Modernists

I've been watching episodes of "Yes, Prime Minister," the wonderful BBC comedy series about the relationship  between political office holders and the civil service, and came across this tonight:

TR at church

The second volume of Edmund Morris's biography of Theodore Roosevelt, Theodore Rex - the book about the Presidential years, includes this account of a Sunday at Sagamore Hill near the end of TR's second term:

.... Edith Roosevelt's cool discipline held the big crowded house together, as it had the White House. She made no effort to cajole or criticize her children or guests, manipulating them simply by her own quiet example. Over breakfast on Sunday morning, she announced that she and the President were going to church, but expected no one to accompany them unless "conscience" so dictated. Captain Butt, who could take religion or leave it, could also take a hint.

Knowing them both to be Protestant, he ventured an anti-Catholic remark during the automobile ride to Christ Episcopal Church. Roosevelt gave him a quizzical look.

"Archie, when I discuss the Catholic Church, I am reminded that it is the only church which has ever turned an Eastern race into a Christian people. Is that not so?"

Forty little boys saluted as the President led the way into the little church on Shore Road. Captain Butt joined him and Mrs. Winthrop in the front family pew, while Edith, Ethel, and Kermit sat behind. Butt was intrigued to see that Roosevelt, a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, bowed his head in prayer, "just as all good Episcopalians do," before the service started. He needed no prayer book, singing all the plainsong chants and the "Te Deum" by heart. He sang every hymn too, changing sometimes to a lower octave, somewhat surprising for a man whose speaking voice broke so often into falsetto. His only concession to the faith of his fathers, so far as Butt could see, was a refusal to bow his head during the Creed and again at the Gloria. "I came to the conclusion before the service was over that the President was at heart an Episcopalian, whatever his earlier training might have been."

Asked afterward what his favorite hymns were, Roosevelt listed "How Firm a Foundation," followed by "Holy, Holy, Holy," "Jerusalem the Golden," and "The Son of God Goes Forth to War."

He indulged in no sports that afternoon, explaining to Butt that although Sabbath observance meant little to him personally, it meant a lot to many Americans, and he felt an obligation, as President, to respect such common beliefs. ....

Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex, Random House, New York, 2001, p. 532.

Credo

Justin Taylor calls our attention to a series by Justin Holcomb about the creeds and confessions of the Church: "The Concise History of Creeds & Confessions." Thus far:

• The Apostles Creed
• The Nicene Creed
• The Athanasian Creed
• The Councils of Constantinople
• The Council of Ephesus

About The Council of Ephesus, in a section called "Contemporary Relevance," Holcomb says, "The First Council of Ephesus is an example of proclaiming excellent theological orthodoxy but in a way that was unfair and lacked humility and charity on both sides."

The entries are brief and the summaries seem fair. There will be more entries.

The Concise History of Creeds & Confessions | The Resurgence

Trinity VIII: By their fruit

O GOD, whose never-failing providence ordereth all things both in heaven and earth; We humbly beseech Thee to put away from us all hurtful things, and to give us those things which are profitable for us; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. [Thomas Cranmer]

BEWARE of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven. [Matthew vii]

O Lord, Thou hast me searched and known.
Thou know'st my sitting down,
And rising up; yea, all my thoughts
afar to Thee are known. ....

.... Search me, O God, and know my heart,
try me, my thoughts unfold:

And see if any wicked way
there be at all in me;
And in Thine everlasting way
to me a leader be.
[from Psalm 139, Scottish Psalter, 1650]

Science fiction and fantasy

NPR has posted the results of its survey: "Your Picks: Top 100 Science-Fiction, Fantasy Books":

More than 5,000 of you nominated. More than 60,000 of you voted. And now the results are in. The winners of NPR's Top 100 Science-Fiction and Fantasy survey are an intriguing mix of classic and contemporary titles. ....

A quick word about what's here, and what's not: Our panel of experts reviewed hundreds of the most popular nominations and tossed out those that didn't fit the survey's criteria (after — we assure you — much passionate, thoughtful, gleefully nerdy discussion). You'll notice there are no young adult or horror books on this list, but sit tight, dear reader, we're saving those genres for summers yet to come.

So, at last, here are your favorite science-fiction and fantasy novels.

I'm not a great reader of science fiction or fantasy and so was surprised to discover that I have read many of them, mostly in the top fifty and mostly a long time ago. Interestingly the first and last on the list are by Inklings:

	1. The Lord Of The Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien Tolkien's seminal three-volume epic chronicles the War of the Ring, in which Frodo the hobbit and his companions set out to destroy the evil Ring of Power and restore peace to Middle-earth. The beloved trilogy still casts a long shadow, having established some of the most familiar and enduring tropes in fantasy literature.
	100. The Space Trilogy by C.S. Lewis Philologist Edwin Ransom travels to Mars and Venus, and makes a series of dramatic discoveries about Earth's place in the solar system – and the nature of a threat it unwittingly faces.

Your Picks: Top 100 Science-Fiction, Fantasy Books : NPR

"If you love me...."

Kevin DeYoung is the young [by my standards] senior pastor at the University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan. He's one of those guys who are always worth reading. For instance, from "The Law of Love and the Love of Law":

Some Christians make the mistake of pitting love against law, as if the two were mutually exclusive. You either have a religion of love or a religion of law. But such an equation is profoundly unbiblical. For starters, “love” is a command of the law (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:36-40). If you enjoin people to love, you are giving them law. Conversely, if you tell them law doesn’t matter, then neither does love, which is the summary of the law.

Furthermore, consider the close connection Jesus makes between love and law. For Jesus there is no love for him apart from keeping the law (John 14:15). But he says even more than this. Jesus connects communion with God with keeping commandments. When we keep Christ’s commandments, we love him. And when we love Christ, the Father loves us. And whomever the Father loves, Christ loves and reveals himself to them (John 14:21). So, there is no abiding in Christ’s love apart from keeping Christ’s commandments (John 15:10). Which means there is no fullness of joy apart from the pursuit of holiness (John 15:11).

God’s law is an expression of his grace. The law is God’s plan for his sanctified people to enjoy communion with him. That’s why the Psalms are full of declarations of delight regarding God’s commands. ....

Let’s not be afraid to land on law—never as the means of meriting justification, but as the proper expression of having received it. .... [more]

The Law of Love and the Love of Law – Kevin DeYoung

The triumph of Rousseau

Dr. Theodore Dalrymple — the pen name of Anthony Daniels — has written some fifteen books "of scathing social commentary on everything from crime to travel to, most recently, what he calls 'the toxic cult of sentimentality' in modern society. In his writing and in conversation, he returns frequently to the criminals he's known and treated." His familiarity with criminals is partly based on some fifteen years as a prison doctor in Britain. He was interviewed by Brian Carney for the Wall Street Journal about our need to understand murderers like Anders Breivik.

.... A Breivik is a deeper mystery. Of him, "you can say, 'This man is highly narcissistic, paranoid and grandiose,'" and this may lead you to seek reasons for that in his past—"his father disappeared at the age of 15 and so on and so forth." But uncovering such facts doesn't solve the mystery because "whatever you find, you would also find among hundreds or thousands or even millions of people who didn't do what he did." There is, he says, "always a gap between what is to be explained and your alleged explanation. So there's always a mystery, and I think that's going to remain." ....

The human impulse to explain the inexplicably horrific is revealing, according to Dr. Dalrymple, in two respects—one personal, one political. First, it says something about us that we feel compelled to explain evil in a way that we don't feel about people's good actions. The discrepancy arises, he says, "because [Jean-Jacques] Rousseau has triumphed," by which he means that "we believe ourselves to be good, and that evil, or bad, is the deviation from what is natural."

For most of human history, the prevailing view was different. Our intrinsic nature was something to be overcome, restrained and civilized. But Rousseau's view, famously, was that society corrupted man's pristine nature. This is not only wrong, Dr. Dalrymple argues, but it has had profound and baleful effects on society and our attitude toward crime and punishment. For one thing, it has alienated us from responsibility for our own actions. For another, it has reduced our willingness to hold others responsible for theirs.

"Most people," Dr. Dalrymple says, "now have a belief in the inner core of themselves as being good. So that whatever they've done, they'll say, 'That's not the real me.'" .... [more]

Dalrymple on the rioting in London. Depressing.

The Weekend Interview with Theodore Dalrymple: Unraveling the Mystery of Murderous Minds - WSJ.com

"A commitment to nothing in particular"

The Reverend Dr. Frederick W. Schmidt, an Episcopal priest, asks "What do Evangelicals have that we don't?" and provides an answer:

.... Evangelicals believe something. To name a few things: They believe in God, the Trinity, the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ, the Resurrection, and the authority of Scripture. These things define reality in a particular way for Evangelicals.

People are drawn to defining experiences. They ground and center life, they define the boundaries of a community, they lend cohesion to that community, and the shared language serves as the basis for a common life. What a community believes gives people a reason for becoming a part of it and reasons for staying.

There are many good reasons to practice humility about the claims that we make for our faith—not the least of which is our inability to capture everything that might be said about God. But a commitment to nothing in particular as a life's endeavor is finally unsatisfying. It doesn't make for social cohesion. And, at the same time, it is grounded in at least one dogma of its own—in spite of itself—i.e., the conviction that we can't know anything. Fair enough if you are a skeptic, but hardly a powerful reason for going to church.

Evangelicals are actively committed to what they believe. Both the Old and New Testaments connect what is known about God with living for God. The Book of Deuteronomy admonishes Israel to "Teach your children the Law and to do it." The Epistle of James picks up on the same theme: "Faith without works is dead." And Paul connects the facts of the faith with imperatives in his letters. To embrace truth, it must be lived. ....

Evangelicals also think that thinking about what they believe is important. Stott and, before him, C.S. Lewis, gave their lives to the effort to be clear about what they believed and they engaged others in the effort. Being clear opened both of them to criticisms, of course, but nearly fifty years after his death Lewis is still widely read and continues to engage his readers in that conversation. .... [more]

Thanks to Insight Scoop for the reference.

Southern Methodist University News - What do Evangelicals have that we don't? - SMU BubbleLife - The Online Home of Southern Methodist University - Southern Methodist University, Texas

Christ the King

Re-reading the Anglo-Saxon religious poem, The Dream of the Rood, has caused Suzannah to reflect on some differences between how those Christians viewed Christ and how we do:

...[T]he most obvious point of difference between modern religion and The Dream of the Rood is probably the contrasting view of Jesus. After all, in the last hundred or so years, we've had Gentle Jesus, Meek and Mild; we've had Radical Revolutionary Jesus, we've had Hell, What's That? Jesus, we've had Wise Human Teacher Jesus, and we've had Only Wants Your Personal Fulfilment Jesus.

Well, this is Anglo-Saxon Jesus:

The young hero stripped himself then (that was God Almighty)

strong and resolute. He ascended onto the high gallows,

brave in the sight of many there, since he wished to release mankind.

Warrior, Mighty King, Lord of the Heavens, Wielder of Triumphs—this is what the Dream of the Rood calls Christ. The Anglo-Saxons, coming from the cold hard myths of the North into Christianity, probably could not help seeing Christ as the epitome of what was honourable and good in their own eyes: the self-sacrificing warrior-king who will enjoy fellowship in the mead-hall of heaven with his faithful thegns. Even after “the King's fall” the poet speaks of the dead Christ in terms that hint at more to come:

They laid him down there, weary-limbed; they positioned themselves at his body's head,

there they gazed at the Lord of heaven, and he rested himself there for a while,

weary after the great battle.

Strangely, I've heard criticisms of this particular view of Christ as the conquering King. Now it's perfectly true: Christ is also the prophet and the priest, also the sacrificial Lamb, and there was certainly defeat in His triumph. But can anyone say this view of Christ is wrong? Incomplete—maybe. But was it meant to be complete? Can you fault the Anglo-Saxons for their delight in one aspect of Christ that so often goes overlooked? Can we not rather say that the Saxons had a much healthier, a more full-orbed idea of kingship than we have?

The Westminster Shorter Catechism has one marvelous question that addresses this issue well:

Q. 26: How doth Christ execute the office of a king?

A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us, and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies.

Christ the King was the particular joy of Anglo-Saxon Christians. We're embarrassed by the idea these days. It makes Christianity seem so...well, so manly. Or even worse – such a view might lead one to think that God hasn't planned on the Church's ultimate failure...that maybe, after all, Christ won the decisive battle on the Cross and the rest of history is just cleanup.

And you'd have to be crazy to believe that, right?

In Which I Read Vintage Novels: The Dream of the Rood

Milton Academy and the Civil War

Joseph Goodrich

I grew up in Milton, Wisconsin, living across the street from Milton College, founded by Seventh Day Baptists, and two doors down from the house that had once belonged to Hosea Rood, Civil War veteran, active member of the GAR, and creator of the Civil War Museum in Wisconsin's Capitol building. The Milton College Library had a plaque listing the names of those Milton College students who died in that war. Today the Milton Courier has on its website an article about Milton Academy [soon after the war to be Milton College] and the American Civil War:

.... Over the course of the 1861-1865 Civil War approximately 312 students and former students of Milton Academy volunteered for military service. 43 died in the war.

Total student enrollment in 1861 was 384. By the end of the war enrollment had dropped to 292, “mainly due to the enlisting of the males of legal age in the army of the United States,” a college history booklet states. ....

Given the strong abolitionist leanings of the community and Milton Academy faculty it was natural students would support the fight to end slavery. Scheehle said the robust volunteerism on campus “was reflective of the attitude of the area.”

[Joseph] Goodrich planted strong anti-slave sentiment here when he settled in 1838 from western New York....

He opened Milton Academy in 1844. Three other abolitionists would become presidents. Academy trustees and board members were abolitionists as well.

Earlier in 1844 Goodrich built his Milton House stagecoach inn. At some point the 50-foot tunnel for escaping slaves was dug from the Goodrich Cabin to the inn’s basement. It is not known exactly when the tunnel was dug.

Hosea Rood

Of the 312 Civil War volunteers from Milton Academy, 69 received commissions from second lieutenant to brigadier general. Besides students they included faculty members such as Nathan Twining, a math teacher who was made captain of Company C, 40th Infantry in 1864. He would return to chair the department. ....

Milton Academy was granted a college charter in 1867. Though the students and former students who fought in the Civil War are now footnotes in history, the field and chapel where they drilled, and the classrooms where they learned, are still here for residents and visitors to explore. .... [more]

Those pictured are Joseph Goodrich, the founder of Milton and of Milton Academy, and Hosea Rood, Civil War veteran and Milton resident.

Hundreds of Milton Academy students fought in Civil War - Milton Courier - Milton, WI

Out of grateful joy

Via Justin Taylor, "Four Kinds of People," as identified by Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church:

Tim Keller, Galatians Study, p. 118:

Law-obeying, Law-relying
These people are under the law, and are usually very smug, self-righteous and pharisaical.

Externally, they are very sure they are right with God, but deep down, they have a lot of insecurity, since no one can truly be assured they are living up to standards. This makes them touchy, sensitive to criticism, and devastated when their prayers aren’t answered.

Law-disobeying, Law-relying
These people have a religious conscience of strong works-righteousness, but they are not living consistently with it.

As a result, they are more humble and more tolerant of others than the Pharisees above, but they are also much more guilt-ridden, subject to mood swings and sometimes very afraid of religious topics. ....

Law-disobeying, Not law-relying
These are the people who have thrown off the concept of the law of God.

They are intellectually secular or rather relativistic, or have a very vague spirituality. They largely choose their own moral standards and insist they are meeting them. But Paul in Romans 1 says that at a sub-conscious level, they know there is a God who they should be obeying. ....

Law-obeying, Not law-relying
These are Christians who understand the gospel and are living out of the freedom of it.

They obey the law of God out of grateful joy that comes from the knowledge of their sonship and out of the freedom from the fear of selfishness that false idols had generated. They are more tolerant than #3, more sympathetic than #2, and more confident than #1. ....

Four Kinds of People – Justin Taylor

Screwtape

From John A. Murray in "C.S. Lewis and the Devil":

.... Among the educated elite today, talking publicly about one's belief in the devil and his influence on the culture and the world would be social suicide. The same was no less true in 1947, when Oxford don C.S. Lewis addressed this subject in an interview with Time magazine.

"Lewis (like T.S. Eliot, W.H. Auden, et al.) is one of a growing band of heretics among modern intellectuals: an intellectual who believes in God," Time reported. "It is not a mild and vague belief, for he accepts 'all the articles of the Christian faith'—which means that he also believes in sin and in the Devil."

The Time article went on to note: "Since 1941, when Lewis published a witty collection of infernal correspondence called The Screwtape Letters, this middle-aged (49) bachelor professor who lives a mildly humdrum life ('I like monotony') has sold something over a million copies of his 15 books. He has made 29 radio broadcasts on religious subjects, each to an average of 600,000 listeners."

C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters first appeared in the Guardian from May 2, 1941, to Nov. 28, 1941, before being published as a book in 1942. It became an immediate bestseller and has remained popular; 20th Century Fox hopes to make a movie based on "Screwtape" in the next few years. ....

The collection of letters follows the correspondence of Uncle Screwtape ("Undersecretary for the Infernal Lowerarchy") to his nephew Wormwood—an inexperienced devil who has been assigned a "patient" to tempt on Earth. "The Enemy" in the story is not the devil, whom Screwtape affectionately calls "Our Father Below," but God. "Our Father's House" is not heaven, but hell. Thus, everything Screwtape portrays as good is actually evil, and vice versa.

Set at the start of World War II, an unnamed young Englishman serves as Wormwood's patient and the focus of the devils' schemes. As commentator Mark Edward DeForrest wrote, "It is the story of a simple life of faith, concerned with the commonplace difficulties of being a disciple of Jesus Christ in a world filled with small but spiritually deadly dangers." ....

In his original preface written from Magdalen College at Oxford on July 5, 1941, Lewis warned of what he called "the two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils." One error "is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them." Lewis concluded that the devils "are equally pleased by both errors, and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight."

Lewis noted the failures born from mankind's fallen nature. But he believed in the power of Jesus Christ to overcome sin, death and Satan, and the optimism of faith and hope. .... (more)

John A. Murray: C.S. Lewis and the Devil - WSJ.com

Christian fiction

In "Why You Should Read Hannah Coulter" Russell Moore contrasts good "Christian" fiction with bad, and explains the benefits of the good:

.... Some time ago, I critiqued the genre of “Christian romance novels,” and came under a lot of criticism for it (mostly by Christian romance novelists). I was amazed that some of the criticisms attacked me for things that are actually the opposite of what I believe. Some assumed I was saying that fiction was wrong because it’s “not true.” Hardly! I read more fiction than I do non-fiction, if you exempt the Bible from consideration, and I consider it, most often, truer than anything in the world. Some also assumed that I thought one should only write about explicitly Christian themes, and that human love is not worthy of the Christian pen. God forbid.

I think fiction is good, necessary, and God-glorifying. I teach my theology students to read good fiction for the sake of their preaching, if for no other reason. Those without the imagination to read fiction usually lack the imagination to hear the rhythm and contours of Scripture, much less to peer into the mysteries of the human heart. I just think schlocky fiction does just the opposite of all of that. I also think human love is a more than worthy subject of writing, including Christian writing. I just think it should be done with authenticity and honesty, and should look at love, not the hormonal utopia our culture has taught us to long for. .... [more]

Moore to the Point – Why You Should Read Hannah Coulter

Journey Into Fear

I love a good thriller, particularly one that conveys a believable sense of time and place. In "The Polished Menace of Eric Ambler," Shmuel Ben-Gad comments on an author I read years ago. I believe I read everything he wrote. I think it may be time I revisited his books.

....Eric Ambler (1909-1998) is unquestionably one of the best writers of spy stories in English. His stories are filled with mystery and menace and are distinguished by an air of realism, sophisticated plots, and polished prose.....

His best novel of this period, and arguably his best novel overall, is A Coffin for Dimitrios (1939, also published as A Mask for Dimitrios). In this tale, an English economics professor turned detective story writer has his curiosity piqued by an enigmatic deceased individual known as Dimitrios. The novel follows his attempts to unravel the mystery surrounding this person. Ambler wrote one more novel, Journey Into Fear (1940), before serving in the British army during the war. ....

Political or not, Ambler’s thrillers are wonderfully entertaining. Perhaps only Graham Greene, John Le Carre, and Charles McCarry rival him, and I would put Ambler ahead of all of them. ....

Goodness knows, the world remains a place of intrigue, plotting, and danger. Eric Ambler provided all this to us convincingly but safely between the covers of his books. I doubt that his works will lose their appeal.... (more)

Orson Welles made a very good film of Ambler's Journey Into Fear starring Joseph Cotton.

The Polished Menace of Eric Ambler | The American Culture

"He who marries the spirit of the age will soon become a widower"

Matthew J. Milliner, a professor at Wheaton, offers "9.5 Theses" about postmodernism in the Church. For example:

1. I'll say it again: He who marries the spirit of the age will soon become a widower. Do those who married postmodernity realize their spouse is in a nursing home?

1.5 Christians who cater their theology to accommodate deconstruction are comparable to sub-rate CCM bands who copy Green Day five years after they've ceased being cool. They'll sell, but to a subset of evangelicalism who want to be "relevant" - which is the only group they'll ever be relevant to.

2. Yes Paul said he sees through a glass darkly - but he still saw. Don't forget to keep reading.

2.5 Paul did not end his speech at the Areopagus by saying "the Unknown God" is a great idea, sorry I bothered you. Nice statue. Can I have a copy? ....

4. Yes, God is at work in the world already. That doesn't mean the church needs to be like the world. The best thing the church can do for the world is to be the church, not regurgitate graduate school seminar room talk from 1985.

4.5 Wrestling with the difficult questions of the Christian life (the eternal destiny of non-Christians, the reliability of the Bible, church hypocrisy, etc.) does not constitute a movement. It's called normative Christian maturation. It is risky business, but followed through, opens into holy mystery and stronger, more nuanced faith. Abandoned, this process can lead to faith's termination. Perpetuating those questions indefinitely, however, is another thing entirely: Frozen adolescence.

4.75 POP QUIZ! What is wrong with the following Biblical quotation? "Seek and you shall seek." ....

5.5 Tom Oden is right: "A center without a circumference is just a dot, nothing more. It is the circumference that marks the boundary of the circle. To eliminate the boundary is to eliminate the circle itself. The circle of faith cannot identify its center without recognizing its perimeter." ....

8. Heresy is boring, not exciting because it eviscerates mystery. If you're attracted to heresy because it makes you feel naughty then that's kinda creepy. If you're attracted to it because you don't want to "limit God," then the religion that serves a God who became a particular first-century Palestinian Jew might not be for you. .... [more]

millinerd.com: 9.5 Theses

Islam and freedom

At our recent church conference one of the late-night discussions focused on the question of whether any orthodox Muslim could be a moderate, i.e. politically liberal, Muslim. Once home, I found this article by Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish Muslem, in which he makes the case for for freedom within predominantly Muslim states. Via Walter Russell Mead

.... Today, in order to go beyond those extremes, and to rediscover Islamic liberalism, I call on my fellow Muslims to embrace three basic freedoms:

First, “freedom from the state,” or the acceptance of secular (not secularist) governments. Yes, Prophet Muhammad happened to be the head of a state, but none of us mortals are divinely guided as we believe that he was. Thus, none of us should impose our own limited understanding of Islam, via the state, as “the real Islam.”

Second, there is the need to accept “the freedom to sin.” Not because we endorse sin, but because when we try to ban it with authoritarian means, all we create is hypocrisy, not genuine piety.

Third, we Muslims should recognize “freedom from Islam.” If any of our coreligionists choose another religion, in other words, we should just respect that choice. That would be a much bigger service to our faith, rather than depicting it as a club with a free entry but no free exit.

Muslims do not need to abandon the core of their faith in order to accept these freedoms. But they certainly need to recognize them, if they wish to build truly liberating democracies. .... [more]

Faith: Freedom and Islam - WWW.THEDAILY.COM

Good enough for Christians?

Reviewing Back On Murder, by J. Mark Bertrand, Lars Walker made an observation that certainly applies to me with respect to both books and music:

Those of us who read both secular and Christian fiction tend to employ a double standard. There's a full-out “excellent” category in the secular field, and then there's “excellent for Christian fiction,” which is understood to be not quite as good as the secular stuff, but better than the average CBA fare. .... [more]

Brandywine Books: Back On Murder, by J. Mark Bertrand

Trinity VII: The gift of God

LORD of all power and might, who art the author and giver of all good things; Graft in our hearts the love of Thy Name, increase in us true religion, nourish us with all goodness, and of Thy great mercy keep us in the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
[Thomas Cranmer]

I SPEAK after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. [Romans VI]

"The soul that on Jesus has leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to its foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake."
[John Rip­pon,, 1787]

"The soul that on Jesus has leaned for repose, I will not, I will not desert to its foes..."

"Chaplain Mike" at Internet Monk chooses "How Firm a Foundation," a great hymn, my favorite hymn, to comment on in "A Hymn for Ordinary Time." It is the theme hymn I chose for the annual conference I planned when I was president of my denomination.

.... One of the great hymns that references the Scriptures is “How Firm a Foundation.” However, only the first verse speaks of the Bible as our foundation. The rest of the lyrics are words from God’s own mouth, reassurances of his unfailing covenant love for his own in Jesus. These words of comfort come to a climax in the magnificent final verse, in which he promises “never, no never, never” to forsake us. ....

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!
What more can He say than to you He hath said,
You, who unto Jesus for refuge have fled?

"Fear not, I am with thee, O be not dismayed,
For I am thy God and will still give thee aid;
I’ll strengthen and help thee, and cause thee to stand
Upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand.

"When through the deep waters I call thee to go,
The rivers of woe shall not thee overflow;
For I will be with thee, thy troubles to bless,
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.

"When through fiery trials thy pathways shall lie,
My grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply;
The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume, and thy gold to refine.

"The soul that on Jesus has leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to its foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake."

The scripture references for the verses (thank you, Paul Manuel) are, Verse Two - Isaiah 41:10, Verse Three - Isaiah 43:2, Verse Four - II Corinthians 12:9, and Verse Five - Hebrews 13:5.

Cyberhymnal describes the importance the hymn had in American history:

[It] was the fa­vo­rite of De­bo­rah Jack­son (sic; her name was ac­tu­al­ly Ra­chel), Pre­si­dent Andrew Jack­son’s be­loved wife (he was Pre­si­dent-elect at the time), and on his death-bed the war­ri­or and states­man called for it. It was the fa­vo­rite of Gen. Ro­bert E. Lee, and was sung at his fun­er­al. The Amer­i­can love and fa­mil­iar pre­fer­ence for the re­mark­a­ble hymn was never more striking­ly il­lus­trat­ed than when on Christ­mas Eve, 1898, a whole corps of the Unit­ed States Army, North­ern and South­ern, en­camped on the Que­ma­dos hills, near Havana (Cu­ba), took up the sa­cred tune and words.

A Hymn for Ordinary Time (6) | internetmonk.comHow Firm a FoundationHow Firm a Foundation

Walking away from the faith

Jon Nielson, a youth pastor, responding to the very real concern about the falling away from the Church during their college years of young people who grew up in Christian homes. He finds it easiest to examine "Why Youth Stay in Church When They Grow Up":

.... What is it that sets apart the kids who stay in the church? Here are just a few observations I have made about such kids, with a few applications for those of us serving in youth ministry.

1. They are converted.
.... We need to stop talking about “good kids.” We need to stop being pleased with attendance at youth group and fun retreats. We need to start getting on our knees and praying that the Holy Spirit will do miraculous saving work in the hearts of our students as the Word of God speaks to them. In short, we need to get back to a focus on conversion. How many of us are preaching to “unconverted evangelicals”?  ....

2. They have been equipped, not entertained.
....[Y]outh pastors especially need to keep repeating the words of Ephesians 4:11-12 to themselves: “[Christ] gave . . . the teachers to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, for building up the body of Christ.” Christ gives us—teachers—to the church, not for entertainment, encouragement, examples, or even friendship primarily. He gives us to the church to “equip” the saints to do gospel ministry, in order that the church of Christ may be built up.

If I have not equipped the students in my ministry to share the gospel, disciple a younger believer, and lead a Bible study, then I have not fulfilled my calling to them, no matter how good my sermons have been.  ....

Forget your youth programs for a second. Are we sending out from our ministries the kind of students who will show up to college in a different state, join a church, and begin doing the work of gospel ministry there without ever being asked? Are we equipping them to that end, or are we merely giving them a good time while they’re with us?  ....

3. Their parents preached the gospel to them.
.... The common thread that binds together almost every ministry-minded 20-something that I know is abundantly clear: a home where the gospel was not peripheral but absolutely central. The 20-somethings who are serving, leading, and driving the ministries at our church were kids whose parents made them go to church. They are kids whose parents punished them and held them accountable when they were rebellious. They are kids whose parents read the Bible around the dinner table every night. And they are kids whose parents were tough, but who ultimately operated from a framework of grace that held up the cross of Jesus as the basis for peace with God and forgiveness toward one another.

This is not a formula! Kids from wonderful gospel-centered homes leave the church; people from messed-up family backgrounds find eternal life in Jesus and have beautiful marriages and families. But it’s also not a crap-shoot. In general, children who are led in their faith during their growing-up years by parents who love Jesus vibrantly, serve their church actively, and saturate their home with the gospel completely, grow up to love Jesus and the church.  ....

Why Youth Stay in Church When They Grow Up – The Gospel Coalition Blog