Some scholars say that our Founding Fathers were Deists. We hear of their freethinking and skepticism. I have been catechized about the influence of the Enlightenment on our country. Such mantras as “pluralism”, “separation of church and state”, and “secularism” have all been drummed in my mind by the academic elite. Oh surely, the Founding Fathers were members of the established churches, but that was as irrelevant then as now.
Thomas Paine, the infidel, molded the Revolutionary American mindset. Thomas Jefferson, the Deist, formulated the American ideal. John Locke, the secular thinker, fashioned the principles of the Revolution. The American Revolution seemingly sprang out of the soil even though the colonies had a long and rich history by 1776. But there is more to the story.
Pastor and theologian David W. Hall’s The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding shows that America’s heritage is Christian and Calvinistic. Reformed and Calvinistic people largely colonized America. America did not invent a new order of the ages in 1776. It continued a process of refining a Biblical and Reformational theory of government that acknowledged the sovereignty of God and resisted the sovereignty of kings. Calvin of Geneva created the mindset that governed this country. More than the Greeks and Romans, more than the Enlightenment thinkers, more than the explorers and colonizers, Calvin established America. And Calvin was not alone. Such theologians, writers, and pastors as William Farel (Calvin’s co-pastor in Geneva), Peter Viret of Geneva, Theodore Beza (Calvin’s successor), John Ponet of Strasbourg, the anonymous author of Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos in France, and Johannes Althusius (the author of Politica) all weighed in on the theological implications of governmental tyranny, persecution of the Christian faith, and the limits of obedience to ungodly rulers.
If these continental Reformers did not say enough, from the British Isles came another regiment of political and theological thinkers. John Knox, Andrew Melville, and other Scots put their theology in action during the turbulent reigns of such tyrants as Queen Mary Stuart and her worthless son James. Scotsmen George Buchanan and Samuel Rutherford penned great treatises on government to teach rulers how to rule and to admonish and remove them when they misruled. As this Calvinist political philosophy was being debated and thought out among the Puritans in England, some opted to pack the ideas for their trek across the Atlantic to the New World.
William Bradford, John Winthrop, John Cotton and others set the norms for Biblical and covenantal civil government in Colonial America. By the time of the American War for Independence, the war for the hearts and minds of the people, the true revolution, had been completed by scores of pastors who had faithfully preached election sermons for generations. The language of the colonial charters, the resolutions preceding the Declaration of Independence, the ongoing sermons and theological pamphlets all testify to the Reformed heritage in this country’s founding and the extent to which Calvinism sparked our independence. Presbyterian and Congregationalist pastors and laymen filled the ranks of both officers and soldiers in the Continental armies. The War for Independence was truly a Presbyterian Rebellion.
Dr. Hall’s first major witness to testify is a surprise: Thomas Jefferson, the ‘creator’ of the wall of separation of church and state, the arch-Deist and unbeliever among the Founding Fathers, the primary secular and Enlightenment thinker of his age. Jefferson’s motto was “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”, which was a Cliff’s Notes version of the political theology of the Reformers, the Covenanters, the Huguenots, and the Puritans.
As a further proof of Jefferson’s wonderful inconsistency, Hall cites the case of Jefferson’s efforts to move the entire faculty of Calvin’s Academy of Geneva to northern Virginia. Jefferson knew that this Calvinistic faculty would flourish in this land if transplanted.
Hall’s book is weighty, long, heavily documented, filled with analyses of theological and political tomes, devoid of anecdotes, plodding in its lining up the proofs of the thesis, scholarly, sober, and academic. In other words, it is the kind of book to make a Calvinist’s heart throb with excitement. This is certainly no easy read; it will not fit at your bedside or near your fattest easy chair. This book calls for a desk, a notepad, strong coffee, and quiet children.
This book is expensive, but worth the cost of buying and reading it.
The preacher of Ecclesiastes tells us, "Of the making of many books, there is no end." To which we add, "Of the buying and reading of many books, there is no end."
Friday, June 30, 2006
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Did You Here the One About the Three Historians?
A Lutheran, a Roman Catholic, and a Baptist walked into a college classroom right in the middle of a professor’s class on Western Civilization. “You are interrupting my lecture,” the professor said. “You are right about that,” the three men replied.
I admit that the story above lacks punch as a joke. The beginning is promising, but the punch line is not quite funny for a joke. The actual story should put a big grin on the mouth of Christians.
I speak in reference to three books: Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed the World (now titled How Christianity Changed the World) by Lutheran pastor Alvin J. Schmidt, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Roman Catholic Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr., and The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Baylor Baptist University Professor Rodney Stark. These three complement the theme of the transforming effect of Jesus Christ and His Church in time and history. These three books provide an antidote to the secularized version of history. These three books boldly challenge the anti-Christian bias so often found in the world both inside and outside the academy.
Before we examine the books, we need to examine the issue of history itself. As Orwell said, “Those who control the present control the past. Those who control the past control the future.” History is anecdotal philosophy. A history lecture is as agenda- driven as a political caucus. Just as ideas have consequences, history lessons have consequences.
Sometimes history is explained as having lessons to be learned. “Those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat them,” we are told. What the exact lessons are is not so clear. Does the Alamo teach the lesson of 1. The few sacrificing for the many? Or 2. The inevitability of American Manifest Destiny? Or 3. “Don’t mess with Texas”? History does not teach plain, simple, moralistic lessons. It teaches perspectives, angles, and inquiries into truth.
Herodotus called his founding historical document Historia, which we would translate as Inquiry. History looks for roots, for common causes, for cause-effect relationships. History—not just in general, but in specific examinations—can reveal whatever the student is presuppositionally looking for. As Cornelius Van Til: It becomes especially plain here that in the Christian conception of things interpretation precedes facts.
History is the second vital front in the Christian culture war. The first front is the battle for the Bible. Without the Scriptures, we have no revelation from God, no marching orders, no army to march, no reason to fight. When the Christian Church battled over the Bible within its ranks, the world was able to march unhindered into all areas of territory once claimed and occupied by Christians. When Darwinian Naturalism marched to the gates of Christendom from the outside, Higher Critical theology opened the gates to the enemy from the inside. Without the Bible, our churches are nothing more than community family centers. Without the Bible, we Christians have no agenda. For this reason, conservatism can never work as a philosophy. They can never truly advocate throwing the rascals out; they only call for a new set of rascals.
In a sense, the Bible more closely resembles an academic skill than a subject. Our compartmentalization of life leads us to segregate disciplines. A Bible confined to a course called “Survey of the Bible” looks like a lion confined in a cage with the description “King of the Jungle.” But just as the knowledge of the alphabet pervades and dominates all other academic disciplines, so the Bible should be the philosophical or intellectual alphabet to all learning. On one occasion, a Jewish lady called our Christian school and asked if her son could attend, but skip the first part of the day or the ‘religion part’. Our elementary administrator explained that the Bible and Christianity was not a fifteen-minute segment in the mornings. Anytime the Bible is caged, it ceases to be what is really is and its effect is nullified. So the first front of the culture war is always the battle for the Bible.
History is the second front for three reasons. First, the Bible from beginning to end presents a philosophy of history. Second, the Bible itself contains history. Third, the Bible itself impacted history. To say, “I love the Bible, but I don’t like history” is to speak in a contradiction.
I am really puzzled when I recall that I acquired a history degree without ever taking a class that defined what history was. Both warnings and encouragements were given in regard to what a history degree could and could not do for you. My professors seemed to have a personal enjoyment of the subject; perhaps, they were merely relieved to be somewhere between more tedious factory work and more lucrative, but stressful law work. But a philosophy of history was never given. Schools of historical thought were never explained. A history of historians was never offered. Interpretations of history were unavoidable, but an explanation of interpretive approaches never showed up.
It would be far easier to make sense of history if universities followed Van Til’s approach and allowed interpretation to precede facts. Perhaps the prevalence of humanistic worldviews completely blinded the historians to their own interpretations. Whether from blindness to other views, willful suppression of the truth, or indifference, a Christian philosophy of history is rarely provided in the classroom.
The historical events contained in the Bible makes it both an invaluable original source, particularly for ancient world studies, and a measuring rod for other original sources. One should not claim knowledge of the ancient world without a well-thumbed copy of the Bible, Herodotus’ Histories, and Livy’s History of Early Rome. But while the Bible is a supplementary collection of documents in one sense, it is the corrective to and interpreter of source materials in a greater sense.
The third key area of influence for the Bible is its influence on history. The three histories we mentioned at the beginning all focus on this question. Their titles and subtitles answer the question. Christianity did, as Dr. Schmidt shows, transform civilization. Christianity did, as Dr. Stark shows, led to freedom, capitalism, and Western success. And the Catholic Church did, as Dr. Woods shows, both in the broader and narrower uses of that word Catholic, build Western Civilization.
Just as historians ignore or avoid presenting the historic Biblical philosophy of history, and just as they ignore or misuse the Bible for source materials, so they ignore, avoid, and misinterpret the impact of the Bible on Western Civilization.
Western Civilization’s roots can rightly be found in the varied streams of the Greek, Roman, and Hebrew cultures. Ancient history contains numerous details of the currents and cross currents, the blending and separating, and the development of these cultures both in their interactions and their separate achievements. From the Incarnation of Jesus Christ to His death and resurrection, these three separate cultures are brought together. That miserable pawn Pontus Pilate had no idea how profoundly he was serving Western civilization in his actions. John 19:19-20 tells us, “And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.” This King of the Jews was being revealed to the three major cultures of Western Civilization as the true unifying ruler whose kingdom would have no end.
If this was the proclamation of the creation of Western Civilization as a unity, Acts 16:9-10 was the inauguration of this civilization: “And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.” As historian Christopher Dawson said, “When St. Paul, in obedience to the warning of a dream, set sail from Troy in A.D. 49 and came to Philippi in Macedonia he did more to change the course of history than the great battle that had decided the fate of the Roman Empire on the same spot nearly a century earlier, for he brought to Europe the seed of a new life which was ultimately destined to create a new world.”
From this point on, Western Civilization became the domain of Christianity. Western Civilization became Christendom. The story is progressive and developmental; the story is uneven; the story is both thrilling and uplifting to the mind and the soul at points, and depressing to both mind and soul at other points. The story of Western Civilization parallels the stories of both individual Christians and churches. Still, Christianity has been salt and light to this civilization. It has defined the norms of morality and justice. It has regulated the affairs of kings and rulers. It has provided the foundations for social, political, and economic institutions.
Schmidt, Stark, and Woods are not the first historians to chronicle the influences and celebrate the successes of Christianity in history. In fact, each of their books contains good bibliographies of both secular and religious histories. None of the three books is a complete history of European Christendom or a history of the Christian Church. All three books are topical in their presentations.
Schmidt’s book, Under the Influence, is a useful primer for seeing current issues from a historical and Christian perspective. He divides the subject of Christian influence into such topics as transformation of individual lives, sanctity of human life, sexual morality, women, charity, health care, education, labor, economics, science, art, music, and literature. Each topic, according to Schmidt, is worthy of a book length study by itself. He marshals quotes showing the Christian impact in each of these areas. Schmidt quotes from original sources, from scholars and participants, and from friends and enemies of the faith. I have read many of the quotes before from different books and articles. But they are all here, well documented.
Stark’s book, The Victory of Reason, focuses more on economic development during the Medieval period. He outflanks Marxist historiography by showing that economics is not the key to history; rather, it is built upon religious foundations. Then with those foundations in place, economic activity develops its course of action. It is significant that Stark reclaims the word reason for the Christian faith. He says, “While the other world religions emphasized mystery and intuition, Christianity alone embraced reason and logic as the primary guide to religious truth.” The Enlightenment stole the concept of reason from Christianity and portrayed Christianity as the antithesis of reason and logic. In the best of cases, and it was far from being the best, Christians assumed that they could be people of faith in the cathedral and prayer closet, but would have to exchange those garments for reason and logic at the workplace or study. This work sets aside that dichotomy and reminds us that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Christ (Colossians 2:3).
Thomas Woods’s book, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, calls for a bit of patience for the Reformed Christian reader. His trumpeting of the Roman Catholic Church is much like listening to proud grandparents brag about grandchildren. Calvinists need to do two things while reading this book, and we do need to read this book: First, we need to recognize that the church was not raptured for a thousand years during the Middle Ages. The Medieval Catholic Church was Luther and Calvin’s church. They loved it. They loved the church so much that they and countless others labored to bring reform to it. Catholics during the Middle Ages, like Protestants now, had their shining moments and dark stages. Dr. Woods wrote this book so that his daughters would know the heritage of their faith. So this leads to the second reason for we Reformed types to read this book: We can grow through understanding the impact of Medieval Christian thinkers on law, politics, and science, and we can get busy seeing to it that our children know about the contributions made since the Reformation by Reformed Christians.
So, did you hear the one about the three historians? A Lutheran, a Roman Catholic, and a Baptist walked into a college classroom right in the middle of a professor’s class on Western Civilization. “You are interrupting my lecture,” the professor said….
I still cannot think of a good punch line to finish this joke, but for some reason, I cannot stop laughing.
I admit that the story above lacks punch as a joke. The beginning is promising, but the punch line is not quite funny for a joke. The actual story should put a big grin on the mouth of Christians.
I speak in reference to three books: Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed the World (now titled How Christianity Changed the World) by Lutheran pastor Alvin J. Schmidt, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Roman Catholic Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr., and The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by Baylor Baptist University Professor Rodney Stark. These three complement the theme of the transforming effect of Jesus Christ and His Church in time and history. These three books provide an antidote to the secularized version of history. These three books boldly challenge the anti-Christian bias so often found in the world both inside and outside the academy.
Before we examine the books, we need to examine the issue of history itself. As Orwell said, “Those who control the present control the past. Those who control the past control the future.” History is anecdotal philosophy. A history lecture is as agenda- driven as a political caucus. Just as ideas have consequences, history lessons have consequences.
Sometimes history is explained as having lessons to be learned. “Those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat them,” we are told. What the exact lessons are is not so clear. Does the Alamo teach the lesson of 1. The few sacrificing for the many? Or 2. The inevitability of American Manifest Destiny? Or 3. “Don’t mess with Texas”? History does not teach plain, simple, moralistic lessons. It teaches perspectives, angles, and inquiries into truth.
Herodotus called his founding historical document Historia, which we would translate as Inquiry. History looks for roots, for common causes, for cause-effect relationships. History—not just in general, but in specific examinations—can reveal whatever the student is presuppositionally looking for. As Cornelius Van Til: It becomes especially plain here that in the Christian conception of things interpretation precedes facts.
History is the second vital front in the Christian culture war. The first front is the battle for the Bible. Without the Scriptures, we have no revelation from God, no marching orders, no army to march, no reason to fight. When the Christian Church battled over the Bible within its ranks, the world was able to march unhindered into all areas of territory once claimed and occupied by Christians. When Darwinian Naturalism marched to the gates of Christendom from the outside, Higher Critical theology opened the gates to the enemy from the inside. Without the Bible, our churches are nothing more than community family centers. Without the Bible, we Christians have no agenda. For this reason, conservatism can never work as a philosophy. They can never truly advocate throwing the rascals out; they only call for a new set of rascals.
In a sense, the Bible more closely resembles an academic skill than a subject. Our compartmentalization of life leads us to segregate disciplines. A Bible confined to a course called “Survey of the Bible” looks like a lion confined in a cage with the description “King of the Jungle.” But just as the knowledge of the alphabet pervades and dominates all other academic disciplines, so the Bible should be the philosophical or intellectual alphabet to all learning. On one occasion, a Jewish lady called our Christian school and asked if her son could attend, but skip the first part of the day or the ‘religion part’. Our elementary administrator explained that the Bible and Christianity was not a fifteen-minute segment in the mornings. Anytime the Bible is caged, it ceases to be what is really is and its effect is nullified. So the first front of the culture war is always the battle for the Bible.
History is the second front for three reasons. First, the Bible from beginning to end presents a philosophy of history. Second, the Bible itself contains history. Third, the Bible itself impacted history. To say, “I love the Bible, but I don’t like history” is to speak in a contradiction.
I am really puzzled when I recall that I acquired a history degree without ever taking a class that defined what history was. Both warnings and encouragements were given in regard to what a history degree could and could not do for you. My professors seemed to have a personal enjoyment of the subject; perhaps, they were merely relieved to be somewhere between more tedious factory work and more lucrative, but stressful law work. But a philosophy of history was never given. Schools of historical thought were never explained. A history of historians was never offered. Interpretations of history were unavoidable, but an explanation of interpretive approaches never showed up.
It would be far easier to make sense of history if universities followed Van Til’s approach and allowed interpretation to precede facts. Perhaps the prevalence of humanistic worldviews completely blinded the historians to their own interpretations. Whether from blindness to other views, willful suppression of the truth, or indifference, a Christian philosophy of history is rarely provided in the classroom.
The historical events contained in the Bible makes it both an invaluable original source, particularly for ancient world studies, and a measuring rod for other original sources. One should not claim knowledge of the ancient world without a well-thumbed copy of the Bible, Herodotus’ Histories, and Livy’s History of Early Rome. But while the Bible is a supplementary collection of documents in one sense, it is the corrective to and interpreter of source materials in a greater sense.
The third key area of influence for the Bible is its influence on history. The three histories we mentioned at the beginning all focus on this question. Their titles and subtitles answer the question. Christianity did, as Dr. Schmidt shows, transform civilization. Christianity did, as Dr. Stark shows, led to freedom, capitalism, and Western success. And the Catholic Church did, as Dr. Woods shows, both in the broader and narrower uses of that word Catholic, build Western Civilization.
Just as historians ignore or avoid presenting the historic Biblical philosophy of history, and just as they ignore or misuse the Bible for source materials, so they ignore, avoid, and misinterpret the impact of the Bible on Western Civilization.
Western Civilization’s roots can rightly be found in the varied streams of the Greek, Roman, and Hebrew cultures. Ancient history contains numerous details of the currents and cross currents, the blending and separating, and the development of these cultures both in their interactions and their separate achievements. From the Incarnation of Jesus Christ to His death and resurrection, these three separate cultures are brought together. That miserable pawn Pontus Pilate had no idea how profoundly he was serving Western civilization in his actions. John 19:19-20 tells us, “And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.” This King of the Jews was being revealed to the three major cultures of Western Civilization as the true unifying ruler whose kingdom would have no end.
If this was the proclamation of the creation of Western Civilization as a unity, Acts 16:9-10 was the inauguration of this civilization: “And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.” As historian Christopher Dawson said, “When St. Paul, in obedience to the warning of a dream, set sail from Troy in A.D. 49 and came to Philippi in Macedonia he did more to change the course of history than the great battle that had decided the fate of the Roman Empire on the same spot nearly a century earlier, for he brought to Europe the seed of a new life which was ultimately destined to create a new world.”
From this point on, Western Civilization became the domain of Christianity. Western Civilization became Christendom. The story is progressive and developmental; the story is uneven; the story is both thrilling and uplifting to the mind and the soul at points, and depressing to both mind and soul at other points. The story of Western Civilization parallels the stories of both individual Christians and churches. Still, Christianity has been salt and light to this civilization. It has defined the norms of morality and justice. It has regulated the affairs of kings and rulers. It has provided the foundations for social, political, and economic institutions.
Schmidt, Stark, and Woods are not the first historians to chronicle the influences and celebrate the successes of Christianity in history. In fact, each of their books contains good bibliographies of both secular and religious histories. None of the three books is a complete history of European Christendom or a history of the Christian Church. All three books are topical in their presentations.
Schmidt’s book, Under the Influence, is a useful primer for seeing current issues from a historical and Christian perspective. He divides the subject of Christian influence into such topics as transformation of individual lives, sanctity of human life, sexual morality, women, charity, health care, education, labor, economics, science, art, music, and literature. Each topic, according to Schmidt, is worthy of a book length study by itself. He marshals quotes showing the Christian impact in each of these areas. Schmidt quotes from original sources, from scholars and participants, and from friends and enemies of the faith. I have read many of the quotes before from different books and articles. But they are all here, well documented.
Stark’s book, The Victory of Reason, focuses more on economic development during the Medieval period. He outflanks Marxist historiography by showing that economics is not the key to history; rather, it is built upon religious foundations. Then with those foundations in place, economic activity develops its course of action. It is significant that Stark reclaims the word reason for the Christian faith. He says, “While the other world religions emphasized mystery and intuition, Christianity alone embraced reason and logic as the primary guide to religious truth.” The Enlightenment stole the concept of reason from Christianity and portrayed Christianity as the antithesis of reason and logic. In the best of cases, and it was far from being the best, Christians assumed that they could be people of faith in the cathedral and prayer closet, but would have to exchange those garments for reason and logic at the workplace or study. This work sets aside that dichotomy and reminds us that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Christ (Colossians 2:3).
Thomas Woods’s book, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, calls for a bit of patience for the Reformed Christian reader. His trumpeting of the Roman Catholic Church is much like listening to proud grandparents brag about grandchildren. Calvinists need to do two things while reading this book, and we do need to read this book: First, we need to recognize that the church was not raptured for a thousand years during the Middle Ages. The Medieval Catholic Church was Luther and Calvin’s church. They loved it. They loved the church so much that they and countless others labored to bring reform to it. Catholics during the Middle Ages, like Protestants now, had their shining moments and dark stages. Dr. Woods wrote this book so that his daughters would know the heritage of their faith. So this leads to the second reason for we Reformed types to read this book: We can grow through understanding the impact of Medieval Christian thinkers on law, politics, and science, and we can get busy seeing to it that our children know about the contributions made since the Reformation by Reformed Christians.
So, did you hear the one about the three historians? A Lutheran, a Roman Catholic, and a Baptist walked into a college classroom right in the middle of a professor’s class on Western Civilization. “You are interrupting my lecture,” the professor said….
I still cannot think of a good punch line to finish this joke, but for some reason, I cannot stop laughing.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Doubting Scripture
I hate to confess this, but I am troubled with an element of doubt about the truthfulness and reliability and infallibility of Scripture. This has been a common malady throughout church history and a great failing of ministers on several lamentable occasions in history. Think back to the devastating impact of the Higher Critical movement and the rise of Darwinian Naturalism. Men began doubting the age of the earth, the Creation accounts, the Resurrection, and so on. My heroes, like J. Gresham Machen, fought against such dangers.
These doubt hit the church over and over again. We have the ideas of two authors of Isaiah, multiple authors of Genesis, late dating for the Gospels, questions about Paul's authorship, and outright rejection of prophetic books like Daniel.
Then there are the moral problems and philosophical problems of the Bible. How could a good God allow evil? Well, maybe He couldn't, so there, we have gotten rid of God, and conveniently gotten rid of evil. And speaking of convenience, I think I'll go spend some time doing some creative shoplifting, pillaging, and plundering.
Yes, and then there's the Code--hidden in the Renaissance painting of the Last Supper by Da Vinci. So the 'truth' was suppressed by the male-dominated Pro-Peter/Anti-Mary Magdalen faction of the original followers of Jesus. All hidden, suppressed, and obscured until Dan Brown revealed the truth to us in these last days.
But stop the presses, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls which are the proof that the Scriptures are full of mistakes and errors. Wait, I didn't mean the Dead Sea Scrolls. They did not prove anything of the sort, but we do have the Gospel of Judas. The Scriptures cannot possibly be true if late written Gnostic gospels speak another message. We all know logically that something cannot be true if a counterfeit of that truth can be produced. Take money, for instance....
I am doubting the truth of Scripture, but it is not Creation, miracles, moral or philosophical dilemmas, authorship of texts, dating of texts, or who Cain and Abel married that is creating my problem. And it is certainly not Dan Brown, Leonardo Da Vinci, or the Gospel of Judas. If Dan Brown were right, I think God would have blessed him with writing abilities. All such banners of unbelief are mere foolishness and suppressing the truth.
Christianity has stood for 2000 years and knocked out opponent after opponent in the ring. These third rate atheists, unbelievers, skeptics, and soothsayers all need a good swift kick in the solar plexus by Balaam's donkey. Few are worthy to step into the ring with the great apologists of church history. There is not an intellectual challenge to Christianity.
But I am still nursing this doubt. Here it is: Paul says in I First Corinthians, 1: 26-27 "For consider your calling brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards...But God choose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise...." This is my theological Achilles' heel--the Bible says, not many wise are called. For some reason, everytime I have heard a pastor preach this text, he has mentioned me by name. "'Not many wise are called...' Take Ben House, for example."
Something seems wrong: I keep running into really wise people who are believers. As a history student and teacher, I can accept the wise men of the past. I am comfortable with Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Knox, Edwards, and so on. Spread there names out with even a couple dozen more over a millenium plus a few centuries and my exegetical heart is fine. The Nineteenth Century is not a problem. There is Charles Hodge, and his teacher Archibald Alexander, James Henley Thornwell, Robert Lewis Dabney, and in England, Charles H. Spurgeon. Again, add a couple dozen names and spread them out over several continents and I am still orthodox. I accept in my heart that there were a few, quite a few, wise men in the past, and so I find no reason to learn about any more of them.
The Twentieth Century history starts multiplying my problem--Take Benjamin Breckinride Warfield in America and G.K. Chesterton in England, for example. (I once found it easier to disqualify Catholics, but that doesn't seem to work.) Then there are Machen and Lewis. Van Til shows up, as does his earthly opponent/brother, fellow Calvinistic apologist/rival Gordon Clark. And Carl F. H. Henry was wise. So was historian Christopher Dawson. I don't know them well, but I'm certain of the wisdom and brilliance of Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson. There are men I do know somewhat better. Presbyterian historian Gregg Singer was wise. R. J. Rushdoony was brilliant and encyclopedic. Greg Bahnsen was wise, even though I knew him personally. (Don't think too long on that one.)The several dozen extra names in the Twentieth Century has to keep expanding as I keep remembering books and authors. (I left off Abraham Kuyper and Philip Schaff, but they could be relegated to the Nineteenth century.)
Now the problem only gets worse. There are now so many men who are my contemporaries, some older, some younger, but all still around...and wise. George Grant is exceptional. But in his case I have figured out his secret--all he ever does is just run marathons, read books, write books, travel the world, pastor a church, work on Ph.D.'s, spend time with his wife, children, and grandchild, write a blog, lecture at a school, and attend meetings.
Andrew Sandlin is wise. But he does many of the same things that George does, except run marathons. And he used to work for and with R.J. Rushdoony. Then there is Douglas Wilson who does all those things except mainly he writes books. I think he reads about 6 books a month and writes about 5. Peter Leithart, who lives near Wilson, is more than just wise. He is incredibly brilliant. I thought that maybe he was a man of leisure. Sure enough, he has ten children, so he has plenty of time for pursuing his vast areas of research. Steve Wilkins, pastor and friend over in Louisiana, keeps showing signs of being wise. Unfortunately, he is proving to be wise in both theology and history. This double emphasis is most damaging to me. My old friend Randy Booth is wise. He keeps showing up, not just in books, but in footnotes. Even thought I personally know Randy quite well, and even though he is from Lousiana, you just cannot argue with a footnote. I hate to tell this, but I read Nancy Pearsey's book Total Truth and was delightfully impressed. She is wise, and she is a woman. This undermines two vital beliefs of mine.
I am currently reading David Wells's book Above All Earthly Powers: Christ in the Postmodern World and it is brilliant. This book is the fourth in a series of brilliant books by Wells. Wells is wise. I am also reading Rich Lusk's book Paedofaith. I am afraid he may be a part of my problem. It is ashame for such a young guy to do that to someone like me. I am teaching through Trinity and Reality by Ralph Smith in my Sunday School class. When I first met Ralph, I thought he was the lead fiddler in a bluegrass band. I wanted to hear him play "Orange Blossom Special". Then I picked up two brilliant, but deep studies on the Trinity. Then I started teaching Trinity and Reality. I am afraid that he is wise.
Many wise men have been called in our day. I have been to conferences. I have stood around the book tables and attending the sessions. It's true. Even the ones that don't look very wise are wise. Take my friend, *&^%%$, for example.
Maybe the key to this is the phrase "according to worldly standards." I glance around and look at some of the senators and governors; I check up on some of the philosophers and thinkers around today; I survey some of the profs at major universities. Maybe in the Greek, the text says, "Not many unwise are called...God choose the foolish to serve in the Senate and to have tenure." No help found in my Greek helps. The text is clear.
All of this line of thought started a few weeks back when I met Gregory Baus. Gregory left a comment on this blog. He began by saying, "I've heard a rumor that you were interested in HD." I thought that this was another one of those creepy spams you get from professional creepy people. I had no idea what HD was. Then I remembered--HD--Herman Dooyeweerd--the brilliant Reformed philosopher from the Netherlands. HD--One of the key influences on the thinking of Cornelius Van Til, or CVT. (One thing you can do if you want to look wise is speak in initials--'HD?' 'Yea, with CVT in the OPC.' 'Is that PC?''Not according to the CREC.') Also, Dooyeweerd was an influence on Rushdoony, Hebden Taylor, Calvin Seerverd, and other Reformed thinkers. Dooyeweerd and company were not threat to my Bible beliefs, because they are dead. Still wise, but dead. And Dooyeweerd was Dutch. I am not nearly as bothered by wise men from the Netherlands as I am wise men from places like Louisiana or Idaho.
Gregory linked me to his two web-sites:
Honest to Blog
Reformatorische
The first web-site (Honest to Blog) highlights his miserable life of having to go about day by day in Amsterdam studying Reformational philosophy and seeing the sights while preparing academic papers and increasing in wisdom. The second web-site is his academic site which focuses on the types of things he reads and writes. Poor guy seem brilliant. He appears wise. Not many of those called, or is there?
The strange thing about all this dilemma for me is that the more I wonder about the phrase "not many wise are called" and see the opposite, instead of it drawing me away from God and His Word, I am praising Him and His Word more and more.
These doubt hit the church over and over again. We have the ideas of two authors of Isaiah, multiple authors of Genesis, late dating for the Gospels, questions about Paul's authorship, and outright rejection of prophetic books like Daniel.
Then there are the moral problems and philosophical problems of the Bible. How could a good God allow evil? Well, maybe He couldn't, so there, we have gotten rid of God, and conveniently gotten rid of evil. And speaking of convenience, I think I'll go spend some time doing some creative shoplifting, pillaging, and plundering.
Yes, and then there's the Code--hidden in the Renaissance painting of the Last Supper by Da Vinci. So the 'truth' was suppressed by the male-dominated Pro-Peter/Anti-Mary Magdalen faction of the original followers of Jesus. All hidden, suppressed, and obscured until Dan Brown revealed the truth to us in these last days.
But stop the presses, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls which are the proof that the Scriptures are full of mistakes and errors. Wait, I didn't mean the Dead Sea Scrolls. They did not prove anything of the sort, but we do have the Gospel of Judas. The Scriptures cannot possibly be true if late written Gnostic gospels speak another message. We all know logically that something cannot be true if a counterfeit of that truth can be produced. Take money, for instance....
I am doubting the truth of Scripture, but it is not Creation, miracles, moral or philosophical dilemmas, authorship of texts, dating of texts, or who Cain and Abel married that is creating my problem. And it is certainly not Dan Brown, Leonardo Da Vinci, or the Gospel of Judas. If Dan Brown were right, I think God would have blessed him with writing abilities. All such banners of unbelief are mere foolishness and suppressing the truth.
Christianity has stood for 2000 years and knocked out opponent after opponent in the ring. These third rate atheists, unbelievers, skeptics, and soothsayers all need a good swift kick in the solar plexus by Balaam's donkey. Few are worthy to step into the ring with the great apologists of church history. There is not an intellectual challenge to Christianity.
But I am still nursing this doubt. Here it is: Paul says in I First Corinthians, 1: 26-27 "For consider your calling brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards...But God choose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise...." This is my theological Achilles' heel--the Bible says, not many wise are called. For some reason, everytime I have heard a pastor preach this text, he has mentioned me by name. "'Not many wise are called...' Take Ben House, for example."
Something seems wrong: I keep running into really wise people who are believers. As a history student and teacher, I can accept the wise men of the past. I am comfortable with Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Knox, Edwards, and so on. Spread there names out with even a couple dozen more over a millenium plus a few centuries and my exegetical heart is fine. The Nineteenth Century is not a problem. There is Charles Hodge, and his teacher Archibald Alexander, James Henley Thornwell, Robert Lewis Dabney, and in England, Charles H. Spurgeon. Again, add a couple dozen names and spread them out over several continents and I am still orthodox. I accept in my heart that there were a few, quite a few, wise men in the past, and so I find no reason to learn about any more of them.
The Twentieth Century history starts multiplying my problem--Take Benjamin Breckinride Warfield in America and G.K. Chesterton in England, for example. (I once found it easier to disqualify Catholics, but that doesn't seem to work.) Then there are Machen and Lewis. Van Til shows up, as does his earthly opponent/brother, fellow Calvinistic apologist/rival Gordon Clark. And Carl F. H. Henry was wise. So was historian Christopher Dawson. I don't know them well, but I'm certain of the wisdom and brilliance of Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson. There are men I do know somewhat better. Presbyterian historian Gregg Singer was wise. R. J. Rushdoony was brilliant and encyclopedic. Greg Bahnsen was wise, even though I knew him personally. (Don't think too long on that one.)The several dozen extra names in the Twentieth Century has to keep expanding as I keep remembering books and authors. (I left off Abraham Kuyper and Philip Schaff, but they could be relegated to the Nineteenth century.)
Now the problem only gets worse. There are now so many men who are my contemporaries, some older, some younger, but all still around...and wise. George Grant is exceptional. But in his case I have figured out his secret--all he ever does is just run marathons, read books, write books, travel the world, pastor a church, work on Ph.D.'s, spend time with his wife, children, and grandchild, write a blog, lecture at a school, and attend meetings.
Andrew Sandlin is wise. But he does many of the same things that George does, except run marathons. And he used to work for and with R.J. Rushdoony. Then there is Douglas Wilson who does all those things except mainly he writes books. I think he reads about 6 books a month and writes about 5. Peter Leithart, who lives near Wilson, is more than just wise. He is incredibly brilliant. I thought that maybe he was a man of leisure. Sure enough, he has ten children, so he has plenty of time for pursuing his vast areas of research. Steve Wilkins, pastor and friend over in Louisiana, keeps showing signs of being wise. Unfortunately, he is proving to be wise in both theology and history. This double emphasis is most damaging to me. My old friend Randy Booth is wise. He keeps showing up, not just in books, but in footnotes. Even thought I personally know Randy quite well, and even though he is from Lousiana, you just cannot argue with a footnote. I hate to tell this, but I read Nancy Pearsey's book Total Truth and was delightfully impressed. She is wise, and she is a woman. This undermines two vital beliefs of mine.
I am currently reading David Wells's book Above All Earthly Powers: Christ in the Postmodern World and it is brilliant. This book is the fourth in a series of brilliant books by Wells. Wells is wise. I am also reading Rich Lusk's book Paedofaith. I am afraid he may be a part of my problem. It is ashame for such a young guy to do that to someone like me. I am teaching through Trinity and Reality by Ralph Smith in my Sunday School class. When I first met Ralph, I thought he was the lead fiddler in a bluegrass band. I wanted to hear him play "Orange Blossom Special". Then I picked up two brilliant, but deep studies on the Trinity. Then I started teaching Trinity and Reality. I am afraid that he is wise.
Many wise men have been called in our day. I have been to conferences. I have stood around the book tables and attending the sessions. It's true. Even the ones that don't look very wise are wise. Take my friend, *&^%%$, for example.
Maybe the key to this is the phrase "according to worldly standards." I glance around and look at some of the senators and governors; I check up on some of the philosophers and thinkers around today; I survey some of the profs at major universities. Maybe in the Greek, the text says, "Not many unwise are called...God choose the foolish to serve in the Senate and to have tenure." No help found in my Greek helps. The text is clear.
All of this line of thought started a few weeks back when I met Gregory Baus. Gregory left a comment on this blog. He began by saying, "I've heard a rumor that you were interested in HD." I thought that this was another one of those creepy spams you get from professional creepy people. I had no idea what HD was. Then I remembered--HD--Herman Dooyeweerd--the brilliant Reformed philosopher from the Netherlands. HD--One of the key influences on the thinking of Cornelius Van Til, or CVT. (One thing you can do if you want to look wise is speak in initials--'HD?' 'Yea, with CVT in the OPC.' 'Is that PC?''Not according to the CREC.') Also, Dooyeweerd was an influence on Rushdoony, Hebden Taylor, Calvin Seerverd, and other Reformed thinkers. Dooyeweerd and company were not threat to my Bible beliefs, because they are dead. Still wise, but dead. And Dooyeweerd was Dutch. I am not nearly as bothered by wise men from the Netherlands as I am wise men from places like Louisiana or Idaho.
Gregory linked me to his two web-sites:
The first web-site (Honest to Blog) highlights his miserable life of having to go about day by day in Amsterdam studying Reformational philosophy and seeing the sights while preparing academic papers and increasing in wisdom. The second web-site is his academic site which focuses on the types of things he reads and writes. Poor guy seem brilliant. He appears wise. Not many of those called, or is there?
The strange thing about all this dilemma for me is that the more I wonder about the phrase "not many wise are called" and see the opposite, instead of it drawing me away from God and His Word, I am praising Him and His Word more and more.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
What Makes a Good Writer?
After several decades of examining that question, I can confidently say, "I don't know." Neither do I know what makes a good teacher or a good preacher. I know good writing when I read it and I know good teaching and preaching when I hear it.
I recently finished reading Paul Johnson's book The Creators. Johnson surveyed the lives of writers, artists, and musicians. His subjects included Chaucer, Shakespeare, Bach, Verdi, and Disney. Johnson did not give mere short biographies; instead, he sketched out some key features in the lives and works of his subjects. This book is a sequel to a book called Intellectuals in which he politely shredded quite a few modern thinkers whose miserable lives paralled equally miserable philosophies.
I knew Paul Johnson was a good writer, in fact one of the best, before I read this book. His history of America is brilliant; Birth of the Modern and Modern Times are both great works. What I have read of his history of art is wonderful. I differ with quite a few of his interpretations of Christianity in his history of Christianity, but Johnson is delightful and instructive even when he isn't totally on track.
In Creators, I realized more than ever how gifted Johnson was when I read the chapter on Balenciaga and Dior. I did not know beforehand who these men were; when I first figured out that they were dress designers, I had no interest in reading about them. But I had to read the book. Wow! Johnson's discussion of two Parisian fashion designers was as exciting as reading Douglas Southall Freeman on one of Lee's lieutenants. A writer who can take a topic like dress designing and make me like it is a good writer.
After that chapter came his chapter on Pablo Picasso and Walt Disney. How often do we link these two men together? I thought maybe that Johnson was simply squeezing unrelated topics together for the sake of completing the book. In short, Johnson shredded Picasso, that decadent hero of the left. Johnson allowed that the short-term infatuation the art world has with Picasso will someday be all gone. Disney sought to create within the world of nature; Picasso hated nature. Disney loved freedom and enterprise; Picasso loved perversity and communism. Johnson's ability to take two such totally different creators and link them to show the contrast in worldviews is the mark of a good writer.
William Manchester was a gifted writer. His biography of Douglas MacArthur (American Caesar) is outstanding. I wish he had lived long enough to complete his three volume biography of Churchill. The two volumes he did complete are highly acclaimed. While working on volume 3 of Churchill, Manchester got sick. While recovering he began working on a book on the late Medieval period and the Renaissance. The book is titled A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and a Renaissance Portrait of an Age. I recently acquired a used copy (just like new) of this book. I have been appalled so far at how bad the book is. It is overly harsh toward the Medieval period, but that can be accepted. Manchester refers to Arianism and the reactions from it as Christians killing Christians. Well, he flunked ordination there! His total misunderstanding of Augustine is quite atrocious.
Still William Manchester is William Manchester. (Scholars will note my insightful analysis.) So in terms of writing style, his prose is moving and enjoyable. Manchester is a good writer, but completely out of his element in this book.
Finally, I am reading James Billington's Fire in the Minds of Men. This hefty tome about the background to the French and other Revolutions has been beckoning to me for years. I have read portions of it before, but now I am determined to read the whole book. My summer readings will revolve around the two themes of the Protestant Reformation and related issues and the French Revolution and related issues. Billington's work is not easy reading. It is not entertaining. If he wrote a 600 pages book on dress design, I would not open it. But he is brilliantly insightful. Most helpful so far is his linking Revolutionary thought and action to religion. The men of the French Revolution were just as religious as those of the Protestant Reformation.
More book notes later.
I recently finished reading Paul Johnson's book The Creators. Johnson surveyed the lives of writers, artists, and musicians. His subjects included Chaucer, Shakespeare, Bach, Verdi, and Disney. Johnson did not give mere short biographies; instead, he sketched out some key features in the lives and works of his subjects. This book is a sequel to a book called Intellectuals in which he politely shredded quite a few modern thinkers whose miserable lives paralled equally miserable philosophies.
I knew Paul Johnson was a good writer, in fact one of the best, before I read this book. His history of America is brilliant; Birth of the Modern and Modern Times are both great works. What I have read of his history of art is wonderful. I differ with quite a few of his interpretations of Christianity in his history of Christianity, but Johnson is delightful and instructive even when he isn't totally on track.
In Creators, I realized more than ever how gifted Johnson was when I read the chapter on Balenciaga and Dior. I did not know beforehand who these men were; when I first figured out that they were dress designers, I had no interest in reading about them. But I had to read the book. Wow! Johnson's discussion of two Parisian fashion designers was as exciting as reading Douglas Southall Freeman on one of Lee's lieutenants. A writer who can take a topic like dress designing and make me like it is a good writer.
After that chapter came his chapter on Pablo Picasso and Walt Disney. How often do we link these two men together? I thought maybe that Johnson was simply squeezing unrelated topics together for the sake of completing the book. In short, Johnson shredded Picasso, that decadent hero of the left. Johnson allowed that the short-term infatuation the art world has with Picasso will someday be all gone. Disney sought to create within the world of nature; Picasso hated nature. Disney loved freedom and enterprise; Picasso loved perversity and communism. Johnson's ability to take two such totally different creators and link them to show the contrast in worldviews is the mark of a good writer.
William Manchester was a gifted writer. His biography of Douglas MacArthur (American Caesar) is outstanding. I wish he had lived long enough to complete his three volume biography of Churchill. The two volumes he did complete are highly acclaimed. While working on volume 3 of Churchill, Manchester got sick. While recovering he began working on a book on the late Medieval period and the Renaissance. The book is titled A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and a Renaissance Portrait of an Age. I recently acquired a used copy (just like new) of this book. I have been appalled so far at how bad the book is. It is overly harsh toward the Medieval period, but that can be accepted. Manchester refers to Arianism and the reactions from it as Christians killing Christians. Well, he flunked ordination there! His total misunderstanding of Augustine is quite atrocious.
Still William Manchester is William Manchester. (Scholars will note my insightful analysis.) So in terms of writing style, his prose is moving and enjoyable. Manchester is a good writer, but completely out of his element in this book.
Finally, I am reading James Billington's Fire in the Minds of Men. This hefty tome about the background to the French and other Revolutions has been beckoning to me for years. I have read portions of it before, but now I am determined to read the whole book. My summer readings will revolve around the two themes of the Protestant Reformation and related issues and the French Revolution and related issues. Billington's work is not easy reading. It is not entertaining. If he wrote a 600 pages book on dress design, I would not open it. But he is brilliantly insightful. Most helpful so far is his linking Revolutionary thought and action to religion. The men of the French Revolution were just as religious as those of the Protestant Reformation.
More book notes later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)