A Redneck on Aquinas

टेस्टिंग टेस्टिंग

2008-09-05T19:36:00.001-07:00

सींग इफ थिस वोर्क्स.

The Icon and the Axe

2008-09-03T18:44:00.000-07:00

This is in line with my recent posts on Eastern theology.

This summer I saw my foundations crumble. After reading loads of Milbank, James Smith, and David Hart, I began to do to my own system what Van Til did to unbelieving systems: I applied a presuppositional analysis to it. While I stand in the Reformational tradition, many of the arguments the Reformed folk use against FV and NPP can just as easily be applied to the Reformed tradition.

I began reading the Eastern guys. I was amazed at how robust and matter-affirming their worldview was. Gone was the gnosticism and false "spiritualizing the text" that plagued Reformed thought. They took concepts like the Incarnation and vindicated all of God's created order. Instead of "Creation-Fall-Redemption," it is "Creation, Incarnation, Re-creation."

Then there is Russia. It is evident that US Foreign Policy is both imperial and revolutinary. Russia's actions, on the other hand, demonstrate it stands for the old order, the ancien regime, the Order of Westphalia. All of the arguments the neo-con imperials use against Russia can be as equally applied to neo-conism with devastating affect. Russia, not America, stands in the best position to oppose the Christ-haters in the EU, deal decisive blows to Islam*, and restored aspects of the old Christendom. See any of the posts by Dr Srda Trifkovic.

I took the title of this post from a neat book on Russian culture.

*Many would think that the US invasion of Iraq is opposing Islam. This is not true. The US might oppose Islam in the Middle East. It supports it everywhere else in the world.

More thoughts on Russia

2008-09-01T04:22:00.000-07:00

Why is is that US-trained Georgian troops can shell cities but Russians are the bad guys when they respond to attacks on ethnic Russians?

Compare NATO and Russia's view of war:

NATO: spreading the gospel (e.g., democracy) by force across the world

Russia: "With its reaction to the Georgian aggression, Russia has set a certain standard of responding that fully complies with international law," Lavrov said. Russian soldiers, he said, followed "our deeply Christian tradition of dying for our friends."

At the Corner of East and

2008-08-31T04:50:00.000-07:00

A few people on Facebook wondered if I would go to Constantinople. Probably not. I did meet with an Orthodox priest the other day, though. Here are my thoughts on the East:

They have a powerful response to Gnosticism. When many in the West (both Rome and Calvinists, but mainly modern day Calvinists) are "spiritualizing" the faith, the East stresses the concrete, the material.
They understand that the Christian faith is not reducible to mental recollections. Thus their beautiful architecture (which is simply the book of Revelation put in concrete form).
While I cannot go with Icons in a worship service, I have seen that most Protestants responses to Icons (see Puritanboard.com) usually employ some form of Christological heresy. I appreciate the fact that the Icon is used to "see" elsewhere. I have an Icon of Prince St Lazar on my Computer screen.

But I have a few differences with them. But this isn't the place for them. Calvinists spend way too much time focusing on how they disagree with everybody. That won' be me (except when I get to bash the Republican Party!).

At the end of the day I still lean to the West. It is my hope that in my mind I can reunite them (if momentarily and on a cultural level).

I guess what kept me West--and if you asked me where I am--would be the Eucharistic, Worship-oriented work of Robert Webber.
http://www.ancientfutureworship.com/

Eastern Resources
http://www.ourlifeinchrist.com/ (excellent podcast; it is like the Eastern form of White Horse Inn, only better).

Western Stuff
http://www.amazon.com/Plato-NATO-Idea-West-Opponents/dp/0684827891

On inactivity

2008-08-23T16:04:00.000-07:00

My father and I were unloading a refridgerator from the truck. The dolly slipped and the fridge ripped my finger open. I had 11 stitches. The stitches are gone but I cannot move my finger well. Obviously, I haven't really wanted to type.

I got a lot of neo-cons mad (ironically, both war mongers and pacificist anabaptists are on the same side) with my comments on Russia on facebook. I have talked to some South Ossetians and there are charges of genocide. America has no ground to criticize Russia (in fact, Russia' actions, in light of 15 years of NATO imperialism and saber-rattling, are noble).

But enough of that. I am even thinking of changing/dropping this blog. While I could never become Eastern Orthodox, I am very sympathetic to many of their traditions. If that is true, I cannot call myself a "thomist" of any sort.

We will see where it goes.

The Failure of Anabaptist Ethics

2008-08-12T09:38:00.000-07:00

Doug Wilson Archives

Doug Wilson's refutation of Greg Boyd is too masterful. Unfurtunately, I can't type well due to a hurt finger. When I can, d.v., I will do an exposition on it

Theology is Political: Deal with It

2008-07-30T10:56:00.000-07:00

Fukuyama’s famous thesis was that, with the ruin of communism, there remained no viable alternative to Western liberalism on the stage of history. We are still sorting through the rude awakening from this fantasy. What seems clear, however, is that the bland, narcotic world that Fukuyama envisioned, the “victory of the VCR” over sectarian strife, has not come to pass. Theological voices have been instrumental in opposing that vision. Theological discourse has
refused to stay where liberalism would prefer to put it. Theology is politically important, and those who engage in either theology or politics ignore this fact at a certain peril.

William Cavanaugh, The Blackwell Companion to Political Theology, p. 1

Thoughts on Oxford Study Bibles

2008-07-27T14:11:00.000-07:00

In my freshman year in college I bought a red hardback Revised Standard Version, Oxford Study Bible. The translation itself was beautiful, haunting English. I still read it at times today for the literary style. The notes were unbelief. But that's not entirely fair. The notes were written in the aftermath of older German liberalism. They were bad on several levels. On level one they simply didn't give you that much information. But on the second level they were written on the premise of naturalism: miracles and supernatural simply strain belief.

But as bad as that is, they are still useful. They are a good illustration of presuppositional apologetics. One's cultural assumptions will dominate how you look at the text. See how they translate Isaiah 7:14.

Recently I have been reading the New Revised Standard Version, Oxford-ish study Bible. The translation is jarring. It is dominated by feminism. It is almost laughable to anyone who knows Greek. That being said, the study notes are decent. They are more in-depth and have better articles. Brueggemann's intro to the prophets, despite a few quirks, was very good.

Just some recent thoughts

RO on the Messiah State

2008-07-23T10:10:00.000-07:00

Recently, and quite surprising, was the rise of a new movement which included a new critique of Statism. Radical Orthodoxy is an anglo-catholic, left-wing postmodern, Parisian Augustinianism. For reasons I cannot figure out, they have also offered a critique of statism independent of Bahnsen/North/Rushdoony. Surprising given that most Left-wing movements are statist.Even more importantly, their books are published by Oxford and Cambridge.

Quote:
The modern state is founded on certain stories of nature and human nature, the origins of human conflict, and the remedies of such conflict in the enactment of the state itself...Thus the modern state is best understood...as a source of an alternative soteriology to that of the church (RONT, 182)...The state does not take a merely temporal regulatory role and leave salvation in the hands of the church; rather, the modern state seeks to replace the church by itself becoming a soteriological institution...As a result, while political rhetoric may suggest that the state is confined to a "public" sphere or that the reign of the secular is circumscribed, in fact the modern state demands complete allegiance, and the reign of the secular does not tolerate territories of resistance. The State is happy to absorb all kinds of private pursuits under the umbrella of a civil society, but it cannot tolerate a religious community that claims to be the only authentic polis and proclaims a KING who is a rival to both Caesar and Leviathan...This the state cannot tolerate. It is in this sense that "every worship service is a challenge to Caesar.

James K. A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-Secular Theology, 132, 133.

Augustine is not a Reformed Gnostic

2008-06-26T12:41:00.001-07:00

This is from my review of Common Objects of Love
http://www.amazon.com/Common-Objects-Love-Reflection-Community/dp/0802805159/ref=cm_rna_own_review_prod

These chapters are O'Donovan's talks from his Stobb lecture at Calvin College. They set forth what some would call a transformational communal ethic eschatologically anticipating the Kingdom of God. In other words, Augustine's City of God, Book 19.4.

O'Donovan defines community in Augustinian terms: a rational group of people united in agreement by a common object of their love. While O'Donovan is one of the top Augustinian scholars, and while he is also one of my favorite writers, I do not think he has fully said all he needs to say integrating Augustine's definition with a fully Christian communal ethic. He makes a heroic effort (and one well worth reading)in *Bonds of Imperfection.*

How does this play out? One should avoid the immediate temptation to regard this definition as immediately normative for the State. Maybe it should be, but not yet. It is best to see the Church as a counter-polis, rivaling the State. The Church has its own language, symbols, and liturgy. Other applications, perhaps even pro-political action applications, can be made, but not now and not by me.

But on another level this definition does reflect the State. A State, most certainly a non-Christian one, can never be a true society. It has fragmented ends and disordered goals. It can never be unified. It can never meet Augustine's definition of a true society because a true society is *truly* united by proper Love, love to God. Only a Christian society (be it church or commonweal) can be a true society.

The Puritans and Fountains

2008-06-25T04:42:00.000-07:00

E Michael Jones points out that the sundial was central to decoration, as opposed to the fountain commonly seen in Italian gardens, and that Puritanism was less sensual than Italian culture. But by sensual Jones did not mean decadence, but appreciating and appealing to the senses. One has gnostic tendencies, the other does not.

A New Constantinople

2008-06-24T15:59:00.000-07:00

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/138/story_13827_1.html

Putin, who has repeatedly praised the Russian Orthodox Church while emphasizing the separation of church and state, said during a visit to a church and monastery outside Moscow that Orthodox Christianity is an integral part of Russian culture. "One should not completely draw a line between the culture and the church,'' Putin said in televised comments. "Of course, by law in our country the church is separate from the state, but in the soul and the history of our people it's all together. It always has been and always will be.''

"Some people are constantly insisting on the necessity to divide up our country and are trying to spread this theory," Putin told military cadets during a speech in Moscow on Sunday, Russian news agencies reported. "There are those who would like to build a unipolar world, who would themselves like to rule all of humanity..."

On why I got interested in Serbia

2008-06-23T14:40:00.001-07:00

Some topics are just dangerous to defend. Wasn't Slobodan Milosevic a genocidal tyrant? Aren't Serbians secretly blood and soil fascists? Serbia is slavic and uses a cyrillic alphabet, which is kind of like Russia, so aren't you secretly a pink0-commie?

Indeed, the power of the Western Elite Propoganda Machine, also known as the media, is not to be underestimated? Around Christmastime, the gentlemen at Chronicles Magazine, namely Sdra Trikovic, had a number of posts demonstrating how the European Union (hereafter EUSSR) and Muslim Terrorists wrested Kosovo away from Serbia. Well, I didn't know much about Serbia but I knew that the EUSSR and Muslim terrorists were enemies of Christ and Christendom, so I figured Serbia, the first paragraph notwithstanding, can't be all that bad.

Thomas Woods' book 33 Questions about American History You are not Supposed to Ask debunked the claim that Serbs were committing genocide against ethnic Albanians*. If Woods' argument is correct, then we Americans have a nasty black eye (well, Bill Clinton does anyway). As later human rights groups discovered, the ethnic violence and crime rate in Serbia was roughly the equivalent of the crime rate in Washington D.C. certainy not the 300,000 claimed by the Clinton Administration.

But on to the meat of the matter. Dr Thomas Fleming gave a series of lectures on the importance of Kosovo to Christendom. I will devote more space to that content in the future. He basically showed that what the Serbs stood for in Kosovo is a full-frontal attack on the anti-Christian secular West. The Serbs also kept the Turks out of Christendom for 7 centuries, with no thanks from Britain and Germany.

to be continued...

*I am not denying violence, but simply rebutting the genocide claim.

A Typology of Wine

2008-06-23T05:01:00.001-07:00

Not the wine of Dionysus, which makes fellowship impossible, promising only intoxication, brute absorption into the turba, anonymity, and violence, but the wine of the wedding feast of Cana, or of the wedding feast of the Lamb.

The wine of Dionysus is no doubt the coarsest vintage, intended to blind with drunkenness…the wine repeatedly associated with madness, anthropophagy, slaughter, warfare, and rapine.

The wine of Scripture on the other hand, is first and foremost a divine blessing and image of God's bounty (Gen. 27:28; Dt. 7:13) and an appropriate thank offering by which to declare Israel's love for God (Ex. 29.40); it is the wine that cheers the hearts of men (Ps. 104.15); the sign of God's renewed covenant with his people (Is. 55:1-3); the drink of lovers (Song 5.1) and the very symbol of love (7.2, 9); it is moreover the wine of Agape and the feast of fellowship, in which Christ first vouchsafed a sign of his divinity, in a place of rejoicing, at Cana—a wine of the highest quality—when the kingdom showed itself "out of season." Of course Nietszche was a teetotaler and could judge the merit of neither vintage, and so it is perhaps unsurprising that his attempts at oino-theology should betray a somewhat pedestrian palate.

David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite, pp. 108-109.

Are some Calvinists Derrideans?

2008-06-21T04:41:00.001-07:00

Strange suggestion, given that Carson has written a number of books dealing with postmodernism, but I might be on to something. First of all, I reject the claim that the Emergent guys are postmodern. They say pomo stuff, but this is more coffeshop, sophomore philosophy major type relativism than postmodernism.

In a nutshell Postmodernism sees late modernity saying that "being" is univocal. And if being is univocal, then any "difference" must be seen as an act of violence.

So what does that have to do with Calvinism? Instead of being, insert "truth" (btw, John Milbank has made interesting suggestions that being is convertible with truth, so I think it works here). Many Calvinists see truth as univocal, their truth-system more importantly. And if truth is univocal, then any "differance" with one's mental understanding of truth is an act of violence.

I will illustrate: Let's say (true story) that you (hard line calvinist) and I have a disagreement. You are now boiling with rage. You have to be. I have just committed violence against you. Any differance is suspicion, fear, and violence. I am different from you. But given your univocity, there can be no peaceful way to do this.

I got the idea from David Bentley Hart, James K. A. Smith, and others. I know it is kind of vague right now, but I will try to flesh it out later.

Why Liturgy Matters

2008-06-19T18:13:00.000-07:00

“One reason why we Christians argue so much about which hymn to sing, which liturgy to follow, which way to worship is that the commandments teach us to believe that bad liturgy eventually leads to bad ethics. You begin by singing some sappy, sentimental hymn, then you pray some pointless prayer, and the next thing you know you have murdered your best friend.” — Stanley Hauerwas

Anti Federal Vision Study Bible

2008-06-19T13:12:00.000-07:00

http://anti-federalvisionstudybible.blogspot.com/2008/03/malachi-214.html

It doesn't get funnier than this.

Eucharistic Defense of Culture

2008-06-15T11:46:00.001-07:00

In Calvindom there is often a connection between a weak Eucharistia and a weak view of culture. We should not be surprised. The Bible and Jesus are okay for the church, but different rules apply for culture. God didn't tell us how to do plumbing, therefore there is no such thing as a Christian culture (ignore the logical fallacy for the moment).

But worship and culture are not so easily separated.

In the Eucharist we partake of bread and wine. These are cultured elements that have sacramental purpose. Not only does the sacrament disorder and reorders ourselves, it does the same to culture.

dude.

Augustine on the Impossibility of the Secular

2008-06-14T20:00:00.000-07:00

Some of my recent posts have been Augustinian reflections on why a secular society is consistently impossible. But lest I be accused of positing an interpretation on Augustine, let us hear him speak:

And therefore, where there is not this righteousness whereby the one supreme God rules the obedient city according to His grace, so that it sacrifices to none but Him, and whereby, in all the citizens of this obedient city, the soul consequently rules the body and reason the vices in the rightful order, so that, as the individual just man, so also the community and people of the just, live by faith, which works by love, that love whereby man loves God as He ought to be loved, and his neighbor as himself,—there, I say, there is not an assemblage associated by a common acknowledgment of right, and by a community of interests. But if there is not this, there is not a people, if our definition be true, and therefore there is no republic; for where there is no people there can be no republic. (City of God, 19.23).

The bold part should alert the reader to Augustine's definition in section 4: a true city is united in common agreement by the object of his love. And true love cannot exist apart from God. It necessarily follows that a secular society cannot truly exist that does not acknowledge and love God.

Dude.

On Why O'Donovan is Awesome

2008-06-13T14:49:00.000-07:00

The Messiah has gathered around himself a company of human beings which has challenged all other social groupings. He has reached for a crown which will allow no rival crowns beside it. Because he has come history has divided itself into two, its back broken on this outcrop of rock upon which it cannot negotiate."

Bonds of Imperfection

"But through the cross of life God has taken his place alongside the dead, our victims. He has exposed our melancholy collusion with death by revealing the resurrection of the dead, and by calling to existence a communion of the dead with the living."
~Oliver O'Donovan, from The Ways of Judgment

"Infinite judgment has been given infinite sacrifice, but with redemptive, not destructive purpose. Abel's cry for cosmic vengeance has been met, but not on its own terms" (27). The Ways of Judgment

"On all sides pundits proclaim that the nation-state is in trouble. The truth is, it has been in trouble ever since Christ rose from the dead" (The Desire of the Nations, p. 241).

Is Augustine a Secular Gnostic?

2008-06-12T15:30:00.001-07:00

These are from some thoughts on an essay by Oliver O'Donovan.

Next is what I think is the most important essay of the book: The Political Thought of City of God 19. For too long St. Augustine has been used as a defense of Christian non-action in the political sphere. The argument goes like this: Augustine said there are two cities: The City of God (obviously the church) and the City of Man (everything else, but usually the State). Since we are in the City of God, we can't apply the values of that City across to the other City.
Thankfully, OO blows this thesis out of the water.

To understand Augustine's view of politics, we must first understand how Augustine defined community (19.4): a rational group of people united by the common objects of their love. Thus, there is no such thing as a value-neutral community. Secondly, there cannot be true, real love unless that love is united to the love of God--this secular communities cannot do. This brings new implications to the debate over whether a Christian state is legitimate. The real question, given the above, is a non-Christian state even legitimate? If we are going to be truly and eschatologically Augustinian, we must answer no.

Yoder asks a dangerous "What if?" (in other words, Yoder the Apologist for Christendom)

2008-06-12T13:07:00.001-07:00

People whine at Constantine for messing up with the purity of the church. We were kicking apostolic style and then he came and made it official. Ruined our party.

True, he did do some bad things. But the number one critic of Christendom, John Howard Yoder, asks a proper question: What if Constantine had been different?

It might happen that the result would be that his enemies would triumph over him, but that often happens to rulers anyway. It might happen that he would have to suffer, or not stay in office all his life, but that too often happens to rulers anyway, and it is something Christians are supposed to be ready for. It might happen that he would be killed--but most Caesars are killed anyway. (!) It might happen that some of his follwers would have to suffer. But emperors and kings are accumstoned to aksing people to suffer for them. Especially if the view were authentically alive, which the earlier Christians undeniably had held to and which the theologians of the age of Constantine were still repeating, that God blesses those who serve him, it might also have been possible that, together with all the risks just described, most of which a ruler accepts anyway, there could have been in some times and in some places the possibility that good could be done, that creative social alternatives could be discovered, that problems could be solved, enemies loved, and justice fostered (This is Leithart's summary of Yoder's discussion in "The Constantian sources of Western Social Ethics," chapter 7 of The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984).

Leithart continues, Yet this means that the evils of "Constantinianism" were historical accidents, not inevitable results of the conversion of the Roman Empire. Yoder does not see that the hypothetical "faithful Constantine" fundamentally challenges his case against Constantinianism (Leithart, 132)

Constatine Rescues Brutalized Christians

2008-06-11T12:14:00.000-07:00

Constantine is much criticized by ignorant persons today; but there can be no doubt that his conversion was a welcome change for the thousands of raped, maimed, and crippled Christians of his day. The Constantinian establishment may not measure up to today's standards, but it was glorious in its time. It gave peace to the Kingdom, and enabled Christianity to blossom in the East, bringing the gospel to many peoples and bringing about tremendous blessings.

James Jordan, Through New Eyes, 287.

There are a number of anaBaptistic responses to this.

"But Constantinainism lost the purity of the Apostolic Church."

Response: Purity? Read 1 Corinthians.

"But didn't he sort of put pressure on Trinitarians?"

Response: Perhaps, but not entirely and even if he did, it is not a necessary correlate to the project.

I could go on. Next post, deo volente, will be Leithart's musing about "what if", using John Howard Yoder as his interlocutor. I will spend time with Leithart's work, primarily the last chapter of Against Christianity. I do believe this to be the most supreme statement of postmodern Christian political ethics at the moment.

I would also like to show how Augustine wasn't a secular gnostic.

Must Public Space be Violent?

2008-06-10T13:06:00.000-07:00

One of my contentions was the possibility of a Christian society. God does not merely save individuals. He also saves societies. God is a social being (I am not a social trinitarian. I am simply pointing out plurality within the Godhead). As such, he is interested in societies.

But we have seen the danger of American civic religion. And our opponents, be they anabaptists or secularists or West Coast Reformed theologians, are quick to point out that public theology is bad. Look at Falwell. Is that what you want? Well, no. Not really. But doesn't this commit a logical fallacy? False dichotomy or something like that.

But let's assume for a moment the church is successful. Let's assume that leaders are converted and want to make godly decisions. The question then arises--and a much better question than the normal constantine-bashing--can the church maintain her prophetic witness without compromising by playing the power game?

This is an excellent question. I would like to answer it more fully by a discussion of Israelite prophetic religion in 1-2 Kings. When I started typing this post I had a answer to the question. It was a reductionistic answer and I do not like it as much now. I will hold off until then. I will end with a quote about Constatine:

Western Christians often regard these changes (e.g., Constantine) as the beginning of an enslavement of the Church by the State, or even the "fall" of the Church from heights of primitive Christian freedom. For Eastern Christians, however, Constantine remains the holy initiator of the Christian world, the hero of that victory of light over darkness that crowned the courageous struggle of the martyrs.

Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, 143.

Knock-down argument for Partial Preterism, 1

2008-06-09T14:02:00.000-07:00

This is specifically dealing with Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter.

Peter says he wrote his letter (2 Peter) on the theme of the coming of Jesus, which he says was also a theme of his 1 letter (1 Peter). Since 1 Peter's teaching about the coming of Jesus highlights its imminence, 2 Peter must be dealing with the same looming event.

p. 14

there are around 5 of these arguments. This is more like a hard jab. You are not supposed to fall down from it.

Have we (Reformed) been outflanked?

2008-06-08T05:31:00.001-07:00

The current hoopla in Reformedom is related to the New Perspective on Paul
Reformeddom has seen this as a categorical attack on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. It is and it isn't. Some NPPers do attack said doctrine, but not all. Anyway, the Reformed church est. study committees to deal with/refute NPP. And they did produce several justification reports. Lengthy ones.

The problem is they only set their sights on a few targets. Let's assume they did refute Wright et al. You still have to deal with the fact that every year Wright writes 2 or 3 books that change the face of biblical studies. Then you have to face the fact that other guys, Richard Hays for one, are also writing and publishing material that further sets the agenda. We simply don't pay attention to people like Hays.

So what does this mean? It means that the debate is only quiet; it isn't over. Biblical studies has now been shaped by "narrative theology." Where were the sections in the report dealing with George Lindbeck, Hans Frei, and Richard Hays? These guys got the ball rolling. Without them, you wouldn't have a new hermeneutical movement. The debate is not yet over. Just watch.

Can salvation be social?

2008-06-08T05:08:00.001-07:00

Why is it that when moderns (be they Reformed, Liberal, or Evanjellyfish) read salvation passages in the bible they immediately make individualist appliactions? The immediate assumption is that salvation just applies to me and me first, and then to others but only in an individualist context. Salvation is atomized. Sure, maybe even lots of individuals can be saved (but not to many, amillennialism still needs to win), but only as individuals.

But the new testament sometimes speaks of salvation in communal terms: Ephesians 2:11-21.

Finished Leithart's Commentary on Kings

2008-06-07T09:12:00.000-07:00

Death and Resurrection.

Leithart employs intricate typologies to show Israel/Judah undergoes a death and resurrection in this narrative, pointing to the death and Resurrection of One who will be the New Israel.

Whether people like it or not, and granted that it can be overdone, typology is becoming the norm in biblical studies in all traditions (post Liberal, Reformed, and Catholic). And so it is common to see how, for example, David typifies Christ. However, there are intra-textual types as well, showing how later Israelite kings are antitypes of David and Solomon.

Pros of the Book:
The writing is typical Leithart: masterful. Leithart has also successfully interacted with the best of modern biblical, theological, and ethical scholarship. He is the most underappreciated Reformed writer. He has singlehandedly stopped Liberalism' hegemony over "scholarship." His interactions with Aquinas O'Donovan, and Milbank provided for stimulating ethical reflections and the book leaves us hanging with the hope for a renewed Christendom. I mean, really, if anyone can successfully interact and dialogue with John Milbank and Oliver O'Donovan, they automatically deserve our respect.

Cons:
This book cannot easily be translated into aids for sermon prep. He doesn't do verse by verse exposition, but rather "text by text." While that is more faithful to the "flow of the passage," most congregations do not let you preach from two or three chapters at a time

Idolatry is boring

2008-06-05T17:24:00.000-07:00

I am currently reading Leithart's commentary on Kings. To say it is awesome is a truism. He points out that much of the narrative regarding Israel's northern line is dull reading. That is the point. Idolatry is boring. People become less human. Prophetic religion, on the other hand, is quite exhilirating.

"When prophets show up, suddenly the world opens up even wider: hands wither and heal, altars are split, lions leap into the text and onto a prophet but do not eat the donkey, jars of oil are never empty, dead children are raised, bears come crashing out of the woods to slaughter mocking young men, and dead bodies thrown into the wrong grave come catapulting out again" (113).

Stanley the Prophet cusses the king

2008-06-03T18:43:00.000-07:00

From Peter Leithart's Against Christianity. It is a parable against the anabaptist tendency among some Reformed who fear Christendom.

Once there was a prophet named Stanley. He was a bold and faithful man who stood against the powers of the age.

You cannot do that, he would say to the King. You are going to end up in hell and people are going to hate you.

One day the king began to listen and see the wisdom of Stanley's words. When Stanley told him that the weak must be protected from the vicious strong, the king took steps to protect the weak. When Stanley told him that Jesus was Lord, the king bowed his knee. When Stanley told him that "religious freedom" is an idol from the Enlightenment, the king took heed.

And the king made a proclamation, that all in his kingdom should weak sackcloth and ashes and repent of their sins, even to the beast of burden.

And Stanely went out from the city and made a shelter and sat under it and refused to speak again to the king.

"Lord, please take my life from me, for death is better to me than life. I am a prophet, not a chaplain."

And the Lord said, "Do you have good reason to be angry?"

As for the king, he was greatly confused and knew not what to do; for he had done all that Stanley had asked.

The parable ends with questions, not a moral: Will the King always refuse to listen? Says who? And, when the king begins to listen, must the Church fall silent, so as to avoid becoming a chaplain? To keep her integrity, must the church refuse to suceed?

Improving Theonomy

2008-06-02T15:53:00.000-07:00

I associated myself with the theonomic movement 4 years ago because I longed to see a coherent ethical response to secularism, to see King Jesus's claims really, really pressed in the public realm (and not in a Kantian, "spiritual" sense), and also because Greg Bahnsen was/is the most awesomest thinker I had encountered.

Problems arose. Not because the alternatives were better (natural law, 2kingdomz, pluralism). They weren't. It was like watching a 6 year old do card tricks. I could make such adherents sound like relativists in a matter of minutes.

But I couldn't make the theonomic claim stick. It was not enough to bash compromised Reformed-Evangelical positions (see above). That is fun and necessary, but not sufficient. The theonomic claim couldn't stick exegetically.

Several options opened up. Proclaim myself a silly evangelical, vote Republican, and say that we want Christian values, but not really (e.g., Christianity Today, Modern Reformation). Or I could dig in as a theonomist and show how certain puritans actually believed that. While not a Scriptural argument, in current Reformed circles quoting the Puritans is just as good. But that wasn't intellectually satisfying.

Or I could proclaim the church a counter-polis to the City of Washing...er, Rome. I read Peter Leithart's Against Christianity a number of years ago. I couldn't make much of it. I reread it several times this year. Each time I am amazed how Peter challenges and subsequently casts down all positions that argue for (or against) any kind of Christian involvement in politics. The more and more I read Peter, the more I see how he has successfully interacted with all challengers.

Next time we will see how Stanley the Prophet cusses out the King.

Radical Orthodox Reason

2008-06-02T14:51:00.001-07:00

John Milbank, in Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology, noted that for Jacopi and Hamann, in critique of Enligtenment views of faith/reason/revelation, that for the patristics and early medievals, reason and faith participated in God. There was no duality.

I am going to read the essay on Aquinas/Suarez tonight and see how it relates.

Speech-Act

2008-05-30T13:41:00.000-07:00

I used to see this brought up in philosophical theology, but it never struck home with me until someone explained it like this.

When I say something to someone I create a new situation. For example, I was talking to a friend of mine today. He was busy and said he would call me back. My phone call created a new situation (somewhat one of suspense and anticipation as I was juggling traffic, phone, and work-related issues).

Radical Thomas

2008-05-29T19:14:00.000-07:00

I am back, even though all of two people probably read this blog. Oh well, it gives me something to do. I just read Milbank and Pickstock's Truth in Aquinas, arguably the hardest book I have ever read. Milbank, for all his brilliant gifts, needs to learn how to summarize and write succinctly. That being said, the book was awesome. See my amazon review of it. Makes the interesting insight that "touch" is the most intimate sense. Touch is immediate, whereas sight and sound are mediated by light and air. Actually, touch isn't immediate but it is close enough. And in the sacrament taste is a more intimate and intense form of touch.

Review of Muether's Bio on CVT

2008-04-09T18:17:00.000-07:00

Um, yeah it's been a while. Anyway, here is my review of Muether's biography on Cornelius Van Til (see amazon for ordering information)

Knowing Mr Muether personally, and considering Van Til a hero of mine, I eagerly awaited this biography for several years. Muether's thesis is quite simple and well-developed: Van Til, despite his apologetical greatness and influence, cannot be rightly understand apart from Van Til's role as a high-churchman. Muether successfully, as far as the evidence goes, defends this thesis.

Despite the wide influence of Van Til: the entire OPC, Greg Bahnsen and John Frame's ministries, and anticipating, as scholars now note, elements of a postmodern, non-foundationalism--Van Til has lacked biographers, objective ones anyway.

HIS LIFE
Muether does a good job in describing the early Van Til (hereafter CVT). He places CVT in his Dutch context, an element indispensable for understanding the later contexts. I was particularly impressed with his handling of CVT's early farm life. He really did capture the essence of life on the farm.

HIS CONTROVERSIES
Muether covers the Clark controversy (defending CVT's defense of the incomprehensibility of God), the Barth controversy (Barth was really a revived liberalism), and the Evangelical controversy (see the nonsense that is any evangelical church today).

A FEW QUALIFICATIONS
Muether rightly noticed the connection between CVT and the theonomists. CVT was NOT a theonomists, but--as Muether grudgingly hints--theonomists have been the most vocal and militant and consistent Van Tillians.

While CVT was a Vosian amillennialist, if Vos was really an amillennialist, he did endorse Greg Bahnsen's explicitly postmillennial tape series on Revelation.

CONCLUSION
This book was good and well-written. The scholarship was competent and the writing style was fluid.

When Secular really isn't

2008-03-16T15:16:00.000-07:00

John Milbank made probably the most illuminating comment on "secular." The Patristics and Medievals spoke of the secular in temporal terms, the time between times--between the advents of Christ. With the dethroning of Christendom, secular became redefined in spatial terms: spheres or areas outside the bounds of religion. This came to practical expression in American life: You have the church with its religious concerns and the rest of the world with its 'secular' concerns. This quickly leads to dualism. Dualism rightly notes two (or at least two) areas of life that appear legitimate. But it has no way to unite these two areas. Thus a dualist can speak of heavenly concerns and earthly concerns, but his life is compartmentalized (and by all accounts, boring).

But if we define secular in temporal terms then one can speak of all areas of life as legitimate expressions of one's faith. One can truly appreciate the secular for what it is: the time we live in while waiting on Christ's return. The secular, thus, is appreciated for Christ's sake because it looks forward to Christ. The Christian can then avoid all unhealthy dualisms.

A few confessions (oops, probably not the best word) first

2008-03-16T12:31:00.000-07:00

I actually belong to several traditions/movements that are not the most sympathetic to Aquinas and medaeval theology. I am a Reformed, Van tillian Christian. Thus, it seems I have issues with Aquinas. I did at one time, and there are still parts of the Summa I cringe at.

But I have also been an observer in political theology and cultural expression. And I have received much help from those who draw heavily from the Thomist tradition: Dante and Flannery O'Connor.

I got the title from a Mars Hill Audio on Flannery O'Connor. While keeping my protestant roots, there are a number of things I want to talk about in future posts:

Why do Catholics generally make better novelists than Protestants
Using the Sacraments to oppose gnosticism
Granting flaws in the following political theories (Natural Law, Theonomy, Pluralism), where do we go from here?