Humpty Dumpty

Read this seemingly French version of the famous Nursey rhyme:

Homme petit d'homme petit, s'attend, n'avale

Homme petit d'homme petit, à degrés de bègues folles

Anal deux qui noeuds ours, anal deux qui noeuds s'y mènent

Coup d'un poux tome petit tout guetteur à gaine

Here is what those words actually mean in English:

Little man of little man, waits for himself, does not swallow

Little man of little man, by degrees of stuttering madwomen

Anal two that knots bears, anal two that leads

Strike from a louse small volume any watchman with a girdle

What's wrong with this illustration?

Happy Reformation Day!

On this day, All Saints eve, in 1517 Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenburg. This is not a story. This is the truth. What a wonderful day!

From "The Initiation"

"Okay, Ryan...just get in the coffin"

Salvation on Sand Mountain

I just finished reading this fascinating book about Appalachian snake-handling churches by author Dennis Covington, professor of creative writing at UAB (my alma mater). The book is a powerful look at the Scots-Irish background of these fascinating people (probably all of Orange descent) with a striking ending meant to reflect the story of the prodigal son. Best of all, the book adds a dimension to the magic of Birmingham by incorporating its own history in the mix of southern Christianity. Well written and a must read.

An excerpt concerning Johann Hamann (my new hero) from my thesis

What Hamann suggests is that rather than assigning metaphysical status to either subjectivity (Kierkegaard) or objectivity (Kant), we ought to regard them as mere psychological categories. The ideas of subject and object always arise in relationship and in response to a third, transcending element. Or, to state it differently “they represent two discrete responses, an inner and an outer, to that which transcends both.” Ethical behavior, for Hamann, is characterized by a twofold response to a transcendent being (God is absolute transcendence), which is “made possible because of the divine initiative in overcoming the infinite gulf between God and man.”

I will run you through

Thats right. I have mad medieval jedi skills.

Forde quote

“As Luther expressed it directly to Erasmus, “In order to keep “free-will” standing, you must invoke a synechdoche, to wrest all that is said in the scriptures against ungodly men and limit it to man’s brutal part only so that his rational and truly human part may be preserved”. The part implies the whole. The law implies a power to fulfill it. “Ought” implies “can”. All of these are the kind of operating assumptions that have been the very stuff of “modern” theology, and skeptical philosophy for that matter. When the limit is not drawn properly between law and gospel-that is drawn eschatalogically-the limit must be placed elsewhere, such as between one’s higher reason or will and one’s lower animal body.”

The Gospel From Rosenbladt and Walther

This is an actual photo of Walther

It never gets old:

C.F.W. Walther said that as soon as the law has done its crushing work, the Gospel is to be instantly preached or said to such a man or woman - instantly! Walther said that in the very moment that the pastor senses that the law has done its killing work, he is to placard Christ and His cross and blood to the trembling, the despairing, the broken. Be of good cheer, my son. Your sins are forgiven." "The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost." "The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." "Fear not, little flock. It is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." "Come to Me, all you who are heavy laden. Take My yoke upon you, for My yoke is easy and My burden is light." "And He, when He comes, will neither break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoldering wick." "When You return, remember me." "I tell you, this day you shall be with Me in paradise." "It is finished!" ”Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us . . ."

". . . He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree ." "God made Him to be sin who Himself knew no sin . . .", ". . . for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. ”For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." "For by grace you are saved, through faith, and that [faith in Jesus is] not of yourselves, but it is a gift of God, lest any man should boast." "And to the man who does not work but trusts the One who justifies the wicked, his faith is counted as if it were righteousness." "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith, apart from works of the law." ". . . knowing a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ." "But now a righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, . . . the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.” "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." "There is now, therefore, no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

From the Advent's Website

What we should do

by John Stott
http://www.anglicanplanet.net/
September 2005

What unites us is plain. We are members of the Anglican Church who are increasingly disturbed by its current plight. An appreciable number of its leaders are guilty of multiple unfaithfulness. Doctrinal truth and ethical standards which are plainly taught by scripture, and which the Church has accepted from the beginning, are now being challenged and even summarily rejected.

So what should we do? Broadly speaking, we have three options. The first is to get out (the way of secession). The second is to give in (the way of compromise). The third option is to stay in, while refusing to give in (the way of witness). Let’s consider these separately.

The first option is to get out. There are faithful men and women in the Anglican Church who say: "To stay in an unfaithful church like ours would be an intolerable compromise. In order to retain our Christian integrity, we have no alternative but to drop out." Now we should not altogether dismiss this as a possible option. If the Church were to deny one of the central truths of the creed, like the incarnation, the atonement or the resurrection, it would cease to be a church. It would be apostate. Then we would be obliged to leave it. But thank God that lamentable situation has not arrived. The time to leave has not come.

What secessionists tend to forget is that the New Testament lays more emphasis on fellowship than on separation; and that separation, or secession, is demanded only in extreme situations. Thus the apostle Paul pronounces an "anathema" on any teacher who denies the gospel of free grace (Galatians 1:6), and the apostle John calls "antichrist" anyone who denies the divine-human person of Jesus (I John 2:18). The 16th century reformers were themselves very reluctant schismatics. They dreamed of a catholicism reformed according to the word of God. They regarded schism as a sin, and did not leave of their own accord or with relish. It is the false teachers who should secede (I John 2:19), not the true teachers.

Besides, to develop a pragmatic argument, the large secessions of Methodists in the 18th century, and of the Reformed Episcopalians in the 19th century, left the church weaker, not stronger. If they had stayed, would not our evangelical testimony in the Anglican Church be much more effective today? So then, as long as we can do so with a good and a clear conscience, I think we should stay, not leave.

If the first option is to get out, the second is not only to stay in but to give in. I am now thinking of Anglicans who are determined to stay in the Church at all costs, even at the cost of betraying the gospel. They prefer to swim with the stream or "go with the flow". They are exhibiting the spirit of the age, and not least, the spirit of post-modernism. For according to post-modernism, there is no such thing as an objective and universal truth: there is only a multiplicity of time and culture-conditioned truths.

But our Lord Jesus and His apostles were of a different mind. They call us to defend and proclaim the truth, and to recognize and oppose false teachers. We are to have the courage to "fight the good fight of the faith". We are not to be like reeds shaken by the wind, but like rocks in a mountain torrent.

The third option is to stay in, while refusing to give in. Frankly, it is the most painful of the three options, and it causes us considerable misery. The other two options are psychologically easier because they break the tension. If we either get out or give in the tension ceases. But if we stay in while refusing to give in, we find ourselves walking a tightrope, and living in a permanent and painful state of tension. But we are called to this.

Here then are the three options. Secession is to pursue truth at the expense of unity. Compromise is to pursue unity at the expense of truth. Witness is to pursue truth and unity simultaneously. This seems to be the biblical way. We are to "maintain the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15).

Supposing we agree with this, that we are called to stay in without giving in, what would this involve? I would like to make six suggestions. Firstly, we must be patient. Church history has been defined as the story of the patience of God. Certainly He is the God of history; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the God of Moses and the prophets; the God of Jesus, the apostles, and the post-apostolic Church.

Moreover, God has been extraordinarily patient with his wayward Church. He is also at work, and sovereign. He will not allow error to triumph. As Paul wrote, "We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth" (II Corinthians 13:18).

Secondly, we must judge the Church by its official formularies and not by the wild utterances of a few idiosyncratic leaders. The Anglican Communion continues to look to the Prayer Book and Articles as its foundation documents, even where subscription to them has been relaxed. We refuse to contradict our inheritance. History declares the Anglican Church to be biblical, reformed, and evangelical, so that we may rightly claim to be its authentic proponents.

Thirdly, we must adopt the strategy of the apostle Paul. False teachers were invading, disturbing and corrupting the churches in his day. What did he do in this situation? His solution to the problem was neither secession nor compromise. Instead, when false teachers increase, Paul took steps to multiply the number of true teachers who would be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it. This was his teaching to Titus (Titus 1:9).

Fourthly, we must distinguish between primary and secondary issues, between what is central and what is circumferential. We can then determine what the vital issues are on which we have to protest and fight, while at the same time giving one another liberty in some areas in which scripture is not altogether clear. This could be called a "principled" comprehensiveness. Dr Alec Vidler stated the matter well: "In these latter days the conception of Anglican comprehensiveness has been taken to mean that it is the glory of the Church of England [i.e. Anglicanism] to hold together in juxtaposition as many varieties of Christian faith and practice as are willing to agree to differ, so that the church is regarded as a sort of league of religions... The true principle of comprehension is that a church ought to hold the fundamentals of the faith, and at the same time allow for differences of opinion and interpretation in secondary matters, especially rites and ceremonies" (Essays in Liberality).

Fifthly, we must encourage more faithful scholarship. In the early centuries the church fathers not only outlived and out-loved but out-thought their opponents. By contrast, in our own day, many evangelical people despise and reject scholarship. It is an extremely serious situation. I do not hesitate to say that anti-intellectualism and the fullness of the Holy Spirit are mutually incompatible. Since the Holy Spirit is "the Spirit of truth" as Jesus called Him, wherever he is in control truth matters.

Sixthly and lastly, we must embody our message. As Paul wrote to the Philippians, "Let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ" (1:27). It is not enough for us to defend and proclaim the faith; we have to live and express it. We lack all credibility when people perceive a dichotomy between what we say and what we are. John Poulton, at one time adviser on evangelism to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his book called A Today Sort of Evangelism (Lutterworth 1972) wrote, "The most effective evangelism comes from those who embody the things they are saying. They are their message... Christians need to look like what they are talking about... What communicates now is basically personal authenticity." So, by the power of the Holy Spirit, we must develop both Christian lives and Christian churches in which Christ is made visible again.

Two of the options we have considered (to get out or give in) are ultimately defeatist, whereas to stay in while refusing to give in seems to me to be the way of courage. We need again to hear God’s Word to his people: Do not fear, for I am with you; do not be discouraged, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand" (Isaiah 41:10).

John Stott is a priest in the Church of England, and is one of the most popular and prolific Anglican writers of his generation. He is also a popular speaker, well known throughout the Anglican Communion, and the ecumenical community.

A word about my recent research

I am currently writing my philosophy thesis on Kant's statement "ought implies can". Basically, I don't agree. As a matter of fact, I think that it is precisely the problem of the human condition that we are held responsible for that which we cannot perform. More accurately, you and I are unable to do that which we ought. In my research I have been directed to the works of a contemporary of Kant's named Johann Hamann. He was, like Kant, a member of the rationalist school that was very prevalent in Europe at the time but he underwent a religious conversion and realised that all was not well with the Enlightenment program. Among other things, he found that the Enlighteners, rather than freed from oppressive bondage, were bound by their obsession with human reason. In The Socratic Memorabilia, Hamann recalls the Delphic Oracle's pronouncement that Socrates was the wisest of men because he understood his own ignorance. This understanding was completely missing from the Enlightenment according to Hamann. The result has been an unnecessary split between subject and object which can be alleviated only by the exaltation of that which is lowly to that which is loved and greatly admired.
Also, I recommend a book by Morris Berman called The Reenchantment of the World which outlines the decay of the "participatory consciousness" that has plagued our world since Descartes.

Total human depravity?

From the New Yorker:

WHAT I’D SAY TO THE MARTIANS
by Jack Handey
Issue of 2005-08-08 and 15
Posted 2005-08-01

People of Mars, you say we are brutes and savages. But let me tell you one thing: if I could get loose from this cage you have me in, I would tear you guys a new Martian asshole. You say we are violent and barbaric but has any one of you come up to my cage and extended his hand? Because, if he did, I would jerk it off and eat it right in front of him. “Mmm, that’s good Martian,” I would say.
You say your civilization is more advanced than ours. But who is really the more “civilized” one? You, standing there watching this cage? Or me, with my pants down, trying to urinate on you? You criticize our Earth religions, saying they have no relevance to the way we actually live. But think about this: if I could get my hands on that god of yours, I would grab his skinny neck and choke him until his big green head exploded.
We are a warlike species, you claim, and you show me films of Earth battles to prove it. But I have seen all the films about twenty times. Get some new films, or, so help me, if I ever get out of here I will empty my laser pistol into everyone I see, even pets.
Speaking of films, I could show you some films, films that portray a different, gentler side of Earth. And while you’re watching the films I’d sort of slip away, because guess what: the projector is actually a thing that shoots out spinning blades! And you fell for it! Well, maybe not now you wouldn’t.
You point to your long tradition of living peacefully with Earth. But you know what I point to? Your stupid heads.
You say there is much your civilization could teach ours. But perhaps there is something that I could teach you—namely, how to scream like a parrot when I put your big Martian head in a vise.
You claim there are other intelligent beings in the galaxy besides earthlings and Martians. Good, then we can attack them together. And after we’re through attacking them we’ll attack you.
I came here in peace, seeking gold and slaves. But you have treated me like an intruder. Maybe it is not me who is the intruder but you.
No, not me. You, stupid.
You keep my body imprisoned in this cage. But I am able to transport my mind to a place far away, a happier place, where I use Martian heads for batting practice.
I admit that sometimes I think we are not so different after all. When you see one of your old ones trip and fall down, do you not point and laugh, just as we on Earth do? And I think we can agree that nothing is more admired by the people of Earth and Mars alike than a fine, high-quality cigarette. For fun, we humans like to ski down mountains covered with snow; you like to“milk” bacteria off of scum hills and pack them into your gill slits. Are we so different? Of course we are, and you will be even more different if I ever finish my homemade flamethrower.
You may kill me, either on purpose or by not making sure that all the surfaces in my cage are safe to lick. But you can’t kill an idea. And that idea is: me chasing you with a big wooden mallet.
You say you will release me only if I sign a statement saying that I will not attack you. And I have agreed, the only condition being that I can sign with a long sharp pen. And still you keep me locked up.
True, you have allowed me reading material—not the “human reproduction” magazines I requested but the works of your greatest philosopher, Zandor or Zanax or whatever his name is. I would like to discuss his ideas with him—just me, him, and one of his big, heavy books.
If you will not free me, at least deliver a message to Earth. Send my love to my wife, and also to my girlfriend. And to my children, if I have any anyplace. Ask my wife to please send me a bazooka, which is a flower we have on Earth. If my so-called friend Don asks you where the money I owe him is, please anally probe him. Do that anyway.
If you keep me imprisoned long enough, eventually I will die. Because one thing you Martians do not understand is that we humans cannot live without our freedom. So, if you see me lying lifeless in my cage, come on in, because I’m dead. Really.
Maybe one day we will not be the enemies you make us out to be. Perhaps one day a little Earth child will sit down to play with a little Martian child, or larva, or whatever they are. But, after a while, guess what happens: the little Martian tries to eat the Earth child. But guess what the Earth child has? A gun. You weren’t expecting that, were you? And now the Martian child is running away, as fast as he can. Run, little Martian baby, run!
I would like to thank everyone for coming to my cage tonight to hear my speech. Donations will be gratefully accepted. (No Mars money, please.)

This is a screen shot from my new film "Los 3"

Quote from NBC's "The Office"

"When people say something's mutual, it never is. But this was mutual."

Middle Path Christmas 2005

"off book"

I have spent the past couple of days in a dialogue on a blog related to the "Book of Daniel" television series. The conversation has had very little to do with the actual show but is has been really quite telling. The blog is run by the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. The tone of the moderators of the blog and that of many who comment is strikingly "Christianity Lite" to use Paul Zahl's phrase. Almost every post refers to a highly subjective, emotional, introspective (although not too deep), relativistic, wishy-washy, "safe" realm of topics. For example, one woman referred to a time when she prayed that God would convict her if her homosexual relationship was wrong. She happily reported that shortly therafter her relationship was filled with even more joy. This was sure confirmation that God approves of her behavior. When I questioned the grounds of her conclusion I was reported to be insensitive and hostile. Soon after she accused me of being attached to external parchment as she claimed that as a fulfillment of Jeremiah, God had written His law on her heart, therefore she was justified in coming to her conclusion. She had a name for this interpretation of Jesus' fulfillment of Jeremiah. She called it going "off book"
Now, maybe this in not a new term (it is definitely not a new idea) but I had a realization. It seems that she was not at all interested in justifying her position on the basis of scripture. Rather, she was supplanting herself as above scripture itself on the basis that Jesus himself was primarily interested in getting us "off book".
By the way, she has an M. Div. from TESM. I don't think they teach "off book" do they?