dole had spent a long and distinguished career totally ingoring the tenth amendment. What a sad commentary on the ingnorance of our nation it is that most people really did not even know that amendment existed, did not know what it meant, did not know that Dole really didn't care, and nominated him anyway!) What most end up doing is voting this way and that on a variety of issues depending on what they believe will keep them in office. There is no underlying theory of government to back this up. Therefore, even a 'conservative' or 'right wing' or whatever you want to call it office holder or potential office holder may sound on many individual issues as if he holds the same position as I do, while in fact, very few if any will govern that way. Probably ninety-nine percent of office holders in this nation, whether on the 'right' or the 'left', whether dems or reps, are actually activists. They all ignore the constitution and the strict limits it places on what they can actually do. This central concept of governing (activist, big government, do whatever it takes to accomplish a certain end) flies in the face of what I hold as a central concept of government (limited, constitutional government). Therefore, please please tell me why I should vote for any of them??!!
If two candidates are running for an office , and I have serious and fundamental disagreements with BOTH of them, why should I feel some sort of obligation to vote for EITHER of them? The example I always use is this: What if Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler were the two candidates running for President. Am I a bad person if I don't vote? Both of these guys are evil and fly in the face of all I hold about government and everything else. I would proudly NOT VOTE. Wouldn't you?
Now, fortunately this is an extreme example, but, just to take the frontrunners as an example, both Rudy and Hillary are politicians who have absolutely no clue about limited constitutional government (or if they do have a clue, they are totally against it). Both of these candidates would bring further damage to our already precarious republic. Neither of these candidates have a worldview even approaching mine, and neither have a philosophy of government compatible with the actual government of this republic as described in the constitution. Now, why should I feel some sort of obligation to vote for either of them? I don't. I feel zero. If these two are in fact the last two standing, I will be sitting, or voting for some third party candidate or something.
One argument I hear frequently - especially from 'conservatives - to justify voting for a bad candidate is this: " If I agree with (Candidate A) on 80% of the issues, and (Candidate B) on almost none of the issues, then of course I think it far wiser to vote for (Candidate A) than to not vote or to 'waste' my vote on a third party candidate that I may agree with 95% of the time." This argument really reveals what is wrong with modern American Politics. I have heard this used to justify a conservative Christian voting for Rudy. "Sure, Rudy is FOR abortion, FOR gun control, FOR same sex marriage, FOR lots of spending, but otherwise I agree with him 90% of the time and he would be better than Hillary!" I ask, "what kind of governmental philosophy would he have if he could justify these positions?" He could not have the philosophy I have. If he is pro-abortion and pro gun control, how could we expect him to be drastically different from Hillary on any of a million other issues? Where else might his philosophy, or lack thereof, lead him to? But, we are told to vote for him because he stands the best chance to beat Hillary?? Well, then, Hitler stands the best chance of beating Stalin. So what? Neither are good candidates! Supposedly agreeing or disagreeing on some percentage of the issues is really meaningless. When there is no underlying governmental philosophy limiting what the person can and would do in office, then there is no limit to what he will do.
With all this in mind, I want to address a couple of the points above. 1) Low voter turnout is a sign of apathy....WRONG!!!! If I don't vote when there are no suitable candidates, that is not a sign of apathy in the least. Quite the opposite. If I was apathetic, I probably would not even know enough to know that both candidates are bad. If I were apathetic, I would probably know just enough to have some sort of sympathy for one of the two major parties and vote for that party, or be just shallow enough to fall for the slickest candidate in either party. The fact that I am not apathetic means that I know enough to understand that a vote for Hillary or Rudy is only a slightly less noxious choice than a vote for Stalin or Hitler.
2) If you don't vote you can't complain....WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!! If I DID NOT vote when there are no suitable candidates, then I actually have MORE right to complain. No matter who gets in, I can say I did not vote for them. Again, Hitler and Stalin. If that is our choices, the ones voting for them are the ones responsible. If I say both of them are awful and do not vote for either, then I have every right to complain and complain I will. I did not like AlGore (Or JFKerry) or W. I did not vote for either. I will complain and I have a right to! In state politics, I did not like Lucy Baxley OR Bob Riley. I did not vote. I am proud I did not vote. I WILL complain!
To sum all this up and say something that may be shocking in our vote vote vote society. Sometimes I believe it is your CIVIC DUTY to NOT VOTE!
Instead, educate yourselves not so much on individual candidates, issues, or parties, but educate yourself on government in general and constittional government specifically. Then look for and vote for candidates who understand and stand for these things also. If there are no candidates who espouse a solid view of constitutional government, then don't vote. (interestingly enough, occasionally a candidate who did hold to the same general philosophy may hold a different view than ours on how that affects a specific issue. I would still rather vote for that candidate even with his difference on that issue, than a candidate that supposedly agreed with me on that issue, but had a totally different underlying theory of government. The latter is far more dangerous than the former). It is frustrating. There are very few of them out there. Usually if they exist at all, it is during the primary season and they do not make it past that point. (This time, for instance, we have Ron Paul who is as close to being a constitutionalist as any candidate who has run in a major party in my lifetime). To make this clear, if Dr. Paul is on the ballot when the Alabama Primary rolls around, I WILL vote! Likely, though, he will not be on the final ballot in November, and I will likely not vote, or at least vote third party.
Is third party voting a wasted vote? Well, if Hitler and Stalin were running on the major party tickets, and Mother Teresa was running as a third party candidate but had no chance of winning, would a vote for her be wasted, or would a vote for Hitler or Stalin be wasted?
Let me close with a couple of quotes (I don't know who to contribute these to)
"Don't vote. It only encourages them."
"If God would have meant for us to vote, he would have given us candidates!"
happy Thanksgiving!
Too many thoughts, too little time
Unfortunately, I have so many things I'd like to blog about, but way too little time. In addition to job duties (40-55 hours per week), family duties, diaconal duties (which I need to be doing much more of), I now am attempting to make a little $$ on the side on ebay. It is actually going fairly good right now. If nothing else, I should get enough dough to help with Christmas this year, and then we'll just have to see where it goes from there.
But nearly every day I think of something I would like to blog on. Problem is, I love thinkning about these things, but actually writing them down is the slow, boring, mundane part. It takes time. It never sounds as good written out as it did in my mind when I was thinking about it. Because of this, my blogging has been very sporadic. A lot of what has been posted was stuff I have written over the years and been wondering what to do with. I just cut and pasted them on the blog.
Oh well, maybe I just need to learn to schedule and manage my time where I put an hour or two into bloggin each week. Hmmmm. Time management... yeah, I should try that sometime!
But nearly every day I think of something I would like to blog on. Problem is, I love thinkning about these things, but actually writing them down is the slow, boring, mundane part. It takes time. It never sounds as good written out as it did in my mind when I was thinking about it. Because of this, my blogging has been very sporadic. A lot of what has been posted was stuff I have written over the years and been wondering what to do with. I just cut and pasted them on the blog.
Oh well, maybe I just need to learn to schedule and manage my time where I put an hour or two into bloggin each week. Hmmmm. Time management... yeah, I should try that sometime!
Final Iron Bowl Prediction
Wow....It sure is hard to predict college football! That seems particularly true this year. App St. beats Michigan. Now La Monroe....LA MONROE!!!!!.......beats Bama. In between, it seems every time a team gets ranked high, they get the rug pulled out from under them.
Way back when - when AU was 1-2 and UAT was 3-0, I made the prediction that AU would win the Iron Bowl. That seemed pretty much a stretch at the time. I mean, AU had lost to Mississippi State for crying out loud.
Well, now, on the one hand, that prediction looks pretty sensible. UAT has now lost to MSU also. And now they have lost to one of the worst teams they'll ever play. That loss in nearly on par with the Mich-App st. loss that started the year. They have lost three in a row. Their record in November over the past several years is horendous. UAT seems disjointed, disorganized, and their Savior, Saban, seems out of sorts. In addition to the last three losses, they also lost close ones to UGa, and a below par Florida St. team. They also had very close wins against the very mediocre Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Houston. Sure, they are a few plays here and there away from from having nine or ten wins. They are also a few plays away from having nine or ten losses.
However, I am certainly not fully comfortable with this prediction either. I offer the following reasons:
Auburn has not exactly looked great this year. At times they have looked strong-the Florida and Vandy games come to mind. Their Defense in the Arkansas game was smothering. But, they lost to MSU, S. Florida, they found a way to lose to LSU when they had the game won, and they looked simply awful against UGa. In the end, AU has really been as inconsistent as UAT.
Auburn has QB issues. Cox has looked good at times, and great at times. Unfortunately he has also looked like a boy amongst men at times. Apparently Burns is not ready to run the show. I would think Blake Field couldn't possibly be as inconsistent as Cox, but he rarely gets any time (although he has moved up to number two behind Cox and ahead of Burns)
At times, UAT has looked quite good. Their comeback against ARK was impressive. They certainly played UGA better than AU did. They played LSU as well as AU did. They looked like the Bama of old against UT.
The longer a losing streak continues, the higher the odds that it will end. UAT has a three game losing streak this season and a five game losing streak against AU. I don't know for sure, but I'll bet you would have to go back to the Ears Whitworth years in the 1950s to find a time when UAT lost four in a row. And they have never lost six in a row against AU.
It is highly possible that in spite of all the coach speak to the contrary, UAT was simply looking past La Monroe...LA MONROE!!!!..... and prepping for AU. We all know how bad they want the Tigers and this would make sense.
It seems like in the Tubby Tommerville years, AU never comes back from an off week very strongly.
The above reasons give me a little concern. I think in the end, it all depends on which Auburn, and which UAT team shows up. If the AU team that lost to Georgia and the UAT team that beat UT shows up, it could be a long day for the Tigers. If the AU team that beat Florida and the UAT team that lost to La Monroe...LA MONROE - I still can't get over that one!!!!..... shows up, it could be glorious.
In the end, I will not go back on my original prediction. So, my final call is.....
AU 24
UAT 16
Now, let's play ball!
Happy Thanksgiving!
Way back when - when AU was 1-2 and UAT was 3-0, I made the prediction that AU would win the Iron Bowl. That seemed pretty much a stretch at the time. I mean, AU had lost to Mississippi State for crying out loud.
Well, now, on the one hand, that prediction looks pretty sensible. UAT has now lost to MSU also. And now they have lost to one of the worst teams they'll ever play. That loss in nearly on par with the Mich-App st. loss that started the year. They have lost three in a row. Their record in November over the past several years is horendous. UAT seems disjointed, disorganized, and their Savior, Saban, seems out of sorts. In addition to the last three losses, they also lost close ones to UGa, and a below par Florida St. team. They also had very close wins against the very mediocre Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Houston. Sure, they are a few plays here and there away from from having nine or ten wins. They are also a few plays away from having nine or ten losses.
However, I am certainly not fully comfortable with this prediction either. I offer the following reasons:
Auburn has not exactly looked great this year. At times they have looked strong-the Florida and Vandy games come to mind. Their Defense in the Arkansas game was smothering. But, they lost to MSU, S. Florida, they found a way to lose to LSU when they had the game won, and they looked simply awful against UGa. In the end, AU has really been as inconsistent as UAT.
Auburn has QB issues. Cox has looked good at times, and great at times. Unfortunately he has also looked like a boy amongst men at times. Apparently Burns is not ready to run the show. I would think Blake Field couldn't possibly be as inconsistent as Cox, but he rarely gets any time (although he has moved up to number two behind Cox and ahead of Burns)
At times, UAT has looked quite good. Their comeback against ARK was impressive. They certainly played UGA better than AU did. They played LSU as well as AU did. They looked like the Bama of old against UT.
The longer a losing streak continues, the higher the odds that it will end. UAT has a three game losing streak this season and a five game losing streak against AU. I don't know for sure, but I'll bet you would have to go back to the Ears Whitworth years in the 1950s to find a time when UAT lost four in a row. And they have never lost six in a row against AU.
It is highly possible that in spite of all the coach speak to the contrary, UAT was simply looking past La Monroe...LA MONROE!!!!..... and prepping for AU. We all know how bad they want the Tigers and this would make sense.
It seems like in the Tubby Tommerville years, AU never comes back from an off week very strongly.
The above reasons give me a little concern. I think in the end, it all depends on which Auburn, and which UAT team shows up. If the AU team that lost to Georgia and the UAT team that beat UT shows up, it could be a long day for the Tigers. If the AU team that beat Florida and the UAT team that lost to La Monroe...LA MONROE - I still can't get over that one!!!!..... shows up, it could be glorious.
In the end, I will not go back on my original prediction. So, my final call is.....
AU 24
UAT 16
Now, let's play ball!
Happy Thanksgiving!
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Another interesting statistic
Recent studies have shown that all lawyers are not bad. It seems that 99% of them give the rest of them a bad name!
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
Update on Iron Bowl prediction
10/1/07
Okay - still a lot of football to play and who knows how it will go. However, I must say, that no matter how the rest of the season goes and who wins what and who loses what, the Iron Bowl prediction does not look nearly as crazy as it did two weeks ago. Then, Auburn was 1-2 and UAT was 3-0. Now, they are both 3-2. Auburn's close win over KState looks pretty good given that KState just demolished Texas. Auburn's close loss in OT to SFlorida is not so embarrasing given that SFlorida is now solidly in the top 10 and just this pass week defeated a very good WViginia team. AU still lost to MSU which is NEVER a good thing, but, it does appear that MSU is not really a terrible football team.
Now, Auburn just beat UF for the second straight year. UF is 17-2 for the past two years, both loses coming to AU. Moreover, they beat them at the Swamp where they are nearly invincible.
Now, Coach Tub has a history of no matter how bad AU is, at least once per year, sometimes twice, they play lights out and win a game they should not even be competitive in. He also has a history of no matter how good AU is, at least once per year, sometimes more, AU loses a game that they should have won handily (other than '04!). AT this point right now, I do not know if the UF game falls into the former category, or if the MSU game falls into the latter. The next three weeks should tell us a lot. Vandy, Arkansas, and LSU. At this point, one would think AU should beat Vandy, the Ark game may be too close to call, and one would realistically think beating LSU at Death Valley would be almost out of the question. However, theoratically any and all of these three games could go either way and the way they go will tell us a lot about what kind of team this is.
Finally, though, I really think the next couple of years are very bright for AU. They are currently starting 3 true freshmen on the O-line. They are getting some experience for their versatile Freshman QB. They have several young RBs and Lester is coming back now and should be back next year.
But, in the end, we will only see on the field. That's why they play them!
Okay - still a lot of football to play and who knows how it will go. However, I must say, that no matter how the rest of the season goes and who wins what and who loses what, the Iron Bowl prediction does not look nearly as crazy as it did two weeks ago. Then, Auburn was 1-2 and UAT was 3-0. Now, they are both 3-2. Auburn's close win over KState looks pretty good given that KState just demolished Texas. Auburn's close loss in OT to SFlorida is not so embarrasing given that SFlorida is now solidly in the top 10 and just this pass week defeated a very good WViginia team. AU still lost to MSU which is NEVER a good thing, but, it does appear that MSU is not really a terrible football team.
Now, Auburn just beat UF for the second straight year. UF is 17-2 for the past two years, both loses coming to AU. Moreover, they beat them at the Swamp where they are nearly invincible.
Now, Coach Tub has a history of no matter how bad AU is, at least once per year, sometimes twice, they play lights out and win a game they should not even be competitive in. He also has a history of no matter how good AU is, at least once per year, sometimes more, AU loses a game that they should have won handily (other than '04!). AT this point right now, I do not know if the UF game falls into the former category, or if the MSU game falls into the latter. The next three weeks should tell us a lot. Vandy, Arkansas, and LSU. At this point, one would think AU should beat Vandy, the Ark game may be too close to call, and one would realistically think beating LSU at Death Valley would be almost out of the question. However, theoratically any and all of these three games could go either way and the way they go will tell us a lot about what kind of team this is.
Finally, though, I really think the next couple of years are very bright for AU. They are currently starting 3 true freshmen on the O-line. They are getting some experience for their versatile Freshman QB. They have several young RBs and Lester is coming back now and should be back next year.
But, in the end, we will only see on the field. That's why they play them!
Monday, September 17, 2007
Early Iron Bowl Prediction
Things appear bleak on the Plains. UAT has hired a coach who can walk on water and they will likely never lose a game while he is there. Auburn has started the season 1-2 and has looked like a cellar dweller in the SEC West. Heavens to Betsy they even lost to Mississippi State – who in the world does that? Therefore, it will appear shocking to some that I, the Groaning Philosopher, will make such a bold prediction right here on September 17, 2007:
Auburn will beat Alabama this year.
It is evident that somewhere in the past couple of years Auburn has had sub par recruiting classes. It is also evident that, although he was Mr. Football for the State of Alabama about fourteen years ago, Brandon Cox is not really a Division One level college football quarterback. Auburn also lost four of its five starters on the offensive line. It is also evident that Auburn had a fine recruiting class this most recent year. The result of all of this is that Auburn is playing a lot of Freshmen and other inexperienced players, including, finally, Kody Burns at QB.
As bad as Auburn has looked, they are, seriously, a couple of plays away from being undefeated. Now, I know that things like that are said by losers. Fact is, Auburn IS 1-2 and not 3-0. I am not making excuses here, just observations. I also know that, with the schedule so far, a 3-0 season with three close wins would not be all that impressive. But, at least consider: On one of Brandon’s rare good throws against USF he hit a wide open receiver in the hands on a deep route and it was dropped. Later, during overtime, he hit a tight end on a drag route and it was dropped. This likely would have been a score had it been caught.
The difference in the MSU game was less than a TD. MSU scored a TD off of an interception where Cox hit number eighty seven right between the eight and the seven. He popped the ball up, though, right into the hands of an oncoming defender who could have walked backwards into the end zone from there.
AU has had tremendous trouble with turnovers. In addition to receiver problems, Cox has thrown the ball more directly at defenders than he has his teammates. AU has fumbled several times, most notably Freshman running back Mario Fannin.
These are all terrible mistakes, but, I believe there will be tremendous improvement by the end of the year. I believe the receivers will be taught to catch the ball or sit down. I believe Fannin will be taught to hold onto the ball. Unfortuantely, I think Cox is beyond help, but I believe they will begin using him more wisely, and more and more using Burns in varying situations. By the end of the year, I think our offense will have, to a large degree, turned it around. I don’t think we’ll be world beaters, but I think there will be tremendous improvement. This improvement will, of course, take a lot off of our overworked defense as well.
Now, I know what you’re thinking – you don’t have to say it. This is just an Auburn fan making excuses and dreaming of a miracle turn around. Or perhaps you think I have drank the Tuberville Kool Aid. Actually, I am not like that at all. Back in 2003 I personally felt that the AU administration was smart to be looking at firing him and hiring someone else. I thought they were idiots in the way they handled it, but I personally was not sold on him entirely, and really I still am not. He had done a lousy job in '03 and deserved to have his seat feel uncomfortably warm.
Also, usually no matter what the records of AU/UAT are when they meet, I always have a bad feeling about that game. I have never at any time during the season over the past twenty five years made a prediction about the outcome of that game. Even when AU appeared to be great and UAT subpar, I have never assumed AU would win. It’s just that, for some reason, as bad as AU has looked thus far, I just don’t get the feeling that it is quite as bad as it looks. I think there is actually more promise for the future than one might think. I think we are a little coaching here and there away from being decent. I think that Burns is a little experience away from being a powerful tool on offense. I think Cox in a backup or situation role is much more effective than in a starting/only QB playing role. I think Fannin and Tate have tremendous potential for a fast, but powerful running game. I think our defense is sound and if the offense can do something and not continually put the defense in bad situations, they will be much stronger.
In the end, if I turn out to be right, I will tell everyone I know to look at the blog I wrote today, September 17, 2007. If I turn out to be dead wrong, I will just remove this blog and tell no one about it. No one reads this anyway!!!
Auburn will beat Alabama this year.
It is evident that somewhere in the past couple of years Auburn has had sub par recruiting classes. It is also evident that, although he was Mr. Football for the State of Alabama about fourteen years ago, Brandon Cox is not really a Division One level college football quarterback. Auburn also lost four of its five starters on the offensive line. It is also evident that Auburn had a fine recruiting class this most recent year. The result of all of this is that Auburn is playing a lot of Freshmen and other inexperienced players, including, finally, Kody Burns at QB.
As bad as Auburn has looked, they are, seriously, a couple of plays away from being undefeated. Now, I know that things like that are said by losers. Fact is, Auburn IS 1-2 and not 3-0. I am not making excuses here, just observations. I also know that, with the schedule so far, a 3-0 season with three close wins would not be all that impressive. But, at least consider: On one of Brandon’s rare good throws against USF he hit a wide open receiver in the hands on a deep route and it was dropped. Later, during overtime, he hit a tight end on a drag route and it was dropped. This likely would have been a score had it been caught.
The difference in the MSU game was less than a TD. MSU scored a TD off of an interception where Cox hit number eighty seven right between the eight and the seven. He popped the ball up, though, right into the hands of an oncoming defender who could have walked backwards into the end zone from there.
AU has had tremendous trouble with turnovers. In addition to receiver problems, Cox has thrown the ball more directly at defenders than he has his teammates. AU has fumbled several times, most notably Freshman running back Mario Fannin.
These are all terrible mistakes, but, I believe there will be tremendous improvement by the end of the year. I believe the receivers will be taught to catch the ball or sit down. I believe Fannin will be taught to hold onto the ball. Unfortuantely, I think Cox is beyond help, but I believe they will begin using him more wisely, and more and more using Burns in varying situations. By the end of the year, I think our offense will have, to a large degree, turned it around. I don’t think we’ll be world beaters, but I think there will be tremendous improvement. This improvement will, of course, take a lot off of our overworked defense as well.
Now, I know what you’re thinking – you don’t have to say it. This is just an Auburn fan making excuses and dreaming of a miracle turn around. Or perhaps you think I have drank the Tuberville Kool Aid. Actually, I am not like that at all. Back in 2003 I personally felt that the AU administration was smart to be looking at firing him and hiring someone else. I thought they were idiots in the way they handled it, but I personally was not sold on him entirely, and really I still am not. He had done a lousy job in '03 and deserved to have his seat feel uncomfortably warm.
Also, usually no matter what the records of AU/UAT are when they meet, I always have a bad feeling about that game. I have never at any time during the season over the past twenty five years made a prediction about the outcome of that game. Even when AU appeared to be great and UAT subpar, I have never assumed AU would win. It’s just that, for some reason, as bad as AU has looked thus far, I just don’t get the feeling that it is quite as bad as it looks. I think there is actually more promise for the future than one might think. I think we are a little coaching here and there away from being decent. I think that Burns is a little experience away from being a powerful tool on offense. I think Cox in a backup or situation role is much more effective than in a starting/only QB playing role. I think Fannin and Tate have tremendous potential for a fast, but powerful running game. I think our defense is sound and if the offense can do something and not continually put the defense in bad situations, they will be much stronger.
In the end, if I turn out to be right, I will tell everyone I know to look at the blog I wrote today, September 17, 2007. If I turn out to be dead wrong, I will just remove this blog and tell no one about it. No one reads this anyway!!!
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
For Whom are the Sacraments?
The Bible is full of word-pictures. These pictures often tell us much about God - Father, son, and Holy Spirit - man, sin, family relationships, political relationships, and so on. They also often tell us something about God's covenant relationship to his people - a relationship which is itself often the model for these other relationships. Particularly, we are informed in dramatic fashion about Christ's relationship to those whom the Father has given him, i.e. the church.
Four very specific instances of the above occur throughout the gospels, epistles, and the Revelation, but perhaps most clearly and specifically in the writings of the Apostle John. We are told repeatedly that Christ is a shepherd and we are the sheep. The sheep hear their master's voice and those who belong to that master know his voice. Likewise, we are like the branches on a vine. "I am the vine, you are the branches." Third, we find that Christ is the Head, and we, the church, are the body. Finally we find that Christ is the Bridegroom, and we, the church, are the bride. This last is related to the previous, for we are informed that in our earthly covenant relationships of marriage, the husband is the head and the wife is his body. The wife is to submit to the husband, for he is the head. The church is to likewise submit to the authority of its head, namely Christ. The husband loves the wife, for she is his own body. The husband should be willing to lay down his life for his bride as Christ did for His. When husband and wife are united in marriage, the two become one. In like manner, Christ and His Church are so united as to become one. We are united to Christ in His life, His obedience, and even His death. Our earthly covenant relationship of marriage at its best is a scale model of Christ's relationship to His church - His body. Our other relationships and those of nature are also scale models. We are His branches, His flock, and so on.
These word pictures can and should inform us greatly as to the nature of our relationship to Christ. But what do they tell us? What can we learn from this? A cursory look at these pictures should provide us with some very edifying thoughts - thoughts which should color our prayer life, our individual and corporate worship and relationship to the Triune God. In a paper so brief, we can only hint at the depth and breadth of this whole matter. However, even being so shallow and narrow here, these thoughts can and should add significantly to the potential depth and breadth of our relationship.
Individual and Corporate
One of the first things that strike us is that hidden within these word pictures are the concepts of both of the individual and the corporate. We are individually sheep. I can not pass the muster for you, nor you for I. We are individually branches. If you or I are counterproductive in the yielding of fruit, we can and should be cut off and destroyed. Yet Christ has one bride, not many. One flock, not many. One body, not many. And Christ is one vine. Many branches yes, but all on one vine.
This is at once liberating and fear-inducing. It is liberating to know that perhaps if I err, as a sickly member of Christ's body, I will be healed by that Great physician - the Head, the Master, the Vine, the Groom. Not only this, but I have the other members of this same body working with and for me to bring this healing. If I am unfruitful, I have the pruning nature of God's discipline to spur on more fruit production, as well as the other branches of this same vine working in concert with me. If I stray like a lost sheep, I have a patient, caring, and loving Master who will leave the ninety and nine and seek after me and bring me home. I hear not only His voice, but also the voices of the others calling me back into the fold. If I am unfaithful to Him, I have the faithful Bridegroom always ready to forgive and forget.
However, this can be fearful, for if I refuse the medicine and ignore the rest of the body, I may, like the wayward eye or hand spoken of by our Lord in Matthew, be cut off and thrown into the fire. If I refuse to produce fruit, I can be cut off (more than a mere pruning) and be thrown to the fire. If I stray and ignore his voice, I can be finally given up for lost, and may never hear that kind voice again. If I am unfaithful with no repentance, I may be served divorce papers.
Therefore, it is I who must work out my own salvation. My mother can't do it for me, nor my father, nor my wife, nor my children. Yet Christ is kind to me, and is forgiving, and faithful. As an individual member of this vine, flock, body, and bride, I must individually seek Him, pray, worship, serve, and (ah this is hard sometimes) produce fruit. Yet, if all this totally depended on me individually, I would suffer endlessly, never getting where I need to go. If I seem to be grappling for words here there is a reason. I am! The depth and breadth of this is too wonderful for me to know!
But, enter here the corporate side. Corporately I pray and worship together with the rest of the flock, vine, body, and bride. Together we renew covenant weekly (not weakly!) in the breaking of bread - again a picture of the body of Christ. This act strengthens, renews, refreshes, and cheers me. In addition, I can meet with the body, or some small part of it on any other kind of basis as well - for prayer, study, and singing. The edifying power of Christ's institutional body is grand indeed.
The Sacraments
In addition to the above brief and inadequate description, these word pictures I believe, help express something very important in relation to Christ's sacramental provisions for His body/flock/branches/bride. With both sacraments, there is much misinformation within our world of Protestant Christianity. It is a major point of faith among many that the sacrament of baptism is only for those who have reached some subjective level of saving faith. It is even a wider belief that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is for such as these. In relation to this, let us first consider what these word pictures tell us when approached literally.
When a man owns a flock of animals, he owns not only the flock, but also their offspring. When one animal is born to his flock, he does not discard it. To do so would dwindle his flock in short order! He does not send the animal away and disown it, then hope and pray that it comes back to him at a later time in its life. Sure, he may buy other animals, and if he is interested in growing his little 'kingdom' exponentially he does. But, in good times and bad, he can be sure to keep those he has, and to keep their offspring. And let us not neglect to understand that often to indicate ownership, the man will place some form of identifying mark on those that are his. A brand or a tag on the ear or some other similar mark shows ownership.
Likewise, when a child is born to those who already belong to God in Christ, does He discard that child? Surely not! To do so would not make sense. While it is true that God 'owns' everything and everyone, He 'owns' His flock in a special sense. When one is born to His flock, they are His as well.
Naturally, if that little sheep grows up to be unfaithful to Him and unproductive for Him, he may discard of it then. However, if the rest of the flock (that's us!) does its job, this really should not be a problem. Also, clearly, our Lord is adding to his flock from those outside of what He currently owns. There is nothing unusual in that, for He is growing his kingdom through various means. (Also, when He does purchase a new sheep from outside the fold, he then owns their offspring as well.) But he most certainly does not say to a new arrival, "You're not mine! Go away and come back another day when you have a clearer understanding of my love for you, and when you can convince the rest of he sheep that you belong with them. I want you to submit to me first, through your own initiative and then I will claim ownership of you (if it is alright with the rest of the sheep)." Does a shepherd treat the offspring of his own sheep in such manner?
Now, does Christ have a brand or a tag that he places on his sheep? Certainly! It is baptism. Christian baptism for covenant infants and small children should be the norm, rather than the exception that it is fast becoming.
In similar manner, when a new twig sprouts on a vine, does the vine dresser immediately clip it off and hope it will grow outside the vine? Then, if it miraculously does so, does he graft it back in? Or does he dress the entire vine, and "cut off" only those branches that work against his primary goal, the production of fruit? Sure, he may prune the vine to spur it on to greater production, but he does not clip each and every new branch that sprouts.
Does a husband love parts of his bride, but not the whole? Does the band on the finger mean that part of the bride belongs to the husband, or does it mean that the whole of the bride does? Does a man cut off parts of his own body without reason? Or does he only cut off a part that is so diseased as to cause damage to the whole?
The whole flock, all of the branches, the whole bride, the whole body belong to the Shepherd, Vine, Groom, and Head. It is a unified whole - far more than the sum of its parts - and woefully incomplete without all of its parts. As concerns baptism, the picture of the flock is the most useful. Again, the shepherd does not discard the newborns of his flock. He places his mark of ownership on them, and treats them as his own.
In addition to owning them is the fact that he cares for them as well. He does not feed the full-grown sheep only, but feeds the little lambs as well. Sure, in the early stages of their life, the littlest lambs are fed indirectly, as the shepherd provides nourishment for the mother, who in turn provides it to her babe. However, as soon as this babe is able to feed on its own, the shepherd provides the needed nourishment to this little lamb. In the beginning, the lamb likely does not understand that it is the shepherd that is providing for it. But, over time, this feeding process certainly builds the understanding in the lamb that it is the shepherd who is his provider. Through this caregiving, the lamb comes to know to whom he belongs and who is providing all of his needs. He then becomes committed to the shepherd, hears his voice and obeys his commands.
Surely, this tells us a great deal about how Christ, our Shepherd, nourishes us with the meal of His Body and Blood! When we are too young to take this meal directly, we take it indirectly through our mother's milk. However, as we begin to grow and mature, we are able to partake in it ourselves. We may not understand right from the beginning that it is in fact our Great Shepherd that is providing this vital nourishment to our souls, but, over time, this fact becomes clear. We hear His voice and cheerfully obey His commands.
Likewise, the new twig sprouting on the vine does not know from where it gets its life giving nourishment, but it does in fact receive it. The vine does not shut off its supply of life from the new twig until it grows up. If so, it would never grow up. But, the twig receives its life from the vine because it itself is an integral part of that vine. It is not separated and cared for in a different manner, only to become grafted back in at a later date.
A man does not neglect part of his body, cut it off and remove it, then re-attach it at a later date if it is deemed worthy. Instead, he cares for the whole body, and only cuts off what is dead or diseased. A man does not love part of his wife, and discard the other parts, waiting on a hopeful future date when he can love the remainder of her body.
Perhaps my words here are not perfectly stated, and they may indeed be in need of revision. However, I think it is plain from these and other word-pictures of the Bible that the sacraments are not for some of Christ's body, bride, branches, and sheep, but for all. Christ owns us and Christ provides what is needed for us. This includes all our body parts, all our branches, and all the sheep of the fold, including the newborns. Given this, why on earth would we neglect so great an ownership, and so great a care?
Dare we tell Christ that no, he can't have our little ones yet until we are satisfied to our set of standards that they know that they belong to Him? Dare we neglect His ownership, and His care? I contend that we do so only at great risk of becoming unfruitful ourselves, and then we risk the horrible prospect of being cut off and discarded.
Four very specific instances of the above occur throughout the gospels, epistles, and the Revelation, but perhaps most clearly and specifically in the writings of the Apostle John. We are told repeatedly that Christ is a shepherd and we are the sheep. The sheep hear their master's voice and those who belong to that master know his voice. Likewise, we are like the branches on a vine. "I am the vine, you are the branches." Third, we find that Christ is the Head, and we, the church, are the body. Finally we find that Christ is the Bridegroom, and we, the church, are the bride. This last is related to the previous, for we are informed that in our earthly covenant relationships of marriage, the husband is the head and the wife is his body. The wife is to submit to the husband, for he is the head. The church is to likewise submit to the authority of its head, namely Christ. The husband loves the wife, for she is his own body. The husband should be willing to lay down his life for his bride as Christ did for His. When husband and wife are united in marriage, the two become one. In like manner, Christ and His Church are so united as to become one. We are united to Christ in His life, His obedience, and even His death. Our earthly covenant relationship of marriage at its best is a scale model of Christ's relationship to His church - His body. Our other relationships and those of nature are also scale models. We are His branches, His flock, and so on.
These word pictures can and should inform us greatly as to the nature of our relationship to Christ. But what do they tell us? What can we learn from this? A cursory look at these pictures should provide us with some very edifying thoughts - thoughts which should color our prayer life, our individual and corporate worship and relationship to the Triune God. In a paper so brief, we can only hint at the depth and breadth of this whole matter. However, even being so shallow and narrow here, these thoughts can and should add significantly to the potential depth and breadth of our relationship.
Individual and Corporate
One of the first things that strike us is that hidden within these word pictures are the concepts of both of the individual and the corporate. We are individually sheep. I can not pass the muster for you, nor you for I. We are individually branches. If you or I are counterproductive in the yielding of fruit, we can and should be cut off and destroyed. Yet Christ has one bride, not many. One flock, not many. One body, not many. And Christ is one vine. Many branches yes, but all on one vine.
This is at once liberating and fear-inducing. It is liberating to know that perhaps if I err, as a sickly member of Christ's body, I will be healed by that Great physician - the Head, the Master, the Vine, the Groom. Not only this, but I have the other members of this same body working with and for me to bring this healing. If I am unfruitful, I have the pruning nature of God's discipline to spur on more fruit production, as well as the other branches of this same vine working in concert with me. If I stray like a lost sheep, I have a patient, caring, and loving Master who will leave the ninety and nine and seek after me and bring me home. I hear not only His voice, but also the voices of the others calling me back into the fold. If I am unfaithful to Him, I have the faithful Bridegroom always ready to forgive and forget.
However, this can be fearful, for if I refuse the medicine and ignore the rest of the body, I may, like the wayward eye or hand spoken of by our Lord in Matthew, be cut off and thrown into the fire. If I refuse to produce fruit, I can be cut off (more than a mere pruning) and be thrown to the fire. If I stray and ignore his voice, I can be finally given up for lost, and may never hear that kind voice again. If I am unfaithful with no repentance, I may be served divorce papers.
Therefore, it is I who must work out my own salvation. My mother can't do it for me, nor my father, nor my wife, nor my children. Yet Christ is kind to me, and is forgiving, and faithful. As an individual member of this vine, flock, body, and bride, I must individually seek Him, pray, worship, serve, and (ah this is hard sometimes) produce fruit. Yet, if all this totally depended on me individually, I would suffer endlessly, never getting where I need to go. If I seem to be grappling for words here there is a reason. I am! The depth and breadth of this is too wonderful for me to know!
But, enter here the corporate side. Corporately I pray and worship together with the rest of the flock, vine, body, and bride. Together we renew covenant weekly (not weakly!) in the breaking of bread - again a picture of the body of Christ. This act strengthens, renews, refreshes, and cheers me. In addition, I can meet with the body, or some small part of it on any other kind of basis as well - for prayer, study, and singing. The edifying power of Christ's institutional body is grand indeed.
The Sacraments
In addition to the above brief and inadequate description, these word pictures I believe, help express something very important in relation to Christ's sacramental provisions for His body/flock/branches/bride. With both sacraments, there is much misinformation within our world of Protestant Christianity. It is a major point of faith among many that the sacrament of baptism is only for those who have reached some subjective level of saving faith. It is even a wider belief that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is for such as these. In relation to this, let us first consider what these word pictures tell us when approached literally.
When a man owns a flock of animals, he owns not only the flock, but also their offspring. When one animal is born to his flock, he does not discard it. To do so would dwindle his flock in short order! He does not send the animal away and disown it, then hope and pray that it comes back to him at a later time in its life. Sure, he may buy other animals, and if he is interested in growing his little 'kingdom' exponentially he does. But, in good times and bad, he can be sure to keep those he has, and to keep their offspring. And let us not neglect to understand that often to indicate ownership, the man will place some form of identifying mark on those that are his. A brand or a tag on the ear or some other similar mark shows ownership.
Likewise, when a child is born to those who already belong to God in Christ, does He discard that child? Surely not! To do so would not make sense. While it is true that God 'owns' everything and everyone, He 'owns' His flock in a special sense. When one is born to His flock, they are His as well.
Naturally, if that little sheep grows up to be unfaithful to Him and unproductive for Him, he may discard of it then. However, if the rest of the flock (that's us!) does its job, this really should not be a problem. Also, clearly, our Lord is adding to his flock from those outside of what He currently owns. There is nothing unusual in that, for He is growing his kingdom through various means. (Also, when He does purchase a new sheep from outside the fold, he then owns their offspring as well.) But he most certainly does not say to a new arrival, "You're not mine! Go away and come back another day when you have a clearer understanding of my love for you, and when you can convince the rest of he sheep that you belong with them. I want you to submit to me first, through your own initiative and then I will claim ownership of you (if it is alright with the rest of the sheep)." Does a shepherd treat the offspring of his own sheep in such manner?
Now, does Christ have a brand or a tag that he places on his sheep? Certainly! It is baptism. Christian baptism for covenant infants and small children should be the norm, rather than the exception that it is fast becoming.
In similar manner, when a new twig sprouts on a vine, does the vine dresser immediately clip it off and hope it will grow outside the vine? Then, if it miraculously does so, does he graft it back in? Or does he dress the entire vine, and "cut off" only those branches that work against his primary goal, the production of fruit? Sure, he may prune the vine to spur it on to greater production, but he does not clip each and every new branch that sprouts.
Does a husband love parts of his bride, but not the whole? Does the band on the finger mean that part of the bride belongs to the husband, or does it mean that the whole of the bride does? Does a man cut off parts of his own body without reason? Or does he only cut off a part that is so diseased as to cause damage to the whole?
The whole flock, all of the branches, the whole bride, the whole body belong to the Shepherd, Vine, Groom, and Head. It is a unified whole - far more than the sum of its parts - and woefully incomplete without all of its parts. As concerns baptism, the picture of the flock is the most useful. Again, the shepherd does not discard the newborns of his flock. He places his mark of ownership on them, and treats them as his own.
In addition to owning them is the fact that he cares for them as well. He does not feed the full-grown sheep only, but feeds the little lambs as well. Sure, in the early stages of their life, the littlest lambs are fed indirectly, as the shepherd provides nourishment for the mother, who in turn provides it to her babe. However, as soon as this babe is able to feed on its own, the shepherd provides the needed nourishment to this little lamb. In the beginning, the lamb likely does not understand that it is the shepherd that is providing for it. But, over time, this feeding process certainly builds the understanding in the lamb that it is the shepherd who is his provider. Through this caregiving, the lamb comes to know to whom he belongs and who is providing all of his needs. He then becomes committed to the shepherd, hears his voice and obeys his commands.
Surely, this tells us a great deal about how Christ, our Shepherd, nourishes us with the meal of His Body and Blood! When we are too young to take this meal directly, we take it indirectly through our mother's milk. However, as we begin to grow and mature, we are able to partake in it ourselves. We may not understand right from the beginning that it is in fact our Great Shepherd that is providing this vital nourishment to our souls, but, over time, this fact becomes clear. We hear His voice and cheerfully obey His commands.
Likewise, the new twig sprouting on the vine does not know from where it gets its life giving nourishment, but it does in fact receive it. The vine does not shut off its supply of life from the new twig until it grows up. If so, it would never grow up. But, the twig receives its life from the vine because it itself is an integral part of that vine. It is not separated and cared for in a different manner, only to become grafted back in at a later date.
A man does not neglect part of his body, cut it off and remove it, then re-attach it at a later date if it is deemed worthy. Instead, he cares for the whole body, and only cuts off what is dead or diseased. A man does not love part of his wife, and discard the other parts, waiting on a hopeful future date when he can love the remainder of her body.
Perhaps my words here are not perfectly stated, and they may indeed be in need of revision. However, I think it is plain from these and other word-pictures of the Bible that the sacraments are not for some of Christ's body, bride, branches, and sheep, but for all. Christ owns us and Christ provides what is needed for us. This includes all our body parts, all our branches, and all the sheep of the fold, including the newborns. Given this, why on earth would we neglect so great an ownership, and so great a care?
Dare we tell Christ that no, he can't have our little ones yet until we are satisfied to our set of standards that they know that they belong to Him? Dare we neglect His ownership, and His care? I contend that we do so only at great risk of becoming unfruitful ourselves, and then we risk the horrible prospect of being cut off and discarded.
The Great Fraud
Ok, I have found a bunch of my old stuff and am in the process of posting it. This is something I wrote several years ago when in a particularly foul mood.
___________________________________________
I have always believed that taxes in general were entirely too high. By the time I pay my federal and state taxes, my property taxes, my vehicle tags, my fire dues, the sales tax on nearly every purchase - not to mention all the taxes which are built into the cost of nearly every product or service I obtain and that I have no idea how much they may be - I have lost a great deal of what little money I make to taxes. I realize that some level of taxation is absolutely mandatory if we are to have the necessary government functions pertaining to the protection of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of every individual. However, the level of taxes we pay, as well as the "services" rendered for them, are far out of line with where they should be.
Beyond all this, though, lies an even greater problem in my mind. Recently while filing my federal return for this year, I came to realize that even these taxes, as "taxing" as they are, do not get under my skin to nearly such an irritating level as the one other tax I have to pay which is not even mentioned in the rather substantial list above. I am talking about the Social Security tax.
Previously this was not as noticeable, nor as maddening as it is now. For, unlike in years passed, I have for the past several years been self-employed. The self-employed person must honestly make account of every penny he has earned, then honestly account for every expense he deducts from that. Woe unto him who makes a mistake in all this complicated business! Once that net income is calculated, we can take a generous discount of just over seven and a half percent from it. This new figure, over ninety two percent of our net income, is then taxed at a rate of just over fifteen percent. That is to say, my actual net income is taxed at just over thirteen and three quarters percent. This amount goes to the Social Security fund.
Think about that for a minute. On top of the federal, state, local, sales, property, and other taxes I have to pay, here is another almost fourteen percent of every penny I make taken away from me and my family. Considering such essentials as food, clothing, housing, transportation, and health care, which together run into the thousands of dollars per year, as well as other taxes, which run into the thousands of dollars per year, I still have to consider yet this further tax, which runs into another several thousand dollars per year. Just exactly where in the world does the government suggest I get this money? I can not cut out such essentials as food and clothing. However, I can not cut out such non-essentials as taxes, for if I did, I would likely end up in jail. Great system!
It would be humorous were it not so sad, that the very people who have placed all these onerous tax burdens upon us, are the exact same ones who claim to care about the working man. Well, I really do not know what exactly you would call me (and millions of others) but a working man. Frankly, I think I prefer to do without the help. In fact, I can not afford this type of help! If Washington actually cared the least little bit for the common man, or even the not so common man, they would do everything in their power not to hinder man's attempts to better himself. Taxation of any kind is a severe hindrance. While some level of it may in fact be necessary, surely we must reign it in. Social Security would be an excellent place to start.
I have been self-employed for about three and a half years. Thus far, I have been slowly growing my business until this year, for the first time I made a noticeable improvement. Thus far, I have been living largely of the "fat" I had earned before. That is to say, I have been slowly dwindling what I had earned while gainfully employed in the highly regulated semi-private sector. This year, I made great headway and did not have to skim quite as much fat as before, though I still had to fall back on some money previously set aside for retirement just to pay my bills. However, having just barely stayed afloat, I am now faced with a tax bill which I am uncertain at this time how I will meet, especially when considering that I now also have this year's income for which to continue to pay these taxes. The overwhelming cause of this problem is not state or federal income taxes, though. It is the self-employment tax which is for Social Security.
"Oh", but you say, "This is for you! This goes into helping you finance your retirement." Oh, okay, I guess I am just too stupid to do that for myself!
We need to rise up and call Social Security what it really is. A fraud. A fraud imposed on the masses of citizens of this country.
First of all, do I have any guarantee that I will ever see any of that money again? No. I have heard horror stories of people paying thousands of dollars into that system, then having the misfortune of dying before they reached the age where they can collect. What becomes of all that money they paid in? If I am fortunate enough to receive some Social Security payments some years down the road, is there any guarantee that I will get all of it back, plus simply the interest it could have accumulated had I put that money even in a low interest bearing savings account? No. Maybe I will get none of that money, maybe little, maybe a significant portion, or, maybe if I am lucky, I may get more back than I ever paid in, plus the accumulated interest. This last scenario would require several strokes of good luck, and I am more inclined to think that one of the other scenarios is far more likely.
In the meantime, I have to struggle simply to make ends meet, while someone else is getting paid off the money that I am putting into this money pit. Do I have any guarantee that the people receiving my money need it as bad, or worse, than I? No. Herein lies one of the many insanities of this whole system. The money which is wrenched from my hands, against my will, and which I can not afford, does not even go into an account with my name on it, to be grown and returned to me upon my retirement, at my desire, at some future date. It is placed in a fund used to pay people who are now in retirement. What happened to the money that they put in all those years? It went to the past generations when they retired!
We all know how the mathematics of this system works. The way it is funded, coupled with changes in the population growth, has caused this inane system to grow to the monster that it now is. When this system was started, the ratio of people paying into the system to the people receiving from it was such that the effect on the payers was not really noticed to a great degree. However, the inception of the baby boom generation, along with the lower birth rates subsequent to this, gives us a situation that as the baby boomers retire, this ratio becomes slanted more and more against those who are currently, or will be, paying into the system. Proportionally, less people are paying for the retirements of more people.
This situation is so bad, that if I were to concoct such a system as this, then try to go out on the free market and sell it to individuals who would buy into it of their own free will, it would be illegal. However, when the government does the same thing, only not freely but by force, it is called an entitlement. But an entitlement for whom? I certainly do not feel like I am "entitled" to pay a significant portion of my much-needed income so that some retired executive with about a hundred other sources of income and savings can receive it!
Social Security is such an ingrained part of American Culture now that it is nearly impossible to reform it, much less completely do away with it. The best the politicians can seem to come up with is this rather corny idea that we could now take a small percentage of it, and be forced to invest it in some sort of semi-private market – all still by the force of and under the direction of the government. This still is not right. It is still the government telling us what we are to do with the money we make. I am responsible for myself, and my own planning. I am in business for myself to gain the level of freedom for myself and my family that I desire. I certainly plan to grow this business in such a way as to become independent of anyone else for my well being. However, this is much slowed by the fact that probably well over half of my income goes to taxes in some form or other, most notably to this fraudulent atrocity.
I think the necessary reform for Social Security is nothing less than this: We must make it voluntary. Anyone who wants to "invest" in this system could be free to do so. Anyone who chooses to bypass receiving such "help" from the government and go it alone, could and should likewise be free to do so.
The cry of the entitlement crowd can already be heard. "But if it were voluntary, the whole system might collapse!" The answer to this objection is present within the objection itself. This system would collapse if it were not for the government's use of force against its citizens to keep it intact. Any system which requires that free citizens be forced to participate in order for it to "help" them, is surely not a system worth having.
Would you voluntarily give up any supposed benefit you might get at some point in the future, assuming you lived long enough, if it meant more money in your pocket right now – money you could invest or spend as you best saw fit in your own preparation for your own future, as well as your own provision for yourself and your family? I know I would gladly right now give up any claim on any money I may have coming to me in the future - even at the loss of the thousands of dollars I have already put in - if it meant that I would no longer be forced against my will to place yet more money into the fund. I will gladly provide for the needs of myself and my family. I will gladly prepare for my future. I will gladly voluntarily help those I can. But I will support such fraudulent entitlements as this only at the threat of violence, which is precisely the only reason that I am going to find some way to meet this current tax burden.
___________________________________________
I have always believed that taxes in general were entirely too high. By the time I pay my federal and state taxes, my property taxes, my vehicle tags, my fire dues, the sales tax on nearly every purchase - not to mention all the taxes which are built into the cost of nearly every product or service I obtain and that I have no idea how much they may be - I have lost a great deal of what little money I make to taxes. I realize that some level of taxation is absolutely mandatory if we are to have the necessary government functions pertaining to the protection of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of every individual. However, the level of taxes we pay, as well as the "services" rendered for them, are far out of line with where they should be.
Beyond all this, though, lies an even greater problem in my mind. Recently while filing my federal return for this year, I came to realize that even these taxes, as "taxing" as they are, do not get under my skin to nearly such an irritating level as the one other tax I have to pay which is not even mentioned in the rather substantial list above. I am talking about the Social Security tax.
Previously this was not as noticeable, nor as maddening as it is now. For, unlike in years passed, I have for the past several years been self-employed. The self-employed person must honestly make account of every penny he has earned, then honestly account for every expense he deducts from that. Woe unto him who makes a mistake in all this complicated business! Once that net income is calculated, we can take a generous discount of just over seven and a half percent from it. This new figure, over ninety two percent of our net income, is then taxed at a rate of just over fifteen percent. That is to say, my actual net income is taxed at just over thirteen and three quarters percent. This amount goes to the Social Security fund.
Think about that for a minute. On top of the federal, state, local, sales, property, and other taxes I have to pay, here is another almost fourteen percent of every penny I make taken away from me and my family. Considering such essentials as food, clothing, housing, transportation, and health care, which together run into the thousands of dollars per year, as well as other taxes, which run into the thousands of dollars per year, I still have to consider yet this further tax, which runs into another several thousand dollars per year. Just exactly where in the world does the government suggest I get this money? I can not cut out such essentials as food and clothing. However, I can not cut out such non-essentials as taxes, for if I did, I would likely end up in jail. Great system!
It would be humorous were it not so sad, that the very people who have placed all these onerous tax burdens upon us, are the exact same ones who claim to care about the working man. Well, I really do not know what exactly you would call me (and millions of others) but a working man. Frankly, I think I prefer to do without the help. In fact, I can not afford this type of help! If Washington actually cared the least little bit for the common man, or even the not so common man, they would do everything in their power not to hinder man's attempts to better himself. Taxation of any kind is a severe hindrance. While some level of it may in fact be necessary, surely we must reign it in. Social Security would be an excellent place to start.
I have been self-employed for about three and a half years. Thus far, I have been slowly growing my business until this year, for the first time I made a noticeable improvement. Thus far, I have been living largely of the "fat" I had earned before. That is to say, I have been slowly dwindling what I had earned while gainfully employed in the highly regulated semi-private sector. This year, I made great headway and did not have to skim quite as much fat as before, though I still had to fall back on some money previously set aside for retirement just to pay my bills. However, having just barely stayed afloat, I am now faced with a tax bill which I am uncertain at this time how I will meet, especially when considering that I now also have this year's income for which to continue to pay these taxes. The overwhelming cause of this problem is not state or federal income taxes, though. It is the self-employment tax which is for Social Security.
"Oh", but you say, "This is for you! This goes into helping you finance your retirement." Oh, okay, I guess I am just too stupid to do that for myself!
We need to rise up and call Social Security what it really is. A fraud. A fraud imposed on the masses of citizens of this country.
First of all, do I have any guarantee that I will ever see any of that money again? No. I have heard horror stories of people paying thousands of dollars into that system, then having the misfortune of dying before they reached the age where they can collect. What becomes of all that money they paid in? If I am fortunate enough to receive some Social Security payments some years down the road, is there any guarantee that I will get all of it back, plus simply the interest it could have accumulated had I put that money even in a low interest bearing savings account? No. Maybe I will get none of that money, maybe little, maybe a significant portion, or, maybe if I am lucky, I may get more back than I ever paid in, plus the accumulated interest. This last scenario would require several strokes of good luck, and I am more inclined to think that one of the other scenarios is far more likely.
In the meantime, I have to struggle simply to make ends meet, while someone else is getting paid off the money that I am putting into this money pit. Do I have any guarantee that the people receiving my money need it as bad, or worse, than I? No. Herein lies one of the many insanities of this whole system. The money which is wrenched from my hands, against my will, and which I can not afford, does not even go into an account with my name on it, to be grown and returned to me upon my retirement, at my desire, at some future date. It is placed in a fund used to pay people who are now in retirement. What happened to the money that they put in all those years? It went to the past generations when they retired!
We all know how the mathematics of this system works. The way it is funded, coupled with changes in the population growth, has caused this inane system to grow to the monster that it now is. When this system was started, the ratio of people paying into the system to the people receiving from it was such that the effect on the payers was not really noticed to a great degree. However, the inception of the baby boom generation, along with the lower birth rates subsequent to this, gives us a situation that as the baby boomers retire, this ratio becomes slanted more and more against those who are currently, or will be, paying into the system. Proportionally, less people are paying for the retirements of more people.
This situation is so bad, that if I were to concoct such a system as this, then try to go out on the free market and sell it to individuals who would buy into it of their own free will, it would be illegal. However, when the government does the same thing, only not freely but by force, it is called an entitlement. But an entitlement for whom? I certainly do not feel like I am "entitled" to pay a significant portion of my much-needed income so that some retired executive with about a hundred other sources of income and savings can receive it!
Social Security is such an ingrained part of American Culture now that it is nearly impossible to reform it, much less completely do away with it. The best the politicians can seem to come up with is this rather corny idea that we could now take a small percentage of it, and be forced to invest it in some sort of semi-private market – all still by the force of and under the direction of the government. This still is not right. It is still the government telling us what we are to do with the money we make. I am responsible for myself, and my own planning. I am in business for myself to gain the level of freedom for myself and my family that I desire. I certainly plan to grow this business in such a way as to become independent of anyone else for my well being. However, this is much slowed by the fact that probably well over half of my income goes to taxes in some form or other, most notably to this fraudulent atrocity.
I think the necessary reform for Social Security is nothing less than this: We must make it voluntary. Anyone who wants to "invest" in this system could be free to do so. Anyone who chooses to bypass receiving such "help" from the government and go it alone, could and should likewise be free to do so.
The cry of the entitlement crowd can already be heard. "But if it were voluntary, the whole system might collapse!" The answer to this objection is present within the objection itself. This system would collapse if it were not for the government's use of force against its citizens to keep it intact. Any system which requires that free citizens be forced to participate in order for it to "help" them, is surely not a system worth having.
Would you voluntarily give up any supposed benefit you might get at some point in the future, assuming you lived long enough, if it meant more money in your pocket right now – money you could invest or spend as you best saw fit in your own preparation for your own future, as well as your own provision for yourself and your family? I know I would gladly right now give up any claim on any money I may have coming to me in the future - even at the loss of the thousands of dollars I have already put in - if it meant that I would no longer be forced against my will to place yet more money into the fund. I will gladly provide for the needs of myself and my family. I will gladly prepare for my future. I will gladly voluntarily help those I can. But I will support such fraudulent entitlements as this only at the threat of violence, which is precisely the only reason that I am going to find some way to meet this current tax burden.
The Atheists Ego
Again - something from years past
________________________________
A recent writer to the Reader's Opinion section of the Birmingham News made the following statement: "(T)here can be no God who would sanction or allow an attack like this or, for that matter, many other events happening all over the world." The writer would do well to contemplate his own words a little deeper.
In essence, what he means is this: "I can not fathom a God who would sanction or allow an attack like this, etc., and since I can not fathom Him, He can not exist." In other words, this writer is informing us that it is he who has the final say on what God can or can not be or do or allow. This writer has set his own intellect up as the sole and final judge over the possibility of God's existence. To so do, this writer must evidently see himself as omnipotent, having the ability to see all, comprehend all, and judge all.
I believe this writer does believe in a god. But his god is himself. No other God can exist without his personal approval. This is the absolute height of arrogance.
The "problem" of evil, pain, and suffering is perhaps the atheist's final plea. However, he must come to understand that without God, he can not even define good and evil. He has to assume that his own intellect, which by his creed is only a series of random eletro-chemical impulses, can somehow define what is good and what is evil.
Perhaps when the writer, and others like him, contemplate that without God they are setting their own minds up as omnipotent, while yet their own minds are only the result random chance and chaos, they will conclude that God does indeed exist, based on the impossibility of the contrary.
________________________________
A recent writer to the Reader's Opinion section of the Birmingham News made the following statement: "(T)here can be no God who would sanction or allow an attack like this or, for that matter, many other events happening all over the world." The writer would do well to contemplate his own words a little deeper.
In essence, what he means is this: "I can not fathom a God who would sanction or allow an attack like this, etc., and since I can not fathom Him, He can not exist." In other words, this writer is informing us that it is he who has the final say on what God can or can not be or do or allow. This writer has set his own intellect up as the sole and final judge over the possibility of God's existence. To so do, this writer must evidently see himself as omnipotent, having the ability to see all, comprehend all, and judge all.
I believe this writer does believe in a god. But his god is himself. No other God can exist without his personal approval. This is the absolute height of arrogance.
The "problem" of evil, pain, and suffering is perhaps the atheist's final plea. However, he must come to understand that without God, he can not even define good and evil. He has to assume that his own intellect, which by his creed is only a series of random eletro-chemical impulses, can somehow define what is good and what is evil.
Perhaps when the writer, and others like him, contemplate that without God they are setting their own minds up as omnipotent, while yet their own minds are only the result random chance and chaos, they will conclude that God does indeed exist, based on the impossibility of the contrary.
Church Signs
Here is just a handful of the silly church signs I have seen.
"Go and sin no more."…We believe this is possible. (Pentecostal Church near Tuscaloosa.)
Anger is one letter short of danger. ( Near Boaz)
God is not mad at you no matter what. (near Huntsville)
The Flock that Rocks. (Newspaper add for a church in Florida Today.)
"Go and sin no more."…We believe this is possible. (Pentecostal Church near Tuscaloosa.)
Anger is one letter short of danger. ( Near Boaz)
God is not mad at you no matter what. (near Huntsville)
The Flock that Rocks. (Newspaper add for a church in Florida Today.)
Words have meaning
This is something else I wrote several years ago in relation to a letter to the editor I had read.
_______________________________________
A recent writer in the "My Turn" column opened his discussion with the following sentence: "One of the Founders of our country said we are giving the people a democracy if they can keep it." He then went on to discuss the losing of our "democracy" to a military takeover from within. Much of what he said I could give a hearty "amen" to, while yet other statements I would strongly disagree with.
Yet, before reading the rest of his column, this first sentence caught my attention in such a way as to yield the rest of his discussion secondary. In this sentence are two examples of error and omission which seem to paint a pretty dim picture of where we as a nation are in our level of understanding of our own history.
First, and this is the least severe of the two, is the fact that this retired professor would use a quote, and a fairly famous one at that, yet attribute it only to "one of the Founders." Exactly how difficult would it be for a learned man to determine who it was who actually said it? Second and more severely, the quote itself was misstated in a way which may seem minor, but has major implications.
The Founder was Ben Franklin. What he said, in response to a question about the type of government they had just given us was that it was a "Republic, if they can keep it." Did you catch that not so subtle difference? A "republic" and not a "democracy" is what our founders produced when they developed the constitution. Which leads to some obvious questions such as "What is a Republic?" "What is a democracy?" "How are they different?" and "Is it really all that important anyway?"
A democracy is defined in my dictionary as "government by the people; esp. rule by the majority." This same dictionary defines a republic as "a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected representatives governing according to law." That is, the choice between a democracy and a republic is the choice between the rule of man (in the majority) or rule of law, administered by elected representatives.
A major danger with a democracy lies in its inability to deal with factions. This is particularly true if that faction happens to entail a majority of the public. It is also true in the presence of many and varied factions which overlap as well oppose each other in both majority and minority groups. To use an extreme and admittedly silly example, I told my son that in a democracy, if the majority (a large "faction") decided it would be a good thing to put all ten-year-old boys in jail, then he would have to go to jail. In a democracy you see, the majority rules. There are no rights for minorities.
Exactly how a democracy or a republic would or would not be able to deal with these factions was the topic of The Federalist No. 10. There, the writer (Publius) says of a democracy: "there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Further, Publius adds "A republic…promises the cure for which we are seeking," adding several paragraphs of explanation.
I am sure that the writer meant by "democracy" actually "representative democracy", a term which he did in fact use some paragraphs later and which would, in essence, mean approximately the same thing as "republic". But, why did he not use the more correct terminology, particularly in light of the fact that he was referring to a direct quote? Words are the means by which we communicate ideas to one another and pass these ideas along to our posterity. A misuse of words causes a lack of understanding. It is this lack of understanding of such terms and concepts as "democracy" and "republicanism" which has led us to the point in which we are now at. Only by regaining an understanding of our history and the type of government our founders gave can we hope to recover the level of freedom all people strive for.
Actually, even the term "republic" is a short hand, simplified version of the government our founders forged. A more complete description would be to say our (central) government is a "constitutional federated republic." Moreover, it is a mixed governmental system, containing elements of the monarchical principle, the aristocrat principle, and the democratic principle, while still being fully republican and not actually being any of these other three. It was a republic in the sense that it was to be administered by representatives elected directly or indirectly by the people. However, these representatives were arrayed in such a way as to have automatic "checks and balances" upon each other, so that the central government would not obtain too much power.
However, not only were the various branches of government checked by being pitted against one another at the federal level, they were also as a whole pitted against the state governments, as well as more indirectly against the local governments and the people themselves. Finally, the central government was also held in check by a written constitution (the law) which specifically limited its powers to an enumerated few. This constitution was then further undergirded by an attached Bill of Rights which specifically limited the central government's power all the more.
However, in the last century or so, much of this system of checks and balances has come under attack. Supreme Court decisions have given the central government powers over the states and the people which can be found nowhere either clearly or hidden within the test of the constitution. Amendments to the constitution such as the one giving it the power to tax the income of its citizens have increased the central government's power over the people. Other amendments, unconstitutional laws, court decisions, presidential orders, moves toward democracy and away from republicanism, and an overall reduction in the level of understanding in the general public have allowed this restricted government to usurp powers which it has no authority or jurisdiction to possess.
So yes, knowing and understanding the differences between a republic and a democracy is vitally important. If we are to ignore the meanings and the histories of these words, the next thing you know we will be distorting the meanings of other words as well, just as this writer did in his third paragraph. There he equates the "right" and "left" with the "haves" and "have-nots". Later, he indicates that most of the "hate" in our politics comes of course from "conservatives". When we get loose with our definitions, we can assault those who disagree with us much easier, thereby strengthening our own "faction". When we discount the value of the meanings of words, when we play fast and loose with our language and we throw all the rules of communication out the window, it is then easy to label one set of people as responsible for all problems.
However, when we understand words and concepts and history, we can more clearly understand that most of our political problems, as well as those in other countries, stem from the lack of limits or restraints on government, and the rise of a faction (or many factions) having a heavily weighted and unwarranted access to the use of unlimited government force.
_______________________________________
A recent writer in the "My Turn" column opened his discussion with the following sentence: "One of the Founders of our country said we are giving the people a democracy if they can keep it." He then went on to discuss the losing of our "democracy" to a military takeover from within. Much of what he said I could give a hearty "amen" to, while yet other statements I would strongly disagree with.
Yet, before reading the rest of his column, this first sentence caught my attention in such a way as to yield the rest of his discussion secondary. In this sentence are two examples of error and omission which seem to paint a pretty dim picture of where we as a nation are in our level of understanding of our own history.
First, and this is the least severe of the two, is the fact that this retired professor would use a quote, and a fairly famous one at that, yet attribute it only to "one of the Founders." Exactly how difficult would it be for a learned man to determine who it was who actually said it? Second and more severely, the quote itself was misstated in a way which may seem minor, but has major implications.
The Founder was Ben Franklin. What he said, in response to a question about the type of government they had just given us was that it was a "Republic, if they can keep it." Did you catch that not so subtle difference? A "republic" and not a "democracy" is what our founders produced when they developed the constitution. Which leads to some obvious questions such as "What is a Republic?" "What is a democracy?" "How are they different?" and "Is it really all that important anyway?"
A democracy is defined in my dictionary as "government by the people; esp. rule by the majority." This same dictionary defines a republic as "a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected representatives governing according to law." That is, the choice between a democracy and a republic is the choice between the rule of man (in the majority) or rule of law, administered by elected representatives.
A major danger with a democracy lies in its inability to deal with factions. This is particularly true if that faction happens to entail a majority of the public. It is also true in the presence of many and varied factions which overlap as well oppose each other in both majority and minority groups. To use an extreme and admittedly silly example, I told my son that in a democracy, if the majority (a large "faction") decided it would be a good thing to put all ten-year-old boys in jail, then he would have to go to jail. In a democracy you see, the majority rules. There are no rights for minorities.
Exactly how a democracy or a republic would or would not be able to deal with these factions was the topic of The Federalist No. 10. There, the writer (Publius) says of a democracy: "there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Further, Publius adds "A republic…promises the cure for which we are seeking," adding several paragraphs of explanation.
I am sure that the writer meant by "democracy" actually "representative democracy", a term which he did in fact use some paragraphs later and which would, in essence, mean approximately the same thing as "republic". But, why did he not use the more correct terminology, particularly in light of the fact that he was referring to a direct quote? Words are the means by which we communicate ideas to one another and pass these ideas along to our posterity. A misuse of words causes a lack of understanding. It is this lack of understanding of such terms and concepts as "democracy" and "republicanism" which has led us to the point in which we are now at. Only by regaining an understanding of our history and the type of government our founders gave can we hope to recover the level of freedom all people strive for.
Actually, even the term "republic" is a short hand, simplified version of the government our founders forged. A more complete description would be to say our (central) government is a "constitutional federated republic." Moreover, it is a mixed governmental system, containing elements of the monarchical principle, the aristocrat principle, and the democratic principle, while still being fully republican and not actually being any of these other three. It was a republic in the sense that it was to be administered by representatives elected directly or indirectly by the people. However, these representatives were arrayed in such a way as to have automatic "checks and balances" upon each other, so that the central government would not obtain too much power.
However, not only were the various branches of government checked by being pitted against one another at the federal level, they were also as a whole pitted against the state governments, as well as more indirectly against the local governments and the people themselves. Finally, the central government was also held in check by a written constitution (the law) which specifically limited its powers to an enumerated few. This constitution was then further undergirded by an attached Bill of Rights which specifically limited the central government's power all the more.
However, in the last century or so, much of this system of checks and balances has come under attack. Supreme Court decisions have given the central government powers over the states and the people which can be found nowhere either clearly or hidden within the test of the constitution. Amendments to the constitution such as the one giving it the power to tax the income of its citizens have increased the central government's power over the people. Other amendments, unconstitutional laws, court decisions, presidential orders, moves toward democracy and away from republicanism, and an overall reduction in the level of understanding in the general public have allowed this restricted government to usurp powers which it has no authority or jurisdiction to possess.
So yes, knowing and understanding the differences between a republic and a democracy is vitally important. If we are to ignore the meanings and the histories of these words, the next thing you know we will be distorting the meanings of other words as well, just as this writer did in his third paragraph. There he equates the "right" and "left" with the "haves" and "have-nots". Later, he indicates that most of the "hate" in our politics comes of course from "conservatives". When we get loose with our definitions, we can assault those who disagree with us much easier, thereby strengthening our own "faction". When we discount the value of the meanings of words, when we play fast and loose with our language and we throw all the rules of communication out the window, it is then easy to label one set of people as responsible for all problems.
However, when we understand words and concepts and history, we can more clearly understand that most of our political problems, as well as those in other countries, stem from the lack of limits or restraints on government, and the rise of a faction (or many factions) having a heavily weighted and unwarranted access to the use of unlimited government force.
Atheistic Presuppositions
This is something I wrote years ago. I found it recently and thought I'd post it. Yeah, it's a little unpolished, but in case you haven't noticed, everything I post is!
______________________________________________________________
The events of September 11 have shaken many Americans to the core. While no one rejoices at this tragedy, many atheists and skeptics have happily used it to attempt to further their cause. The cause of the atheists and skeptics is to deny the existence of God, or at the very least, to place it in extreme doubt. God can not be "proven" to exist using the natural order they would tell us, as if limiting a discussion of the supernatural to the natural in any way made sense.
However, in addition to attempting to limit all discussions to the natural order, the atheists and skeptics also have a reliable old friend they bring out at every opportunity to cast doubt on the possibility of God's existence. This "friend" is known as "the problem of evil."
The argument goes something like this: The God of the Bible can not exist if evil exists in the world. (And the events of September 11 were indeed evil, as we all know). That is because the Bible teaches that God is all good, with no mixture of sin or evil, and that God is all powerful, and can cause to happen or not happen whatever He desires. If God desires only good, and can do anything at all, then there should be no evil in the world. Since there most assuredly is evil in the world, then it is impossible that such a God could exist.
According to many an atheist and skeptic, this is the one argument a Christian simply can not get around, and it is almost universally one of the main reasons many unbelievers are unbelievers. How can an all-good and all-powerful God sanction evil or allow evil to exist? Obviously, an all-good and all-powerful God would not allow such. Yet evil exists. Therefore, God, at least the God of the Bible, must not exist.
Unfortunately for the unbeliever who clings to this line of reasoning, he has not thought out all of the implications tied to the making of that argument, particularly in light of his reluctance to even discuss things beyond the natural realm. The very concept of "good and evil" is itself outside of the natural realm, and hence should be off limits to the atheists who claim to only believe what can be empirically verified.
The problem for the atheist goes much further than this, however. To understand how much further it goes, we will need to briefly discuss the atheistic presuppositions.
The impossibility of a world without God
Everyone has presuppositions, that is, underlying worldviews that provide the foundation for, and inevitably bias, his views on any topic. The Christian presupposition is that the God of the Bible exists, that He is all-good, all-powerful, and so forth. He created the world out of nothing by His mere power in the span of six days. He providentially controls whatsoever comes to pass.
The atheist's presupposition is that no God exists. Nothing outside of the natural order - that is, things that can be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, and felt - can exist.
Right off the bat the atheist has a problem. For, if this world which we live in exists, which it obviously does, then from whence did it come? They deny the possibility of a Creator, yet can not explain the very existence of our universe. In order for our universe to be here as it is now, there are only two possibilities. One, that it, in some form or other, has always existed for all of eternity past; or two, that it began to exist at some point in history. Both of these possibilities are impossible for the human mind, using natural assumptions, to fathom. We can not even begin to imagine the very concept of an eternity past. Additionally, the second law of thermodynamics simply (when viewed through the lens of naturalistic presuppositions) will not allow the universe to have existed for an eternity. The amount of energy in the universe is finite. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that, left free of outside input, energy passes from a useful form to a non-useful form. That is, things go from order, to disorder. Over an eternity, obviously the order or usefulness of the energy in the universe, will long since have been completely dissipated. Unless…
Unless the amount of energy, space, and matter in the universe is itself infinite. Now, can the human mind fathom an infinite amount of space, energy, and matter, which has eternally existed? Of course not. Is there a natural explanation to such a thing? Of course not.
The second option is really no better for the atheist. There, he has to assume that the universe did not exist until some certain point in history, then it began to exist. How does he explain this phenomena, using only naturalism? He can't.
Even with this second option, the unbeliever is faced with such difficult questions as "Is the universe finite, or infinite?" The mind goes into spasms at the thought of either. The thought of an infinite universe is inconceivable to us. Yet, if it is finite, we must ask, why does it not continue beyond its limits? How can it possibly have a physical end? The human mind is not capable of comprehending the answers to these eternal riddles. The consistent atheist knows this and admits it. The ultimate origins and extents of our universe are not part of the realm of natural science, and therefore can not be commented on by scientists. How convenient! The scientist can only look at and analyze what can be sensed. With this admission, though, the atheist has just given away the game. For at this point, it can be said that the existence of God is at the very least as plausible - to the atheist himself - as is His non-existence.
The atheist, however, then continues with his presupposition that God does not exist, even though it is admittedly outside of his self imposed limits to say so. At this point, he has to conjure up a way in which not only does the universe exist, (a fact that he can not explain using naturalistic limitations), but he also has to explain how the planet earth has come to exist in all its splendor and all of its various levels of life forms.
Obviously, without an intelligent, designing force behind it, the only explanation for the development of our planet, and the various life forms on it, is that somehow order has come out of chaos. How? Well, according to the atheistic assumptions, it has basically been a long series of random chances that have had the cumulative effect of producing what we now see. Random chance bringing order out of chaos is the only explanation the unbeliever has. This is the basis of evolution.
Granted, they attempt to find in the natural order of things a mechanism that causes this. But, tracing this mechanism back to the very origins of the universe is futile to even think about. Granting for the sake of argument only that such a mechanism exists, how does one explain its existence in a universe of unexplained origins, with no intelligence behind it to "jump start" such a mechanism?
Further, the atheist must then admit, for he has no other option, that he himself is the product of order from chaos by the process of random chance. His very thoughts are not in any way spiritual, nor do they in any way have any deep meaning to them, because the spiritual does not exist. They are instead nothing more than electrochemical impulses.
In conclusion then, when the atheist thinks about anything, according to his own creed all that is occurring is an electrochemical process, brought to order out of chaos, through a process of random chance. There is no basis for any type of morality here. In fact, he sits teetering on the fence between being and non-being. Obviously, an electrochemical impulse is not a being. It is a thing. As for other people and objects around him, what guarantee does he have that they exist either, and are not merely the result of some electrochemical process in his own mind? The world of the atheist is fraught with uncertainty!
Back to the problem of evil
Now, this brings us back to our original intent. This atheist that we have just described, sits on his self-constructed throne and tells us that God can not exist because of the problem of evil. However, the question must now be asked, on what basis does the atheist say there is such a thing as good and evil? To begin with, good and evil are supernatural terms, not naturalistic ones. Additionally, since the atheist, and everyone else for that matter, is simply a product of random chance, with no supernatural authority behind it and no spirituality, the very concept of good and evil does not even exist. On what does the atheist base his idea of good and evil? He absolutely can not base it on his own presuppositions, which have been described above. Therefore, he must borrow these concepts, and their definitions, and their foundations, from the theists. He has to assume a theistic worldview in order to argue against it. Surely this can be clearly seen as a precarious position.
Further, after borrowing the worldview of the believer in order to attempt to use it against him, the atheist goes one giant step further. He now says that using his enemies' definitions, which by his own presuppositions must be totally alien to him, he can by his own intellect (which is simply an electrochemical impulse derived from chaos by random chance), define what type of God could or could not exist under those definitions. That is, while his own worldview teaches that he is nothing but the product of random chance magically producing order out of chaos, with no loving or intelligent Being behind it, he now tells us that his intellect is the final judge of what type of omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, all-loving being may or may not exist.
No doubt, the atheist who so argues is terribly blind to his own arrogance and ignorance, as well as to the precarious perch he is sitting on. He reminds us of countless cartoon characters we have see who run off of a high ledge, and remain momentarily suspended in mid-air with no support whatsoever under them. Once they look down and realize that they have no support, they immediately start a free fall.
Likewise, the atheist thinks he is safe and supported fully. However, when he examines the very presuppositions he bases his belief on, then realizes that using his own presuppositions he can not begin to make sense of the world, and that he must borrow the presuppositions of his avowed enemies in order to argue against them, then he will realize that he is about to free fall.
I would advise him to open his Bible and begin studying it. In that situation, it would make and excellent parachute!
______________________________________________________________
The events of September 11 have shaken many Americans to the core. While no one rejoices at this tragedy, many atheists and skeptics have happily used it to attempt to further their cause. The cause of the atheists and skeptics is to deny the existence of God, or at the very least, to place it in extreme doubt. God can not be "proven" to exist using the natural order they would tell us, as if limiting a discussion of the supernatural to the natural in any way made sense.
However, in addition to attempting to limit all discussions to the natural order, the atheists and skeptics also have a reliable old friend they bring out at every opportunity to cast doubt on the possibility of God's existence. This "friend" is known as "the problem of evil."
The argument goes something like this: The God of the Bible can not exist if evil exists in the world. (And the events of September 11 were indeed evil, as we all know). That is because the Bible teaches that God is all good, with no mixture of sin or evil, and that God is all powerful, and can cause to happen or not happen whatever He desires. If God desires only good, and can do anything at all, then there should be no evil in the world. Since there most assuredly is evil in the world, then it is impossible that such a God could exist.
According to many an atheist and skeptic, this is the one argument a Christian simply can not get around, and it is almost universally one of the main reasons many unbelievers are unbelievers. How can an all-good and all-powerful God sanction evil or allow evil to exist? Obviously, an all-good and all-powerful God would not allow such. Yet evil exists. Therefore, God, at least the God of the Bible, must not exist.
Unfortunately for the unbeliever who clings to this line of reasoning, he has not thought out all of the implications tied to the making of that argument, particularly in light of his reluctance to even discuss things beyond the natural realm. The very concept of "good and evil" is itself outside of the natural realm, and hence should be off limits to the atheists who claim to only believe what can be empirically verified.
The problem for the atheist goes much further than this, however. To understand how much further it goes, we will need to briefly discuss the atheistic presuppositions.
The impossibility of a world without God
Everyone has presuppositions, that is, underlying worldviews that provide the foundation for, and inevitably bias, his views on any topic. The Christian presupposition is that the God of the Bible exists, that He is all-good, all-powerful, and so forth. He created the world out of nothing by His mere power in the span of six days. He providentially controls whatsoever comes to pass.
The atheist's presupposition is that no God exists. Nothing outside of the natural order - that is, things that can be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, and felt - can exist.
Right off the bat the atheist has a problem. For, if this world which we live in exists, which it obviously does, then from whence did it come? They deny the possibility of a Creator, yet can not explain the very existence of our universe. In order for our universe to be here as it is now, there are only two possibilities. One, that it, in some form or other, has always existed for all of eternity past; or two, that it began to exist at some point in history. Both of these possibilities are impossible for the human mind, using natural assumptions, to fathom. We can not even begin to imagine the very concept of an eternity past. Additionally, the second law of thermodynamics simply (when viewed through the lens of naturalistic presuppositions) will not allow the universe to have existed for an eternity. The amount of energy in the universe is finite. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that, left free of outside input, energy passes from a useful form to a non-useful form. That is, things go from order, to disorder. Over an eternity, obviously the order or usefulness of the energy in the universe, will long since have been completely dissipated. Unless…
Unless the amount of energy, space, and matter in the universe is itself infinite. Now, can the human mind fathom an infinite amount of space, energy, and matter, which has eternally existed? Of course not. Is there a natural explanation to such a thing? Of course not.
The second option is really no better for the atheist. There, he has to assume that the universe did not exist until some certain point in history, then it began to exist. How does he explain this phenomena, using only naturalism? He can't.
Even with this second option, the unbeliever is faced with such difficult questions as "Is the universe finite, or infinite?" The mind goes into spasms at the thought of either. The thought of an infinite universe is inconceivable to us. Yet, if it is finite, we must ask, why does it not continue beyond its limits? How can it possibly have a physical end? The human mind is not capable of comprehending the answers to these eternal riddles. The consistent atheist knows this and admits it. The ultimate origins and extents of our universe are not part of the realm of natural science, and therefore can not be commented on by scientists. How convenient! The scientist can only look at and analyze what can be sensed. With this admission, though, the atheist has just given away the game. For at this point, it can be said that the existence of God is at the very least as plausible - to the atheist himself - as is His non-existence.
The atheist, however, then continues with his presupposition that God does not exist, even though it is admittedly outside of his self imposed limits to say so. At this point, he has to conjure up a way in which not only does the universe exist, (a fact that he can not explain using naturalistic limitations), but he also has to explain how the planet earth has come to exist in all its splendor and all of its various levels of life forms.
Obviously, without an intelligent, designing force behind it, the only explanation for the development of our planet, and the various life forms on it, is that somehow order has come out of chaos. How? Well, according to the atheistic assumptions, it has basically been a long series of random chances that have had the cumulative effect of producing what we now see. Random chance bringing order out of chaos is the only explanation the unbeliever has. This is the basis of evolution.
Granted, they attempt to find in the natural order of things a mechanism that causes this. But, tracing this mechanism back to the very origins of the universe is futile to even think about. Granting for the sake of argument only that such a mechanism exists, how does one explain its existence in a universe of unexplained origins, with no intelligence behind it to "jump start" such a mechanism?
Further, the atheist must then admit, for he has no other option, that he himself is the product of order from chaos by the process of random chance. His very thoughts are not in any way spiritual, nor do they in any way have any deep meaning to them, because the spiritual does not exist. They are instead nothing more than electrochemical impulses.
In conclusion then, when the atheist thinks about anything, according to his own creed all that is occurring is an electrochemical process, brought to order out of chaos, through a process of random chance. There is no basis for any type of morality here. In fact, he sits teetering on the fence between being and non-being. Obviously, an electrochemical impulse is not a being. It is a thing. As for other people and objects around him, what guarantee does he have that they exist either, and are not merely the result of some electrochemical process in his own mind? The world of the atheist is fraught with uncertainty!
Back to the problem of evil
Now, this brings us back to our original intent. This atheist that we have just described, sits on his self-constructed throne and tells us that God can not exist because of the problem of evil. However, the question must now be asked, on what basis does the atheist say there is such a thing as good and evil? To begin with, good and evil are supernatural terms, not naturalistic ones. Additionally, since the atheist, and everyone else for that matter, is simply a product of random chance, with no supernatural authority behind it and no spirituality, the very concept of good and evil does not even exist. On what does the atheist base his idea of good and evil? He absolutely can not base it on his own presuppositions, which have been described above. Therefore, he must borrow these concepts, and their definitions, and their foundations, from the theists. He has to assume a theistic worldview in order to argue against it. Surely this can be clearly seen as a precarious position.
Further, after borrowing the worldview of the believer in order to attempt to use it against him, the atheist goes one giant step further. He now says that using his enemies' definitions, which by his own presuppositions must be totally alien to him, he can by his own intellect (which is simply an electrochemical impulse derived from chaos by random chance), define what type of God could or could not exist under those definitions. That is, while his own worldview teaches that he is nothing but the product of random chance magically producing order out of chaos, with no loving or intelligent Being behind it, he now tells us that his intellect is the final judge of what type of omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, all-loving being may or may not exist.
No doubt, the atheist who so argues is terribly blind to his own arrogance and ignorance, as well as to the precarious perch he is sitting on. He reminds us of countless cartoon characters we have see who run off of a high ledge, and remain momentarily suspended in mid-air with no support whatsoever under them. Once they look down and realize that they have no support, they immediately start a free fall.
Likewise, the atheist thinks he is safe and supported fully. However, when he examines the very presuppositions he bases his belief on, then realizes that using his own presuppositions he can not begin to make sense of the world, and that he must borrow the presuppositions of his avowed enemies in order to argue against them, then he will realize that he is about to free fall.
I would advise him to open his Bible and begin studying it. In that situation, it would make and excellent parachute!
Saturday, August 18, 2007
The Federal Vision Controversy in a Nutshell
FV Pastor: "Apostacy is a real possiblity!"
Anti-FV Pastor: "Any Reformed pastor who believes apostacy is a real possibility is surely an apostate!"
FV Pastor: "Could you expand on that?
Anti-FV Pastor: "Sure. Any true believer who truly has true faith in the true God who has truly come to the conclusion that a true believer can truly fall away from the true faith in the true God has truly fallen away from the true faith in the true God. It's just that simple."
FV Pastor: "Huh...wha...?"
Anti-FV Pastor: "Any Reformed pastor who believes apostacy is a real possibility is surely an apostate!"
FV Pastor: "Could you expand on that?
Anti-FV Pastor: "Sure. Any true believer who truly has true faith in the true God who has truly come to the conclusion that a true believer can truly fall away from the true faith in the true God has truly fallen away from the true faith in the true God. It's just that simple."
FV Pastor: "Huh...wha...?"
Thursday, August 16, 2007
My Experience with the Federal Vision
I have been recently asked by an old friend if I have been "sucked in by the dark Auburn Avenue doctrines." That is a fair question, if not necessarily fairly worded, so therefore, I thought I would attempt to make a brief answer. BRIEF answers are not my forte, but I will try anyhow!
Btw, if you are reading this and have absolutely no idea what is meant by "Auburn Avenue Theology," or "The Federal Vision," please count your blessings and just skip this post. It will be meaningless to you and is simply not worth worrying about.
The person who asked that loaded question (I’ll call him ‘M’) is in fact, humanly speaking, as responsible as anyone for my current theological outlook. Years ago, I use to spend a lot of time on an Internet bulletin board dedicated to religious discussion. I was pretty much a run of the mill standard conservative modern American Evangelical Southern Baptist. Skipping the details as to why I was posing the question, I posed the question of predestination/free will to the bulletin board. The question itself messed with my mind, as I could see something of both sides of the equation, while also seeing the weaknesses of both sides.
Most of the responses I received took the side of "free will." I basically went along with it. But one person (M) answered from the ‘Calvinistic’ perspective. His response left me reeling, but, (again to make a very long story very short) over time, with repeated exchanges, I finally settled on the view of predestination. (I still hold to it today!)
I developed a friendship with M that, while we have gone entirely separate ways, we have managed to maintain through occasional Internet or email exchanges, and occasional telephone calls. I still value that friendship greatly.
Now, M was also in a time of theological transition. He had been basically as I had been, then became a ‘reformed’ Baptist, then eventually became a Presbyterian. I pretty much skipped the middle step, and flew straight from contemporary evangelical Baptist to be a Presbyterian. The last issue to fall was the issue of Baptism. Largely, though not entirely, this issue changed for me after reading the relevant section from Dabney’s Systematic Theology – a book that was recommended to me by M.
In the background to all of this, was this lingering feeling to me that in addition to theological precision and the importance of systematic theology, one thing that was missing from contemporary evangelicalism was beauty, depth, and meaning in worship. Most of the worship I had been exposed to was like this: After a brief time singing sappy praise hymns, the children are dismissed to "Children’s Church", then the adults remained for a rather elementary worship and preaching service. I could only wonder how childish the children’s service was, since there was no depth or beauty in the adult service. Not only that, but I did not even like the idea of children’s church or nursery for the younger kids. The wife and I had basically began taking our young kids to the service with us. I don’t think they ever went to a children’s service.
So, one of the things I was looking for as I began the search for a Presbyterian Church was not only a change in theology, and preaching and teaching with more meat, but, I desired more ‘beauty’ in worship. I wanted a more family, covenantal approach that included the children in the worship of their God. I thought maybe the Presbyterian Church would be more reverent in this way in their worship.
Now, B’ham, even though it is more or less the founding city for the PCA, is not exactly loaded with PCA churches. In the ‘ham, there is a Baptist Church on every block. Every other block has either a Methodist, Church of Christ, or some varient of a Pentecostal church. However, there are only a relative handful of Presbyterian Church (literally probably about five percent as many PCs as BCs). Even among the Presbyterian churches, here in the buckle of the Bible belt, probably two-thirds of them were of the liberal leaning PCUSA. I was definitely not interested in a denomination that has to constantly debate the whether homosexuality is acceptable or not!
Well, I visited a couple of PCA churches – both of which I had to drive quite a ways to get to. Both were pretty nice. There was definitely a step up in Preaching in terms of Biblical exegesis. Doctrine was definitely important. However, and I couldn’t quite put a finger on it, there was something still missing. Other than the preaching, both were almost indistinguishable from most of the Baptist churches I had been to. I remember one of them dismissing the children for children's church. I remember the other one making the point that they had two services – a ‘traditional’ one and a ‘contemporary’ one. Not real crazy about that idea either.
Well, in the meantime, M had wound up in the ATL area and become sold on a particular church called Chalcedon Presbyterian Church pastored by Dr. Joe Morecraft. In talking with M, it seemed to me that a lot of what he was saying about his church matched with what I was looking for. He told me he would ask around and see if anyone there was familiar with a good church in the ‘ham.
He got back with me and said "Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church." Someone there told him that if you wanted a true Reformed Church in Birmingham, that was the ONLY place to go. Even Pastor Joe was quite familiar with the church, had spoken there before, and recommended it. I was vaguely familiar with it because my sister works directly across the street at a Barber shop and I saw the church numerous times from there. The only problem was that it was on the opposite side of town – probably a 30-35 minute drive.
Well, we visited one Lord’s Day. To the naked eye it would have seemed massively unimpressive. A small, old, not necessarily lovely building. Poor restroom facilities. The building does not sit on a very good lot. After church they had a lunch in an even worse building that seemed to be about to fall apart. However, to the open heart, we knew we had ‘come home.’
First, the first thing I noticed was the presence of a Dr. and Mrs. D. This was an older couple that I had known years before through some of our mutual political interests. They were a couple I admired greatly. Another thing was the friendliness of the people in general. We were immediately made to feel at home. Another thing was that one of the leaders just happened to stand up and make a point (before the beginning of worship) that they are not for a separate children’s church (how did he know that is what I wanted to hear?) The pastor mentioned things in his sermon that resonated with me regarding a preteristic postmil eschatology which was a whole ‘nother theological transformation that I was undergoing. Finally, though, the worship itself seemed to be more holistic, deep, and meaningful. I was too ignorant to put my finger on it, but there was something different. It was not just a couple of songs, a sermon, then we go. It was more structured. It seemed to have meaning, direction, purpose. They had communion, and it seemed that it was something they did every week. That was new to me, but somehow it seemed right.
After some time visiting there, we began to develop friendships. One thing we heard about again and again was that there was a very interesting history to the church. This involved a lot of ups and downs – trial and triumph. At the moment, it seemed, the church was in something of a flux, with a little bit of an unknown future. The ‘pastor’ who had been preaching was really a supply pastor, but he had a long history with the congregation. The leader who spoke about children’s church was in fact more or less the ‘pastor designate’ who was finishing up his seminary training. (For the record, I loved and respected, and still do, both of these men despite the changes that have since come up) However, I kept hearing about this former pastor who had more or less set the current direction of the church. His name was Peter Leithart.
In retrospect, it would seem humorous to anyone familiar with the whole Federal Vision controversy that Joe Morecraft and those at his church insisted that I must go to the church that had been set on its course by Peter Leithart. Peter is one of the big names in the whole Auburn Avenue controversy. Morecraft is one of the big leaders in the anti Auburn Avenue camp. The Lord works in mysterious ways!!
Now, in my early days at RHPC, I was not at all knowledgeable about the differing strains within Presbyterianism. I just assumed Presbyterians were all one big happy family. Turns out, they look more like the Addams family!
However, in continuing the relationship with M, and in the relationships I developed at RHPC, certain names of certain key leaders, pastors, thinkers, and writers past and present kept coming up again and again. Steve Wilkins, Douglas Wilson, Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, R. J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Gary DeMar, Jim Jordan, Steve Schlissel, and on and on. The supply pastor at RHPC had attended Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson back in the 70s and was quick to tell you that Greg Bahnsen was his favorite prof. While there, he knew DeMar, Wilkins, Jordan, David Chilton and others. In fact, the original relationship of the supply pastor with the congregation, as it turns out, was that he was personally recommended to the congregation by Rushdoony. At one time in the history of the congregation, both he and DeMar were utilized as preachers while they were attending RTS.
So, at a point around, say mid 2001, I thought I had found the one big happy reformed presbyterian family. All the people I was running with were more or less influenced by the same people (the names listed above and perhaps others) RHPC had, during this time scheduled Pastor Schlissel to come and speak in November of that year. I had forwarded this to M, asking him to come over and attend also. Unfortunately, Schlissel’s church being in the heart of NYC was affected greatly by the event of September 11 of that year and he had to cancel.
I do remember M, though, questioning Sclissell because he had had some negative things to say about the "regulative principle." Fair enough, but I think overall we take the person on the whole of what they’ve done, not on whether they already agree 100 % with us on 100 % of the issues.
However, let me reiterate to you that it was M who introduced me to the likes of Wilson and Wilkins. It was M who told me about some of the great work Wilkins had done both in theology and history. It was M who suggested to me once that Credenda Agenda (the magazine of Wilson) should be required reading in every Christian home.
All of this was reinforced with me by my own experiences. I continued to hear about Dr. Leithart. Apparently, he had left RHPC to pursue his PhD. Upon completion of that, he went to Moscow, Idaho to teach at New St. Andrews. This is, of course, tied closely to Wilson. Many of his books are published by Canon – Wilson’s puclishing house and he writes frequently for Credenda Agenda – must reading indeed! In fact, during this time, Dr. Leithart was a member of Pastor Wilson’s church. In addition to hearing about him, I got the opportunity to actually hear him and speak with him a couple of times. He occasionally gets to pass through town and when he does he usually speaks at our congregation. One time in particular the PCA GA was in Birmingham and they held a pre-GA liturgy conference at our facility. Dr. Leithart, Jim Jordan, and Wes Baker all spoke. This was perhaps the beginning of a great awakening for me concerning my views on worship. The concerns I had as expressed above were being addressed by some very smart people in very intelligent, and might I add, Biblical ways.
At any rate, I knew there were some differences within this group of leaders and thinkers. But, in my opinion they were peripheral. There were numerous things they held in common. This included centrally the idea that the whole word of God regulates our whole lives. This places God’s law on a higher plane. God’s law is not irrelevant to us, but is in fact binding. All the members of this group tend to hold God’s law, God’s Word in high regard. God’s word also regulates how we are to worship Him.
Another consistent viewpoint among this group tended to be that they were, I believe without exception, postmillenial and (orthodox) preterist. There may certainly be variations in the particulars of this, but I think they largely fell into those categories.
In addition to these similarities in peripheral issues, all these men were of course Calvinistic in soteriology, presbyterian in government, covenantal in their viewpoint of God’s relationship with His People. They all held to paedobaptism. In other words, these guys in addition to all being nominally some variant of Christian, were in fact in agreement on 98% of their theology. Where differences seemed to exist it involved the actual application of the theology. Just as an example, both Joe Morecraft and Jim Jordan have indicated that they believe in the regulative principle of worship. This means that in determining what we are to do in corporate worship, we are to look to the Bible and follow what it says. On that point these two are in 100% agreement. However, when they develop their ideas as to what it is exactly that the Bible instructs us to do in corporate worship, the two are miles apart. One could truly say to the other "I believe you are wrong in the way you develop and apply the regulative principle." However, it would be incorrect for one to say to the other "You deny the regulative principle." There are likely other topics where this type of application difference shows up. How do you deal with it? Especially, if you are all one big happy family how do you deal with it when your brother’s conclusion at a particular point differs from your own? This is where I found out that we really weren’t a big happy family.
I still remember opening the email from M some time in 2002. "Have you heard the latest about Schlissel, Wilson, and Wilkins? They’re denying justification by faith!!!!"
I have to admit that my initial reaction was not "Oh no, somehow these great men of God have suddenly all at once lost their mind and gone after false doctrine." Instead I thought, "I wonder what that is all about." That began my quest.
Now, admittedly I have not heard the full tapes of the original conference at Auburn Avenue, nor have I read the full transcripts. I have read quite a bit of it though. Initially, I was a little confused because I was still new to the whole reformed world. However, I have read substantially from the writings of not only Wilkins, Wilson, and Schlissel, but even more so from Leithart, Jordan, and others who have since been lumped into this camp. In studying all this, I also came across the name of Rich Lusk (more on this later!). I have read much of the writing against these guys as well. I have read the Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons book numerous times. I offer the following brief (maybe?) critique of the situation. I know this is wrought with over simplification and has gaping holes, but there simply isn’t time or space here for a full review. So deal with it!
From the very beginning, it has been obvious to me which side has been fair, even handed, Christ like and so forth in their behavior. For instance, the first big blowup was in a small presbytery of a small denomination (the RPCUS – Morecraft’s denomination) publicly calling for the repentance of four men from other denominations. The accused have claimed that they were not approached by the accusers and given the opportunity to sit down in private and defend their views. Is this scriptural? Any time any one from any branch of the church makes statements that I disagree with, can I publicly call them to repentance and ask for discipline? The whole tenor of this debate has been "Guilty until proven innocent, and, oh by the way, we’re not giving you a chance to prove your innocence. Therefore, guilty." A perfect example of this was the recent adoption of the committee report by the GA of the PCA. The ‘study committee’ was fully stacked with those who had been public in their opposition to the AA theology. In defense of this stacking, R. C. Sproul made the incredible statement that of course you don’t fill a jury with those sympathetic to the accused. There are two major problems with this statement that are readily evident to any first grader. First, this was not a trial by jury, but a study committee. A study committee should have people who are on both sides, as well as those who have no current opinion. A wide reading of the case should be made, then recommendations of both a majority and minority report given. Secondly, though, if this were a trial by jury then why is it stacked against the accused? True you don’t fill a jury with those sympathetic to the accused. But you don’t fill it with those who have already publicly stated their belief in his guilt! This was a grave miscarriage of justice any which way you slice it.
Now, it is true that Pastor Wilson does frequently use sarcasm and humor to make a point. I would even say there are times when he has carried it too far. However, I notice his biting sarcasm in this instance has always been in reaction to the incredible attacks made on him. Which demonstrates a lack of Christian charity more – boldly attacking an erstwhile friend and co-laborer for Christ, or responding to such an attack in a less that perfect manner?
So much could be said about the theological matters here, but I don’t have the time nor the ability to go into any detail. Suffice it to say, though, that the charge that any of the names associated with the AA theology are denying justification by faith are just plain silly. I can’t state that strongly enough. Its just plain silly. I don’t know how many times these guys have to make the specific point over and over and over again that they believe there is no way we could ever bring works to God and have a claim on salvation; that we are solely saved by an act of His Free Grace; that this is solely because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross; that this is obtained only by means of faith. They say all this, yet are still accused of denying these very things.
The fact of the matter is that the accusers and the accused, when their theology in total is reviewed, share almost the exact same theology in so many ways. In the broader Christian ‘pie’, they are all on the same small slice. Yet the most viscious of attacks have been leveled at the one by the other. It is sad, Sad, SAD!
I think the great sin of the AA crowd is that they dared to think. Especially, they dared to think outside the box of a 19th century interpretation of a seventeenth century interpretation of the teachings of Scripture. Read that sentence again. It is not a typo. The AA thinkers are truly Catholic (in the best sense of the word) learning from various strains of Christian theological tradition. However, virtually everything, if not everything, held by any of these men have been held by other leaders in the history of Reformed Christianity. The accusers want to make Reformed Christianity simply fit a tiny tiny little theological pattern. Anything outside of that pattern is not reformed. And, if a reformed leader steps outside that pattern, he is worse than someone already outside of that pattern. That is, these ‘true reformed’ leaders will still at least accept Baptists, Methodists, and sometimes even Roman Catholics as being, while theologically mistaken, Christian Brothers. However, let a Reformed leader vary his view slightly, and Whamo! he is damned to hell!
The great sin of the AA movement is also that it does not deny that the Bible does speak of works, covenant membership, apostasy, effectual sacraments, etc. Actually for the most part, their views of this fit within the teaching of the Westminster Confession (some hold to paedocommunion which is not taught by the WCF. Some also deny a covenant of Works) However, in other areas, the AA teaching are actually more consistent with the teachings of the Confession than the accepted interpretation by the "truly reformed" crowd.
In the end, though, can’t we simply in love debate these doctrines? Can’t we say "You know, I believe the WCF may be wrong in not allowing for paedocommunion." Can’t we use language that may be different that the WCF (especially if it is Biblical language??!!) Can’t we just sometimes agree to disagree and continue to be brothers? Can’t we sometimes learn from each other – as iron sharpens iron? Do we have to immediately condemn our brother whenever he says things in words different from what we might choose to use? Again, I think this is all just so sad.
Now, as I said earlier, I came across the name of Rich Lusk in my studies. Later, when we began searching for a full time pastor, his name came up. I did further research. I spoke with him on the phone at length. I drove to Monroe with two others from our congregation to meet him and his family and to hear him preach. (He was then Assistant Pastor at Auburn Avenue). I specifically asked him questions such as "Are you a five point Calvinist" and other pertinent topics. Not only I, but virtually our whole congregation was sold on him. He graciously agreed to become our pastor in 2004, and we have slowly, but steadily grown in numbers and in maturity. (As of 2003 our congregation was on the verge of disbanding, with only a tiny handful of families left. We are now strong and vibrant).
Btw, just this past week, and this was not an aberration but just the latest example, Pastor Lusk went to great lengths in his sermon to explain that our justification is by faith and not works. Hmmm. Strange from a guy who denies that truth!
I have sat under his teaching now for almost three years. I have learned so much. I have seen this "Dark Auburn Avenue" theology bring so much light and fruit. We have a congregation where everyone loves each other. We have a congregation that is beginning to become active in the community. You will know them by their fruits.
So, I invite anyone who has a problem with this ‘dark’ theology to simply come and visit us at any time. Hear the joyful singing. Hear the heartfelt confession. Hear the hearty shouts of "Amen!" and "Thanks be to God!" Celebrate communion with our Lord and with each other. Hear God’s word preached. Come on, I dare you!
Btw, if you are reading this and have absolutely no idea what is meant by "Auburn Avenue Theology," or "The Federal Vision," please count your blessings and just skip this post. It will be meaningless to you and is simply not worth worrying about.
The person who asked that loaded question (I’ll call him ‘M’) is in fact, humanly speaking, as responsible as anyone for my current theological outlook. Years ago, I use to spend a lot of time on an Internet bulletin board dedicated to religious discussion. I was pretty much a run of the mill standard conservative modern American Evangelical Southern Baptist. Skipping the details as to why I was posing the question, I posed the question of predestination/free will to the bulletin board. The question itself messed with my mind, as I could see something of both sides of the equation, while also seeing the weaknesses of both sides.
Most of the responses I received took the side of "free will." I basically went along with it. But one person (M) answered from the ‘Calvinistic’ perspective. His response left me reeling, but, (again to make a very long story very short) over time, with repeated exchanges, I finally settled on the view of predestination. (I still hold to it today!)
I developed a friendship with M that, while we have gone entirely separate ways, we have managed to maintain through occasional Internet or email exchanges, and occasional telephone calls. I still value that friendship greatly.
Now, M was also in a time of theological transition. He had been basically as I had been, then became a ‘reformed’ Baptist, then eventually became a Presbyterian. I pretty much skipped the middle step, and flew straight from contemporary evangelical Baptist to be a Presbyterian. The last issue to fall was the issue of Baptism. Largely, though not entirely, this issue changed for me after reading the relevant section from Dabney’s Systematic Theology – a book that was recommended to me by M.
In the background to all of this, was this lingering feeling to me that in addition to theological precision and the importance of systematic theology, one thing that was missing from contemporary evangelicalism was beauty, depth, and meaning in worship. Most of the worship I had been exposed to was like this: After a brief time singing sappy praise hymns, the children are dismissed to "Children’s Church", then the adults remained for a rather elementary worship and preaching service. I could only wonder how childish the children’s service was, since there was no depth or beauty in the adult service. Not only that, but I did not even like the idea of children’s church or nursery for the younger kids. The wife and I had basically began taking our young kids to the service with us. I don’t think they ever went to a children’s service.
So, one of the things I was looking for as I began the search for a Presbyterian Church was not only a change in theology, and preaching and teaching with more meat, but, I desired more ‘beauty’ in worship. I wanted a more family, covenantal approach that included the children in the worship of their God. I thought maybe the Presbyterian Church would be more reverent in this way in their worship.
Now, B’ham, even though it is more or less the founding city for the PCA, is not exactly loaded with PCA churches. In the ‘ham, there is a Baptist Church on every block. Every other block has either a Methodist, Church of Christ, or some varient of a Pentecostal church. However, there are only a relative handful of Presbyterian Church (literally probably about five percent as many PCs as BCs). Even among the Presbyterian churches, here in the buckle of the Bible belt, probably two-thirds of them were of the liberal leaning PCUSA. I was definitely not interested in a denomination that has to constantly debate the whether homosexuality is acceptable or not!
Well, I visited a couple of PCA churches – both of which I had to drive quite a ways to get to. Both were pretty nice. There was definitely a step up in Preaching in terms of Biblical exegesis. Doctrine was definitely important. However, and I couldn’t quite put a finger on it, there was something still missing. Other than the preaching, both were almost indistinguishable from most of the Baptist churches I had been to. I remember one of them dismissing the children for children's church. I remember the other one making the point that they had two services – a ‘traditional’ one and a ‘contemporary’ one. Not real crazy about that idea either.
Well, in the meantime, M had wound up in the ATL area and become sold on a particular church called Chalcedon Presbyterian Church pastored by Dr. Joe Morecraft. In talking with M, it seemed to me that a lot of what he was saying about his church matched with what I was looking for. He told me he would ask around and see if anyone there was familiar with a good church in the ‘ham.
He got back with me and said "Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church." Someone there told him that if you wanted a true Reformed Church in Birmingham, that was the ONLY place to go. Even Pastor Joe was quite familiar with the church, had spoken there before, and recommended it. I was vaguely familiar with it because my sister works directly across the street at a Barber shop and I saw the church numerous times from there. The only problem was that it was on the opposite side of town – probably a 30-35 minute drive.
Well, we visited one Lord’s Day. To the naked eye it would have seemed massively unimpressive. A small, old, not necessarily lovely building. Poor restroom facilities. The building does not sit on a very good lot. After church they had a lunch in an even worse building that seemed to be about to fall apart. However, to the open heart, we knew we had ‘come home.’
First, the first thing I noticed was the presence of a Dr. and Mrs. D. This was an older couple that I had known years before through some of our mutual political interests. They were a couple I admired greatly. Another thing was the friendliness of the people in general. We were immediately made to feel at home. Another thing was that one of the leaders just happened to stand up and make a point (before the beginning of worship) that they are not for a separate children’s church (how did he know that is what I wanted to hear?) The pastor mentioned things in his sermon that resonated with me regarding a preteristic postmil eschatology which was a whole ‘nother theological transformation that I was undergoing. Finally, though, the worship itself seemed to be more holistic, deep, and meaningful. I was too ignorant to put my finger on it, but there was something different. It was not just a couple of songs, a sermon, then we go. It was more structured. It seemed to have meaning, direction, purpose. They had communion, and it seemed that it was something they did every week. That was new to me, but somehow it seemed right.
After some time visiting there, we began to develop friendships. One thing we heard about again and again was that there was a very interesting history to the church. This involved a lot of ups and downs – trial and triumph. At the moment, it seemed, the church was in something of a flux, with a little bit of an unknown future. The ‘pastor’ who had been preaching was really a supply pastor, but he had a long history with the congregation. The leader who spoke about children’s church was in fact more or less the ‘pastor designate’ who was finishing up his seminary training. (For the record, I loved and respected, and still do, both of these men despite the changes that have since come up) However, I kept hearing about this former pastor who had more or less set the current direction of the church. His name was Peter Leithart.
In retrospect, it would seem humorous to anyone familiar with the whole Federal Vision controversy that Joe Morecraft and those at his church insisted that I must go to the church that had been set on its course by Peter Leithart. Peter is one of the big names in the whole Auburn Avenue controversy. Morecraft is one of the big leaders in the anti Auburn Avenue camp. The Lord works in mysterious ways!!
Now, in my early days at RHPC, I was not at all knowledgeable about the differing strains within Presbyterianism. I just assumed Presbyterians were all one big happy family. Turns out, they look more like the Addams family!
However, in continuing the relationship with M, and in the relationships I developed at RHPC, certain names of certain key leaders, pastors, thinkers, and writers past and present kept coming up again and again. Steve Wilkins, Douglas Wilson, Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, R. J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Gary DeMar, Jim Jordan, Steve Schlissel, and on and on. The supply pastor at RHPC had attended Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson back in the 70s and was quick to tell you that Greg Bahnsen was his favorite prof. While there, he knew DeMar, Wilkins, Jordan, David Chilton and others. In fact, the original relationship of the supply pastor with the congregation, as it turns out, was that he was personally recommended to the congregation by Rushdoony. At one time in the history of the congregation, both he and DeMar were utilized as preachers while they were attending RTS.
So, at a point around, say mid 2001, I thought I had found the one big happy reformed presbyterian family. All the people I was running with were more or less influenced by the same people (the names listed above and perhaps others) RHPC had, during this time scheduled Pastor Schlissel to come and speak in November of that year. I had forwarded this to M, asking him to come over and attend also. Unfortunately, Schlissel’s church being in the heart of NYC was affected greatly by the event of September 11 of that year and he had to cancel.
I do remember M, though, questioning Sclissell because he had had some negative things to say about the "regulative principle." Fair enough, but I think overall we take the person on the whole of what they’ve done, not on whether they already agree 100 % with us on 100 % of the issues.
However, let me reiterate to you that it was M who introduced me to the likes of Wilson and Wilkins. It was M who told me about some of the great work Wilkins had done both in theology and history. It was M who suggested to me once that Credenda Agenda (the magazine of Wilson) should be required reading in every Christian home.
All of this was reinforced with me by my own experiences. I continued to hear about Dr. Leithart. Apparently, he had left RHPC to pursue his PhD. Upon completion of that, he went to Moscow, Idaho to teach at New St. Andrews. This is, of course, tied closely to Wilson. Many of his books are published by Canon – Wilson’s puclishing house and he writes frequently for Credenda Agenda – must reading indeed! In fact, during this time, Dr. Leithart was a member of Pastor Wilson’s church. In addition to hearing about him, I got the opportunity to actually hear him and speak with him a couple of times. He occasionally gets to pass through town and when he does he usually speaks at our congregation. One time in particular the PCA GA was in Birmingham and they held a pre-GA liturgy conference at our facility. Dr. Leithart, Jim Jordan, and Wes Baker all spoke. This was perhaps the beginning of a great awakening for me concerning my views on worship. The concerns I had as expressed above were being addressed by some very smart people in very intelligent, and might I add, Biblical ways.
At any rate, I knew there were some differences within this group of leaders and thinkers. But, in my opinion they were peripheral. There were numerous things they held in common. This included centrally the idea that the whole word of God regulates our whole lives. This places God’s law on a higher plane. God’s law is not irrelevant to us, but is in fact binding. All the members of this group tend to hold God’s law, God’s Word in high regard. God’s word also regulates how we are to worship Him.
Another consistent viewpoint among this group tended to be that they were, I believe without exception, postmillenial and (orthodox) preterist. There may certainly be variations in the particulars of this, but I think they largely fell into those categories.
In addition to these similarities in peripheral issues, all these men were of course Calvinistic in soteriology, presbyterian in government, covenantal in their viewpoint of God’s relationship with His People. They all held to paedobaptism. In other words, these guys in addition to all being nominally some variant of Christian, were in fact in agreement on 98% of their theology. Where differences seemed to exist it involved the actual application of the theology. Just as an example, both Joe Morecraft and Jim Jordan have indicated that they believe in the regulative principle of worship. This means that in determining what we are to do in corporate worship, we are to look to the Bible and follow what it says. On that point these two are in 100% agreement. However, when they develop their ideas as to what it is exactly that the Bible instructs us to do in corporate worship, the two are miles apart. One could truly say to the other "I believe you are wrong in the way you develop and apply the regulative principle." However, it would be incorrect for one to say to the other "You deny the regulative principle." There are likely other topics where this type of application difference shows up. How do you deal with it? Especially, if you are all one big happy family how do you deal with it when your brother’s conclusion at a particular point differs from your own? This is where I found out that we really weren’t a big happy family.
I still remember opening the email from M some time in 2002. "Have you heard the latest about Schlissel, Wilson, and Wilkins? They’re denying justification by faith!!!!"
I have to admit that my initial reaction was not "Oh no, somehow these great men of God have suddenly all at once lost their mind and gone after false doctrine." Instead I thought, "I wonder what that is all about." That began my quest.
Now, admittedly I have not heard the full tapes of the original conference at Auburn Avenue, nor have I read the full transcripts. I have read quite a bit of it though. Initially, I was a little confused because I was still new to the whole reformed world. However, I have read substantially from the writings of not only Wilkins, Wilson, and Schlissel, but even more so from Leithart, Jordan, and others who have since been lumped into this camp. In studying all this, I also came across the name of Rich Lusk (more on this later!). I have read much of the writing against these guys as well. I have read the Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons book numerous times. I offer the following brief (maybe?) critique of the situation. I know this is wrought with over simplification and has gaping holes, but there simply isn’t time or space here for a full review. So deal with it!
From the very beginning, it has been obvious to me which side has been fair, even handed, Christ like and so forth in their behavior. For instance, the first big blowup was in a small presbytery of a small denomination (the RPCUS – Morecraft’s denomination) publicly calling for the repentance of four men from other denominations. The accused have claimed that they were not approached by the accusers and given the opportunity to sit down in private and defend their views. Is this scriptural? Any time any one from any branch of the church makes statements that I disagree with, can I publicly call them to repentance and ask for discipline? The whole tenor of this debate has been "Guilty until proven innocent, and, oh by the way, we’re not giving you a chance to prove your innocence. Therefore, guilty." A perfect example of this was the recent adoption of the committee report by the GA of the PCA. The ‘study committee’ was fully stacked with those who had been public in their opposition to the AA theology. In defense of this stacking, R. C. Sproul made the incredible statement that of course you don’t fill a jury with those sympathetic to the accused. There are two major problems with this statement that are readily evident to any first grader. First, this was not a trial by jury, but a study committee. A study committee should have people who are on both sides, as well as those who have no current opinion. A wide reading of the case should be made, then recommendations of both a majority and minority report given. Secondly, though, if this were a trial by jury then why is it stacked against the accused? True you don’t fill a jury with those sympathetic to the accused. But you don’t fill it with those who have already publicly stated their belief in his guilt! This was a grave miscarriage of justice any which way you slice it.
Now, it is true that Pastor Wilson does frequently use sarcasm and humor to make a point. I would even say there are times when he has carried it too far. However, I notice his biting sarcasm in this instance has always been in reaction to the incredible attacks made on him. Which demonstrates a lack of Christian charity more – boldly attacking an erstwhile friend and co-laborer for Christ, or responding to such an attack in a less that perfect manner?
So much could be said about the theological matters here, but I don’t have the time nor the ability to go into any detail. Suffice it to say, though, that the charge that any of the names associated with the AA theology are denying justification by faith are just plain silly. I can’t state that strongly enough. Its just plain silly. I don’t know how many times these guys have to make the specific point over and over and over again that they believe there is no way we could ever bring works to God and have a claim on salvation; that we are solely saved by an act of His Free Grace; that this is solely because of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross; that this is obtained only by means of faith. They say all this, yet are still accused of denying these very things.
The fact of the matter is that the accusers and the accused, when their theology in total is reviewed, share almost the exact same theology in so many ways. In the broader Christian ‘pie’, they are all on the same small slice. Yet the most viscious of attacks have been leveled at the one by the other. It is sad, Sad, SAD!
I think the great sin of the AA crowd is that they dared to think. Especially, they dared to think outside the box of a 19th century interpretation of a seventeenth century interpretation of the teachings of Scripture. Read that sentence again. It is not a typo. The AA thinkers are truly Catholic (in the best sense of the word) learning from various strains of Christian theological tradition. However, virtually everything, if not everything, held by any of these men have been held by other leaders in the history of Reformed Christianity. The accusers want to make Reformed Christianity simply fit a tiny tiny little theological pattern. Anything outside of that pattern is not reformed. And, if a reformed leader steps outside that pattern, he is worse than someone already outside of that pattern. That is, these ‘true reformed’ leaders will still at least accept Baptists, Methodists, and sometimes even Roman Catholics as being, while theologically mistaken, Christian Brothers. However, let a Reformed leader vary his view slightly, and Whamo! he is damned to hell!
The great sin of the AA movement is also that it does not deny that the Bible does speak of works, covenant membership, apostasy, effectual sacraments, etc. Actually for the most part, their views of this fit within the teaching of the Westminster Confession (some hold to paedocommunion which is not taught by the WCF. Some also deny a covenant of Works) However, in other areas, the AA teaching are actually more consistent with the teachings of the Confession than the accepted interpretation by the "truly reformed" crowd.
In the end, though, can’t we simply in love debate these doctrines? Can’t we say "You know, I believe the WCF may be wrong in not allowing for paedocommunion." Can’t we use language that may be different that the WCF (especially if it is Biblical language??!!) Can’t we just sometimes agree to disagree and continue to be brothers? Can’t we sometimes learn from each other – as iron sharpens iron? Do we have to immediately condemn our brother whenever he says things in words different from what we might choose to use? Again, I think this is all just so sad.
Now, as I said earlier, I came across the name of Rich Lusk in my studies. Later, when we began searching for a full time pastor, his name came up. I did further research. I spoke with him on the phone at length. I drove to Monroe with two others from our congregation to meet him and his family and to hear him preach. (He was then Assistant Pastor at Auburn Avenue). I specifically asked him questions such as "Are you a five point Calvinist" and other pertinent topics. Not only I, but virtually our whole congregation was sold on him. He graciously agreed to become our pastor in 2004, and we have slowly, but steadily grown in numbers and in maturity. (As of 2003 our congregation was on the verge of disbanding, with only a tiny handful of families left. We are now strong and vibrant).
Btw, just this past week, and this was not an aberration but just the latest example, Pastor Lusk went to great lengths in his sermon to explain that our justification is by faith and not works. Hmmm. Strange from a guy who denies that truth!
I have sat under his teaching now for almost three years. I have learned so much. I have seen this "Dark Auburn Avenue" theology bring so much light and fruit. We have a congregation where everyone loves each other. We have a congregation that is beginning to become active in the community. You will know them by their fruits.
So, I invite anyone who has a problem with this ‘dark’ theology to simply come and visit us at any time. Hear the joyful singing. Hear the heartfelt confession. Hear the hearty shouts of "Amen!" and "Thanks be to God!" Celebrate communion with our Lord and with each other. Hear God’s word preached. Come on, I dare you!
Friday, August 10, 2007
Latest musical recommendation
Ok, my weekly music recommendation has turned into an every once in a while recommendation. But, here goes another installment. Like most things, I tend to get wordy and that’s why I post so infrequently – who has the time to write this much?
I would like to discuss an artist that I have listened to for many years. The man is known by numerous monikers including The Belfast Cowboy and Van the Man. I am speaking, of course, of Van Morrison.
Whether or not you know the name or are very familiar at all with his work, I know you know a couple of his tunes, at least. His late sixties top ten hit "Brown Eyed Girl" has to be one of the most aired songs in radio history. Other radio hits include 1970’s "Moondance" and "Domino." He also had something of a hit with "Wild Night" (redone back in the 1990’s by John Mellencamp and some chick whose name I can’t pronounce or spell). His 1989 song "Have I Told You Lately" was re-recorded by Rod Stewart in the 1990s and was a big hit.
Van has worked with some of the greatest as well. This includes Ray Charles, B. B. King, John Lee Hooker, The Chieftans, Bob Dylan, and others. His songs have been in numerous movies. He also has several books about his life – I think he detests these!
Van has a reputation of being difficult. He has walked out on shows. He has walked out on interviews. I once read an interview of him and it was filled with vulgarity – almost to the point of making me not want to listen to his music anymore. This bad temper and personality is puzzling to some because frequently Van writes and records songs with an apparant Christian theme. A few examples of these are "Full Force Gale," "Whenever God Shines His Light," "When Will I Ever Learn to Live in God," "Give Me My Rapture," and so on. However, to put these songs into perspective, you have to know the context in which he writes. I do not pretend to know the inner workings of the man, but I can speculate quite a bit based on what I do know of him.
One other thing you may or may not know about Van is that one of the greatest garage band songs of all time was penned by no other than Van the Man. After spending his youth in the fifties and early sixties playing various music scenes (most notably as a saxophonist with the band The Monarchs), Van was part of the rock band Them, which was a minor part of the British Invasion of 1964-65. (Ok, so they weren’t the Beatles!) They scored some hits with "Here Comes the Night," and "Baby Please Don’t Go." (The latter of which I know I heard in a movie soundtrack once, but I do not recall the movie.) However, their most notable hit was the Morrison penned "Gloria." This is the song where the chorus has the lead singer spell out the name G—L—O—R—I—A-A-A-A-A-A as the background singers belt out "Gloria." Shortly after Them scored with the song, another British Invasion Band (I don’t recall their name), scored a hit with it also. Later the song was done by the likes of The Doors, and Jimi Hendrix. Probably every garage band in the 60s-80s also worked this song. Give Van credit. Even at his most shallow, he can write a mean tune!
But the problem with Van in terms of radio success (he’s had a pretty steady career for over forty years, but only a handful of songs ever find radio airplay) is that he is not usually shallow. He is often deep. The roots of that depth have to be discussed.
To understand something about Van, you have to consider where he came from. Belfast Northern Ireland is a town filled with spiritual anxiety. This is the hotbed of Catholic/Protestant tension. Van has stated that this tension was not really in the form of violence when he was growing up, but it has since gone that route. However, certainly the background of Catholic/Protestant tension can cause one to wander spiritually if one is a spiritual wanderer by nature, especially if one does not have his anchor down very firmly. Van’s father, I believe, was not necessarily religious. But, to add confusion to the already confused state, Van’s mother converted to the Jehovah’s Witness. She used to drag him to the meetings (his father apparantly did not go). Van has written about this in the song "Kingdom Hall" on the 1978 album "Wavelength."
So, we have a not particularly religious father, a Jehovah’s Witness mother, in a land filled with Protestant/Catholic strife. Add to that the fact that evidently Van is a natural wanderer filled with a literary, spiritual, and philosophical keenness and curiosity and you have a potential for some fairly interesting outcomes. Compound all of this with the fact that the British Isles as a whole, including specifically Ireland, have a wide and varied religious history that have included everything from the very pagan Druids to Reformed Christianity. In the midst of all of this, the Isles have so many legends and lore that often times mix and match the various religious cultures. There are all sorts of Christian and pseudo-Christian stories in the history of the Isles. We can think of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, Camelot, Avalon, the Holy Grail, etc. Much of this has ties to the history of the Church. Some of this is nothing more than fable. Van has tapped into this history and mythology and it comes through frequently in his music.
The great British, and particularly Irish poets, philosophers, and other writers have always been attracted to the spiritual meandering that have gone on throughout the history of the Isles. Van is no exception. However, what makes him stand out from say, Keats, is that Van’s poetry, philosophy, and religious groanings are carried out in the form of recorded music.
Speaking of the music, this brings us to exactly what influence his father did have on him. If his father had little of no influence on Van’s spiritual journeys (of course he HAD to have some influence one way or the other), his biggest influence on the young Van was musical. Van’s father was a collector of records. He had everything from Jazz to Hank Williams. Van grew up with this all around him. Particularly, American R&B, early Rock and Roll, and Country (such as Williams) shaped Van’s taste and style. I have heard him indicate that probably Ray Charles was the single biggest influence on him musically. It is obvious that he had a love for much of the early rock music such as Fats Domino, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, etc. Other influences included black gospel music, traditional Irish music, and so on.
So, in the end what you have in Van is a man of deep literary, poetic, philosophical, and spiritual yearnings, playing music inspired by a range of styles from Irish folk to Jazz to R&B to Rock and Roll to gospel to Country. In his forty plus year career, variations of all this comes out again and again. Sometimes he makes an album that has virtually no deep thoughts but is filled with music inspired by the likes of the early R&B performers. At other times he writes and records music and lyrics that are almost other-worldly. At other times he betrays his depth by simply name dropping in his songs. It would be interesting to see a complete list of names he has mentioned in his songs throughout the years. They would include, just as a starting place, all of the names already mentioned above as well as Mahalia Jackson, Jackie Wilson, Wilson Pickett, James Brown, Gene Chandler, Edith Piaf, Oscar Wilde, James Joyce, Henry David Thoreah, Jack Keroack (sp?), Chet Baker, and many, many others.
So, where does one start if one wants to explore this long and varied career? If you have little or no knowledge of Van’s music, the place to start would be with "The Best of Van Morrison". Be careful – there is now three volumes of TBOVM and specifically the one I am talking about is the first. On top of this, there are several variations of early Van music that carry the "Best of" moniker. This is not to say that the others are not good. It’s just that as a starting place in understanding his music and to have his most familiar tunes, this is the place to start. This is a twenty song set that includes the aforementioned "Gloria", "Brown Eyed Girl", "Here Comes the Night," "Baby Please Don’t Go," "Brown Eyed Girl," "Domino," "Have I Told You Lately," "Wild Night," "Whenever God…" "Moondance," and "Full Force Gale" not to mention some other gems such as "Bright Side of the Road," and "Cleaning Windows." This collection barely scratches his deeper stuff. But it does cover almost all of his radio hits and some of the other catchier, if lighter, fair of his career. The disc seems to span from his days with Them in the mid 1960s, through 1989s "Avalon Sunset" album.
The Best of – Vol 2 might be a good compendium to have as well. It covers virtually the same territory, though released a couple of years later and containing a few songs from the two new albums he put out in the meantime. Vol 2 does seem to get into some of the deeper, spiritual stuff. The fifteen songs (many are longer than the average song on Vol 1) include "When Will I Ever…", "In the Garden," "A Sense of Wonder," "Hymns to the Silence", "The Mystery," and "Enlightenment" Just looking at the song titles tells you that most of this stuff is more spiritual and philosophical than "Baby Please don’t Go" and "Wild Night". The Best of – Vol 3 seems a bit more spotty even though it is a two disc, 31 song collection that has just recently come out.
Beyond this, it would be a huge debate as to where one should start. Simply looking at his solo career, there are so many various styles and forms represented in his music that one could hardly represent to someone what the best single album would be. Some Van fans absolutely insist that "Astral Weeks" is not only the pinnacle of his work, but is the greatest recording ever. Other people find it unlistenable for a variety of reasons. Others seem to indicate that the Album "Moondance" is his greatest, while others feel like it is a weak effort at lounge lizard jazz. Some people praise to the hilt every new album he comes out with as his best ever, or the best since "Astral Weeks" or "Moondance" or whatever their other favorite is. Others pan all his newer albums and say that only his older stuff is good. So, to add to the confusion, here is very briefly one man’s opinion.
After the Them years, he struggled for a time, eventually having his biggest hit "Brown Eyed Girl." (BEG) Though this song seems more or less standard light pop flair, it was not without controversy. Apparantly he originally titled it "Brown Skinned Girl" but the record company did not want to release a white as paste singer singing about "Making love in the green grass, behind the stadium with you, my brown skinned girl"!! This was 1967. An album of mixed stuff was relaesed with it and has been reissued with various names numerous times since then. One of the songs on the album was called "T.B. Sheets" It was about an 8-9 minute whine about Van visiting a friend dying of T.B. Uplifting stuff!
The BEG album was followed by the album "Astral Weeks" (AW) which was anything but standard pop tunage. AW is sureal, other worldly, dreamy – weird. It defies any and all musical genres. It is not rock. It is not folk. It is not country. It is not traditional celtic, or jazz, or gospel, or classical, or anything we can think of. It has elements of all of these. At times it comes real close to standard jazz e.g. "The Way Young Lovers Do." Other times it is indescribable e.g. the title song. The record was recorded quickly using experienced studio musicians. It is unpolished. There are mistakes on it. Supposedly, the original recording included tons of extended instrumental jams in the middle of many of the songs, but for time sake these were cut out, and have never been heard since. The songs are sentimental, poetic, philosophical, spiritual, eerie. The album makes many rock critics list of top albums of the rock era, but in the 40 years since its release, it may still not even be a gold album. Most novices would immediately turn their noses up to it, and their ears away from it. It is not accessible so to speak. But, for the advanced fan, it is good stuff. I just ain’t for everybody. "Sweet Thing" from this album is on Best of Vol 1.
Somewhere during the late sixties, possibly between BEG and AW, Van had major problems with the record industry. He was contractually bound to produce an album, and he did not like the terms of it. In a fit of anger, he recorded dozens of little sensless soundbites of one or one and a half minutes. This was more or less giving the record company the bird. In their eternal wisdom, record companies have taken those jokes of recordings and re-released them in CD format and marketed them as early Van recordings. You can find it now under the title of "The Bang Sessions" All the sound bites are simply titled "Jamming Sessions" but they are mostly just Van repeatedly strumming the guitar and singing sensless lyrics. The stuff they won’t sell!!! Forty years later, nearly every album he releases has at least one, if not more, songs negatively portraying the record industry.
Now, after AW his next big recording was the album "Moondance"(MD)in 1970. Although containing the great song "Into the Mystic," the album as a whole was far less mystical than AW. The title song is swinging jazz. There are several standard pop-rock tunes. On the whole, the album is far more accesible than AW. MD was followed by "His Band and the Street Choir" also 1970. This contained the big hit "Domino" as well as the smaller hit "Blue Money." Other than the Best of Vol 1, I would send the novice to this album as a starting point. Not a whole lot of deep spiritual meandering here. A lot of good, R&B, horn driven music. If you know the song "Domino," this is an album full of "Dominos." "Give Me A Kiss", "I’ve Been Working," and "Virgo Clowns" stand out as catchy. The slow soft "I’ll Be Your Lover Too" is beautiful and is reminescient of AW, only more polished and easier to listen to. Not really a bad song on the disc, though some are better than others.
"Street Choir" was followed by 1971’s "Tupelo Honey" (TH.) this contained, in addition to the title song, "Wild Night" and the beautiful "You’re My Woman." For the most part this is a peaceful, fairly happy sounding record. Van was married, incidently, to some hippie chick named Janet Planet during the MD, Street Choir, and TH years and most of the music sounds relatively upbeat. However, shortly thereafter the marriage started to break up and the music began having some darker nooks and crannies again.
1972’s "St. Dominic’s Preview" (SDP) had the very bright "Jackie Wilson Said" and "I Will be There" but also contained an 11 minute scorcher called "Listen to the Lion" where Van seems to be purging himself of some difficult feelings. Btw, at this time, I would say, I do recommend not only Street Choir, but MD, TH, and SDP. They are all good in their own way.
The follow-up, however, was called "Hard Nose to the Highway" and was probably the most forgetable Van recording yet. Not without any merit ("Warm Love" as seen on Best of Vol 1) on the whole more or less a mundane album.
The next recording is probably the most mixed reviewed album of his career. "Veeden Fleece" VF (1974) is sometimes referred to as the ‘divorce album" because either the divorce was finalized or at least in progress during the writing/recording of it. Some reviewers say stay completely away from this one. Others start with the "best since AW" type language. It is perhaps the most AW like of any of his other recordings. However, it is far more polished in sound, and at times is someone lighthearted – though heavy at others. Although the song makes no sense to me, Vans singing in "Linden Arden Stole the Highlights" is some of his best. "Comfort You" is one of his most beautiful ballads. In my opinion a good, at times great, album – but not for everyone.
Other than a live recording, Van did not release another record until 1977’s "A Period of Transition." (APOT) In retrospect, this is not a bad album. It is definitely not his best but it is not bad. But, it was a huge disappointment. Van had been gone for three years, came back with an album called "APOT" on which he worked with the great New Orleans musician Dr. John. People were expecting great things. When they got good, not great, it fell flat. "Cold Wind in August" though is a beautiful tune.
1978’s Wavelength was again an uneven work. No truly great song on there. Some good songs. Some poor songs. "Kingdom Hall" is very catchy, but the rest of the work falls short.
So, by 1979 it had been several years since a superb recording by Van had been done. That year, though, marked a true comeback and a true period of transition. "Into the Music" (ITM) is perhaps my favorite Van recording. Mostly acoustic with light woodwinds, violins (ok, fiddles) understated drumming, yet somehow still rocking R&B. "Full Force Gail", "Bright Side of the Road" – these are truly fun songs. The second half gets downright serious though. "And The Healing Has Begun" is – well what can I say – to me at least, sexy
Girl, put on your summery dress,
your Easter bonnet and all the rest,
And I want to make love to you yes, yes yes
And the Healing has begun
Cool stuff. The last song is a remake of a very old song that has been done numerous times in the past – "It’s all in the Game" Vans rendition is the best I’ve heard.
1980’s "Common One" (CO) is, next to VF the receiver of the most mixed of reviews, and next to AW is the most inaccepsible album of his career. Notice how the very accepssible ITM is followed by an inaccesible recording. CO is stranger, deeper, darker, than most of the others. "Haunts of Ancient Peace" opens up with images of that old British folklore spoken of earlier. "Summertime in England" is a fifteen minute alternating song that I personally like, though I think I would be in the minority. The last song, "When Heart is Open" is a poem set to mystical musical sounds with very little melody or rhythm. It is odd, but I like it every once in a great while if I can listen to it in the dark with a good glass of wine in hand.
This album, though, set the tone for most of the 1980s. Most of the recordings during that time were searching, spiritual, and philosophical. Some were really good, some were not (The worst in my opinion is 1982s "Inarticulate Speech of the Heart" – this is probably the last Van recording you need to buy – only when you have exhausted all other options) Most during this time though were mixed bags. "A Sense of Wonder" has some great songs like "Ancient of Days" and "The Masters Eyes" but it also has its share of filler. The Album "No Guru, No Method, No Teacher" has some of the best lyrics, and some of the best arrangements of any Van recording, but yet his voice just somehow doesn’t fit and there is a lot lacking in melodies. "In the Garden" from that album, though is certainly in my top ten Van songs of all time.
Also of note from the 1980s is Vans recording with the Chieftans of traditional Irish music. In addition to a couple of reworked Van originals, there are some older Irish folk songs. My personal favorite of the bunch is "Carrickfergus" Vans vocals are outstanding.
The 80s closed out with Avalon Sunset – one of the easiest listening records of his career – including the hits "Have I Told You…" "When Will I Ever…"and "Whenever God..." the 90s opened up with "Enlightenment" which combined some of the spiritual meanerings of his 80s recordings with a little more R&B style. It is mostly good. This phase of his career ened with 1991’s double LP "Hymns to the Silence" (HTTS) The title song is also one of his ten best in my opinion. However, I describe this work as one really really great CD spread out over two CDs. That is, it is half great, half filler. A little musical editing would have been in order.
The next recording was "Too Long in Exile" This too gets very mixed reviews. The guy at one of the major Van websites panned this one heavily saying Van should have just stayed home. However, it is one of my favorites. Van returns to his R&B roots – redoing a Ray Charles song, recording a new version of "Gloria" with John Lee Hooker, an original bluesy duet "Wasted Years" also with Hooker. A fifteen minute take on Brook Bentons "I’ll Take Care of You" finishes it off. I recommend this one.
Since that time, Van has oscillated between releasing more of the same R&B flavored original recordings along with some specialty recordings. That is, Van has released a Big Band Jazz Album ("How Long Has This Been Going On") Two Country Albums (One with Jerry Lee Lewis’ sister for some unknown reason, and the recently released "Pay the Devil") and an album of skiffle music. I have limited exposure to only a couple of his albums from the last decade or so so I feel limited on what I can say.
In the end, then, buy 1) Best of Vol 1, 2) Street Choir 3) Into the Music and 4) Best of Vol 2, Too Long IN Exile. If you like it, keep going there are about fifty more. If you don’t like it, then stop after Best of Vol 1!
Van being inducted into the songwriters hall of fame (with Ray Charles)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bbLDFDfdc0
Van and John Lee Hooker doing "Gloria"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRlVE2pNQ-s
Van doing "tupelo Honey" ~1979
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZUbjFCvlC0
I would like to discuss an artist that I have listened to for many years. The man is known by numerous monikers including The Belfast Cowboy and Van the Man. I am speaking, of course, of Van Morrison.
Whether or not you know the name or are very familiar at all with his work, I know you know a couple of his tunes, at least. His late sixties top ten hit "Brown Eyed Girl" has to be one of the most aired songs in radio history. Other radio hits include 1970’s "Moondance" and "Domino." He also had something of a hit with "Wild Night" (redone back in the 1990’s by John Mellencamp and some chick whose name I can’t pronounce or spell). His 1989 song "Have I Told You Lately" was re-recorded by Rod Stewart in the 1990s and was a big hit.
Van has worked with some of the greatest as well. This includes Ray Charles, B. B. King, John Lee Hooker, The Chieftans, Bob Dylan, and others. His songs have been in numerous movies. He also has several books about his life – I think he detests these!
Van has a reputation of being difficult. He has walked out on shows. He has walked out on interviews. I once read an interview of him and it was filled with vulgarity – almost to the point of making me not want to listen to his music anymore. This bad temper and personality is puzzling to some because frequently Van writes and records songs with an apparant Christian theme. A few examples of these are "Full Force Gale," "Whenever God Shines His Light," "When Will I Ever Learn to Live in God," "Give Me My Rapture," and so on. However, to put these songs into perspective, you have to know the context in which he writes. I do not pretend to know the inner workings of the man, but I can speculate quite a bit based on what I do know of him.
One other thing you may or may not know about Van is that one of the greatest garage band songs of all time was penned by no other than Van the Man. After spending his youth in the fifties and early sixties playing various music scenes (most notably as a saxophonist with the band The Monarchs), Van was part of the rock band Them, which was a minor part of the British Invasion of 1964-65. (Ok, so they weren’t the Beatles!) They scored some hits with "Here Comes the Night," and "Baby Please Don’t Go." (The latter of which I know I heard in a movie soundtrack once, but I do not recall the movie.) However, their most notable hit was the Morrison penned "Gloria." This is the song where the chorus has the lead singer spell out the name G—L—O—R—I—A-A-A-A-A-A as the background singers belt out "Gloria." Shortly after Them scored with the song, another British Invasion Band (I don’t recall their name), scored a hit with it also. Later the song was done by the likes of The Doors, and Jimi Hendrix. Probably every garage band in the 60s-80s also worked this song. Give Van credit. Even at his most shallow, he can write a mean tune!
But the problem with Van in terms of radio success (he’s had a pretty steady career for over forty years, but only a handful of songs ever find radio airplay) is that he is not usually shallow. He is often deep. The roots of that depth have to be discussed.
To understand something about Van, you have to consider where he came from. Belfast Northern Ireland is a town filled with spiritual anxiety. This is the hotbed of Catholic/Protestant tension. Van has stated that this tension was not really in the form of violence when he was growing up, but it has since gone that route. However, certainly the background of Catholic/Protestant tension can cause one to wander spiritually if one is a spiritual wanderer by nature, especially if one does not have his anchor down very firmly. Van’s father, I believe, was not necessarily religious. But, to add confusion to the already confused state, Van’s mother converted to the Jehovah’s Witness. She used to drag him to the meetings (his father apparantly did not go). Van has written about this in the song "Kingdom Hall" on the 1978 album "Wavelength."
So, we have a not particularly religious father, a Jehovah’s Witness mother, in a land filled with Protestant/Catholic strife. Add to that the fact that evidently Van is a natural wanderer filled with a literary, spiritual, and philosophical keenness and curiosity and you have a potential for some fairly interesting outcomes. Compound all of this with the fact that the British Isles as a whole, including specifically Ireland, have a wide and varied religious history that have included everything from the very pagan Druids to Reformed Christianity. In the midst of all of this, the Isles have so many legends and lore that often times mix and match the various religious cultures. There are all sorts of Christian and pseudo-Christian stories in the history of the Isles. We can think of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, Camelot, Avalon, the Holy Grail, etc. Much of this has ties to the history of the Church. Some of this is nothing more than fable. Van has tapped into this history and mythology and it comes through frequently in his music.
The great British, and particularly Irish poets, philosophers, and other writers have always been attracted to the spiritual meandering that have gone on throughout the history of the Isles. Van is no exception. However, what makes him stand out from say, Keats, is that Van’s poetry, philosophy, and religious groanings are carried out in the form of recorded music.
Speaking of the music, this brings us to exactly what influence his father did have on him. If his father had little of no influence on Van’s spiritual journeys (of course he HAD to have some influence one way or the other), his biggest influence on the young Van was musical. Van’s father was a collector of records. He had everything from Jazz to Hank Williams. Van grew up with this all around him. Particularly, American R&B, early Rock and Roll, and Country (such as Williams) shaped Van’s taste and style. I have heard him indicate that probably Ray Charles was the single biggest influence on him musically. It is obvious that he had a love for much of the early rock music such as Fats Domino, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, etc. Other influences included black gospel music, traditional Irish music, and so on.
So, in the end what you have in Van is a man of deep literary, poetic, philosophical, and spiritual yearnings, playing music inspired by a range of styles from Irish folk to Jazz to R&B to Rock and Roll to gospel to Country. In his forty plus year career, variations of all this comes out again and again. Sometimes he makes an album that has virtually no deep thoughts but is filled with music inspired by the likes of the early R&B performers. At other times he writes and records music and lyrics that are almost other-worldly. At other times he betrays his depth by simply name dropping in his songs. It would be interesting to see a complete list of names he has mentioned in his songs throughout the years. They would include, just as a starting place, all of the names already mentioned above as well as Mahalia Jackson, Jackie Wilson, Wilson Pickett, James Brown, Gene Chandler, Edith Piaf, Oscar Wilde, James Joyce, Henry David Thoreah, Jack Keroack (sp?), Chet Baker, and many, many others.
So, where does one start if one wants to explore this long and varied career? If you have little or no knowledge of Van’s music, the place to start would be with "The Best of Van Morrison". Be careful – there is now three volumes of TBOVM and specifically the one I am talking about is the first. On top of this, there are several variations of early Van music that carry the "Best of" moniker. This is not to say that the others are not good. It’s just that as a starting place in understanding his music and to have his most familiar tunes, this is the place to start. This is a twenty song set that includes the aforementioned "Gloria", "Brown Eyed Girl", "Here Comes the Night," "Baby Please Don’t Go," "Brown Eyed Girl," "Domino," "Have I Told You Lately," "Wild Night," "Whenever God…" "Moondance," and "Full Force Gale" not to mention some other gems such as "Bright Side of the Road," and "Cleaning Windows." This collection barely scratches his deeper stuff. But it does cover almost all of his radio hits and some of the other catchier, if lighter, fair of his career. The disc seems to span from his days with Them in the mid 1960s, through 1989s "Avalon Sunset" album.
The Best of – Vol 2 might be a good compendium to have as well. It covers virtually the same territory, though released a couple of years later and containing a few songs from the two new albums he put out in the meantime. Vol 2 does seem to get into some of the deeper, spiritual stuff. The fifteen songs (many are longer than the average song on Vol 1) include "When Will I Ever…", "In the Garden," "A Sense of Wonder," "Hymns to the Silence", "The Mystery," and "Enlightenment" Just looking at the song titles tells you that most of this stuff is more spiritual and philosophical than "Baby Please don’t Go" and "Wild Night". The Best of – Vol 3 seems a bit more spotty even though it is a two disc, 31 song collection that has just recently come out.
Beyond this, it would be a huge debate as to where one should start. Simply looking at his solo career, there are so many various styles and forms represented in his music that one could hardly represent to someone what the best single album would be. Some Van fans absolutely insist that "Astral Weeks" is not only the pinnacle of his work, but is the greatest recording ever. Other people find it unlistenable for a variety of reasons. Others seem to indicate that the Album "Moondance" is his greatest, while others feel like it is a weak effort at lounge lizard jazz. Some people praise to the hilt every new album he comes out with as his best ever, or the best since "Astral Weeks" or "Moondance" or whatever their other favorite is. Others pan all his newer albums and say that only his older stuff is good. So, to add to the confusion, here is very briefly one man’s opinion.
After the Them years, he struggled for a time, eventually having his biggest hit "Brown Eyed Girl." (BEG) Though this song seems more or less standard light pop flair, it was not without controversy. Apparantly he originally titled it "Brown Skinned Girl" but the record company did not want to release a white as paste singer singing about "Making love in the green grass, behind the stadium with you, my brown skinned girl"!! This was 1967. An album of mixed stuff was relaesed with it and has been reissued with various names numerous times since then. One of the songs on the album was called "T.B. Sheets" It was about an 8-9 minute whine about Van visiting a friend dying of T.B. Uplifting stuff!
The BEG album was followed by the album "Astral Weeks" (AW) which was anything but standard pop tunage. AW is sureal, other worldly, dreamy – weird. It defies any and all musical genres. It is not rock. It is not folk. It is not country. It is not traditional celtic, or jazz, or gospel, or classical, or anything we can think of. It has elements of all of these. At times it comes real close to standard jazz e.g. "The Way Young Lovers Do." Other times it is indescribable e.g. the title song. The record was recorded quickly using experienced studio musicians. It is unpolished. There are mistakes on it. Supposedly, the original recording included tons of extended instrumental jams in the middle of many of the songs, but for time sake these were cut out, and have never been heard since. The songs are sentimental, poetic, philosophical, spiritual, eerie. The album makes many rock critics list of top albums of the rock era, but in the 40 years since its release, it may still not even be a gold album. Most novices would immediately turn their noses up to it, and their ears away from it. It is not accessible so to speak. But, for the advanced fan, it is good stuff. I just ain’t for everybody. "Sweet Thing" from this album is on Best of Vol 1.
Somewhere during the late sixties, possibly between BEG and AW, Van had major problems with the record industry. He was contractually bound to produce an album, and he did not like the terms of it. In a fit of anger, he recorded dozens of little sensless soundbites of one or one and a half minutes. This was more or less giving the record company the bird. In their eternal wisdom, record companies have taken those jokes of recordings and re-released them in CD format and marketed them as early Van recordings. You can find it now under the title of "The Bang Sessions" All the sound bites are simply titled "Jamming Sessions" but they are mostly just Van repeatedly strumming the guitar and singing sensless lyrics. The stuff they won’t sell!!! Forty years later, nearly every album he releases has at least one, if not more, songs negatively portraying the record industry.
Now, after AW his next big recording was the album "Moondance"(MD)in 1970. Although containing the great song "Into the Mystic," the album as a whole was far less mystical than AW. The title song is swinging jazz. There are several standard pop-rock tunes. On the whole, the album is far more accesible than AW. MD was followed by "His Band and the Street Choir" also 1970. This contained the big hit "Domino" as well as the smaller hit "Blue Money." Other than the Best of Vol 1, I would send the novice to this album as a starting point. Not a whole lot of deep spiritual meandering here. A lot of good, R&B, horn driven music. If you know the song "Domino," this is an album full of "Dominos." "Give Me A Kiss", "I’ve Been Working," and "Virgo Clowns" stand out as catchy. The slow soft "I’ll Be Your Lover Too" is beautiful and is reminescient of AW, only more polished and easier to listen to. Not really a bad song on the disc, though some are better than others.
"Street Choir" was followed by 1971’s "Tupelo Honey" (TH.) this contained, in addition to the title song, "Wild Night" and the beautiful "You’re My Woman." For the most part this is a peaceful, fairly happy sounding record. Van was married, incidently, to some hippie chick named Janet Planet during the MD, Street Choir, and TH years and most of the music sounds relatively upbeat. However, shortly thereafter the marriage started to break up and the music began having some darker nooks and crannies again.
1972’s "St. Dominic’s Preview" (SDP) had the very bright "Jackie Wilson Said" and "I Will be There" but also contained an 11 minute scorcher called "Listen to the Lion" where Van seems to be purging himself of some difficult feelings. Btw, at this time, I would say, I do recommend not only Street Choir, but MD, TH, and SDP. They are all good in their own way.
The follow-up, however, was called "Hard Nose to the Highway" and was probably the most forgetable Van recording yet. Not without any merit ("Warm Love" as seen on Best of Vol 1) on the whole more or less a mundane album.
The next recording is probably the most mixed reviewed album of his career. "Veeden Fleece" VF (1974) is sometimes referred to as the ‘divorce album" because either the divorce was finalized or at least in progress during the writing/recording of it. Some reviewers say stay completely away from this one. Others start with the "best since AW" type language. It is perhaps the most AW like of any of his other recordings. However, it is far more polished in sound, and at times is someone lighthearted – though heavy at others. Although the song makes no sense to me, Vans singing in "Linden Arden Stole the Highlights" is some of his best. "Comfort You" is one of his most beautiful ballads. In my opinion a good, at times great, album – but not for everyone.
Other than a live recording, Van did not release another record until 1977’s "A Period of Transition." (APOT) In retrospect, this is not a bad album. It is definitely not his best but it is not bad. But, it was a huge disappointment. Van had been gone for three years, came back with an album called "APOT" on which he worked with the great New Orleans musician Dr. John. People were expecting great things. When they got good, not great, it fell flat. "Cold Wind in August" though is a beautiful tune.
1978’s Wavelength was again an uneven work. No truly great song on there. Some good songs. Some poor songs. "Kingdom Hall" is very catchy, but the rest of the work falls short.
So, by 1979 it had been several years since a superb recording by Van had been done. That year, though, marked a true comeback and a true period of transition. "Into the Music" (ITM) is perhaps my favorite Van recording. Mostly acoustic with light woodwinds, violins (ok, fiddles) understated drumming, yet somehow still rocking R&B. "Full Force Gail", "Bright Side of the Road" – these are truly fun songs. The second half gets downright serious though. "And The Healing Has Begun" is – well what can I say – to me at least, sexy
Girl, put on your summery dress,
your Easter bonnet and all the rest,
And I want to make love to you yes, yes yes
And the Healing has begun
Cool stuff. The last song is a remake of a very old song that has been done numerous times in the past – "It’s all in the Game" Vans rendition is the best I’ve heard.
1980’s "Common One" (CO) is, next to VF the receiver of the most mixed of reviews, and next to AW is the most inaccepsible album of his career. Notice how the very accepssible ITM is followed by an inaccesible recording. CO is stranger, deeper, darker, than most of the others. "Haunts of Ancient Peace" opens up with images of that old British folklore spoken of earlier. "Summertime in England" is a fifteen minute alternating song that I personally like, though I think I would be in the minority. The last song, "When Heart is Open" is a poem set to mystical musical sounds with very little melody or rhythm. It is odd, but I like it every once in a great while if I can listen to it in the dark with a good glass of wine in hand.
This album, though, set the tone for most of the 1980s. Most of the recordings during that time were searching, spiritual, and philosophical. Some were really good, some were not (The worst in my opinion is 1982s "Inarticulate Speech of the Heart" – this is probably the last Van recording you need to buy – only when you have exhausted all other options) Most during this time though were mixed bags. "A Sense of Wonder" has some great songs like "Ancient of Days" and "The Masters Eyes" but it also has its share of filler. The Album "No Guru, No Method, No Teacher" has some of the best lyrics, and some of the best arrangements of any Van recording, but yet his voice just somehow doesn’t fit and there is a lot lacking in melodies. "In the Garden" from that album, though is certainly in my top ten Van songs of all time.
Also of note from the 1980s is Vans recording with the Chieftans of traditional Irish music. In addition to a couple of reworked Van originals, there are some older Irish folk songs. My personal favorite of the bunch is "Carrickfergus" Vans vocals are outstanding.
The 80s closed out with Avalon Sunset – one of the easiest listening records of his career – including the hits "Have I Told You…" "When Will I Ever…"and "Whenever God..." the 90s opened up with "Enlightenment" which combined some of the spiritual meanerings of his 80s recordings with a little more R&B style. It is mostly good. This phase of his career ened with 1991’s double LP "Hymns to the Silence" (HTTS) The title song is also one of his ten best in my opinion. However, I describe this work as one really really great CD spread out over two CDs. That is, it is half great, half filler. A little musical editing would have been in order.
The next recording was "Too Long in Exile" This too gets very mixed reviews. The guy at one of the major Van websites panned this one heavily saying Van should have just stayed home. However, it is one of my favorites. Van returns to his R&B roots – redoing a Ray Charles song, recording a new version of "Gloria" with John Lee Hooker, an original bluesy duet "Wasted Years" also with Hooker. A fifteen minute take on Brook Bentons "I’ll Take Care of You" finishes it off. I recommend this one.
Since that time, Van has oscillated between releasing more of the same R&B flavored original recordings along with some specialty recordings. That is, Van has released a Big Band Jazz Album ("How Long Has This Been Going On") Two Country Albums (One with Jerry Lee Lewis’ sister for some unknown reason, and the recently released "Pay the Devil") and an album of skiffle music. I have limited exposure to only a couple of his albums from the last decade or so so I feel limited on what I can say.
In the end, then, buy 1) Best of Vol 1, 2) Street Choir 3) Into the Music and 4) Best of Vol 2, Too Long IN Exile. If you like it, keep going there are about fifty more. If you don’t like it, then stop after Best of Vol 1!
Van being inducted into the songwriters hall of fame (with Ray Charles)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bbLDFDfdc0
Van and John Lee Hooker doing "Gloria"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRlVE2pNQ-s
Van doing "tupelo Honey" ~1979
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZUbjFCvlC0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
