Not a historian

Those who have been paying attention know that David Barton doesn't get much respect from actual students of history. Greg Forster provides more evidence [if such is needed] why that is true:

World magazine breaks the story about conservative Christians who view David Barton of Wallbuilders as an embarrassment. The focus of the current controversy is Barton’s new book on Jefferson. My friend Jay Richards doesn’t mince words; he says this book and Barton’s other books and videos are full of “embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims.”

I’m not a scholar of Thomas Jefferson, but I am a scholar of John Locke. Barton has an article about Locke on his website, so I thought I’d weigh in with my opinion on whether it matches Jay’s description of Barton’s methods. It does, and then some. .... [read on]

David Barton’s Errors » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

Learning from Pooh

Maria Konnikova illustrates some of "What Grown-Ups Can Learn From Kids' Books," with The Little Prince, Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, and Winnie-the-Pooh. From her comments on Pooh:

...[T]he Winnie-the-Pooh stories offer astute character studies of some of society's most recognizable personality types.

Who hasn't met an Eeyore, the endless worrywart and eternal pessimist, who believes that the grass is the same dull brown no matter what side you're on? Eeyore is the one who, in response to Pooh's "how are you," offers a "not very how." And just contrast his and Pooh's approach to the Mystery of the Missing Tail. "You must have left it somewhere," says Pooh simply. "Somebody must have taken it," counters Eeyore. Eeyore is the sardonic one. And we shan't blame him if it rains.

And what group doesn't have a Rabbit, the doer and planner, the busybody who needs to ensure that everyone is doing just what they're supposed to be, when and how they are supposed to be doing it? Rabbit, the ever-practical. ....

There's Owl, the pompous scholar and aspiring intellectual, who is so much hot air behind his reputed ability to spell TUESDAY. Doubtless you've met him at a party or a conference, sometimes at the front of a classroom. Owl hides behind Big Words ("Can you read, Pooh?" he asks anxiously before agreeing to write a message for Eeyore's birthday) and manages to get Rabbit—the one who actually can read and write—to consult him, and not the other way around. ....

There's Piglet, the small animal who doesn't like to commit to anything without being fully certain of its safety and who always has something else to attend to when the danger reaches a certain threshold—but who can rise to the occasion when occasion demands (case in point: the day Owl's house falls down.) ....

And, of course, there is Pooh himself, who lives as in the moment as possible. The clock in his house is stopped perpetually at Luncheon Time—and there's nothing that can't be resolved with a little smackerel of something (preferably honey). But though Pooh sees himself as a bear of little brain, there's nothing little-brained about him. Recall what happens on the Expotition to find the North Pole when baby Roo falls into the river. While Piglet jumps up and down, Kanga runs beside the stream to ask Roo if he's all right, Owl explains what to do in a Sudden and Temporary Immersion, Eeyore puts his tail into the pool where Roo fell in long after Roo has gone downstream, and Rabbit authoritatively runs around and Organizes Everyone, Pooh is the only one who actually does something useful: He gets a stick, stands down-current from Roo, and helps Roo grab the stick when the current brings him to it. The essence of each character, revealed—as always with our true essence—in the height of emergency.

"When you wake up in the morning, Pooh," Piglet asks him as their adventures near an end, "what's the first thing you say to yourself?"

"What's for breakfast?" Pooh answers. "What do you say, Piglet?"

"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?" responds Piglet.

Pooh thinks it over. "It's the same thing," he says. And as adults, we can at last appreciate just how right he is. It may seem silly to waste your time on books for children. But are we really wasting it—or using it to much better advantage? It's like the Red Queen tells Alice, "You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary." [more]

What Grown-Ups Can Learn From Kids' Books - Maria Konnikova - The Atlantic

A gift of grace

Thomas Cothran is "Against Faith in Faith":

It has become a strange and unfortunate commonplace that one must have faith in faith—faith, that is, in the ability to commit oneself to truths that transcend rational justification—not only out of respect for faith’s intrinsic (if futile) beauty, but also as a means to the truth. Confronted with inadequate evidence for the deeper truths of life, one must conjure up a commitment to ideas for which the subjective act of faith can be the only ground, and one must believe not only in the content of faith but in the faith-act itself.

This, at least, is the picture of faith one finds in the writings of Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, and it has an embarrassing currency among Christian believers. ....

Faith, in the Christian life, has nothing to do with a subjective belief that does not admit rational justification (not even Kierkegaard quite said that), because faith begins not with the subject of faith but its object—the Trinitarian life of God. It consists not of assent to some proposition but the entrustment of one’s being to God’s providence. Faith does not originate in the individual believer’s own efforts, but is rather a gift of grace to the believer, usually received in baptism, as one means among many of participating in God’s own life.

Far from posing a threat to one’s faith, knowledge reinforces it: the more reason one has to believe in God’s providence, the more readily the believer entrusts himself to God. Faith likewise facilitates a more intimate knowledge of the plans God has set in store for the believer. As recent scholarship has demonstrated, “faith” in the Bible is often better rendered “faithfulness”; one has faith, therefore, less by belief than by piety. Faith is—at least in the order of time—primarily performative and only secondarily reflective. Recall St. Irenaeus’ dictum: “to believe in God is to do his will.” .... [more]

Against Faith in Faith | First Things

Brian Croft and "Practical Shepherding"

Brian Croft was a speaker at my denomination's conference sessions last week. He is the pastor of Auburndale Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, and author of several books providing practical advice for pastors. He also blogs at "Practical Shepherding" subtitled "Laboring with you in the trenches of pastoral ministry." Visiting that site, I found much to like. For instance, from a post titled "What important element of public worship goes largely neglected today?":

There is an increasing amount of churches that no longer include reading Scripture as a regular part of the public gathering, aside from a passage read during the sermon. Even in many churches I would closely align myself with who have a Christ-centered focus and a high view of preaching, still divide their public gatherings into 2 halves: The singing portion and the preaching portion.

I have a growing concern with this trend as it often squeezes out the public readings of Scripture as a separate, essential role in our services. Here are a few reasons I want to encourage pastors to continue to see the public reading of Scripture as a needed part of your public gatherings.... [more]

And from "Why should a pastor preach through whole books of the Bible?":

I am currently preaching through 2 Samuel. Having just preached through 2 Samuel 11-13 these last 3 weeks, I was reminded of the challenge it is to systematically preach through whole books of the Bible. And yet, in the midst of being reminded of these challenges, the reasons to continue to do so have been affirmed to me all over again. Here are 3 of them:

1) You cannot avoid the hard passages. 2 weeks ago I preached on David’s adultery and murder. Yesterday, it moved to an interesting progression of rape, incest, and murder among David’s children. Let’s just say not what I would choose to preach if I was just picking a passage for the week. But our people need to hear these passages and we as pastors need to wrestle with them to figure out what God desires for us to learn from them. Preach the hard passages. If your congregation sees you are not afraid to wrestle with them, then they are certain to grow less afraid also.

2) You understand the author’s intent better. It amazes me how much better I feel I understand the writer’s intent, because I have preached through the natural flow of his argument or narrative. .... [more]

There is much more including a regularly recurring series of posts he calls "Book Recommendation…for the pastor’s study."

Practical Shepherding | Laboring with you in the trenches of pastoral ministry

Explaining why

Tim Keller explains why Christian apologetics (something he does very well in The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism) is especially important in our age:

Apologetics is an answer to the "why" question after you've already answered the "what" question. The what question, of course, is, "What is the gospel?" But when you call people to believe in the gospel and they ask, "Why should I believe that?"— then you need apologetics.

I've heard plenty of Christians try to answer the why question by going back to the what. "You have to believe because Jesus is the Son of God." But that's answering the why with more what. Increasingly we live in a time when you can't avoid the why question. Just giving the what (for example, a vivid gospel presentation) worked in the days when the cultural institutions created an environment in which Christianity just felt true or at least honorable. But in a post-Christendom society, in the marketplace of ideas, you have to explain why this is true, or people will just dismiss it. ....

We need to be careful of saying, "Just believe," because what we're really saying is, "Believe because I say so." That sounds like a Nietzschean power play. That's very different from Paul, who reasoned, argued, and proved in the Book of Acts, and from Peter, who called us to give the reason for our hope in 2 Peter 3:15. If our response is, "Our beliefs may seem utterly irrational to you, but if you see how much we love one another then you'll want to believe too," then we'll sound like a cult. So we do need to do apologetics and answer the why question. .... (more)

In Defense of Apologetics – The Gospel Coalition Blog

Render unto Caesar...

John Stonestreet in "A Higher King than James" on Thomas Helwys, a Baptist:

...[I]t was a Protestant standing up for Catholics who gave us the idea of religious freedom as we now know it when he broke the spiral of silence four centuries ago.

In 1612, the English-speaking world first heard the radical idea of Thomas Helwys, a British missionary who co-founded the Baptist denomination. Helwys sought to challenge King James I’s tyranny over religion. This was no easy or safe task. For years, those who sought to practice Christianity according to their own consciences faced severe persecution. The year before, Baptist Edward Wightman was burned at the stake for his beliefs. And while Helwys was working in The Netherlands, his own wife was thrown into prison back home.

Desperate to stop the persecution, Helwys spoke up. But rather than beg the king for mercy, he made an audacious move that ultimately cost him his life.

With his book, “A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity,” hot off the press, Helwys attached a polite cover letter and mailed this historic defense of religious liberty to King James. Needless to say, the king was less than pleased, and four years later, Helwys died in Newgate Prison, a victim of the persecution he sought to end. ....

His words renouncing the persecution against Roman Catholics are worth repeating here:

“For we do freely profess that our lord the king [of England] has no more power over their consciences than over ours, and that is none at all. For our lord the king is but an earthly king, and he has no authority as a king but in earthly causes…For men’s religion to God is between God and themselves.”

A Higher King than James

"Dead guys who were faithful"

Among the highlights of the week at the just concluded Seventh Day Baptist General Conference sessions were the presentations by Rev Brian Croft about reviving existing churches. He is interviewed in the current issue of Credo Magazine about "ministering to widows, pastoral blunders, and mentoring the next generation of future pastors." In Croft's presentation to us he mentioned books he would recommend to pastors. These, from the interview, were probably what he had in mind:

What are three or four “must-read” books on pastoral ministry and why?

The Christian Ministry by Charles Bridges, The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter, Lectures to my Students by Spurgeon, and The Work of the Pastor by William Still…to name a few. The reason these authors are at the top of my list is because they are all dead guys who were faithful to the end. Moreover, they all write in such a way that they are not biased towards a modern day, consumerist, American culture. That is a helpful perspective for all pastors today.

Also in this issue of Credo Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church and 9Marks is interviewed about a new book, The Church: The Gospel Made Visible,  and, among other things, is asked:

[W]here does the rub lie for non-Baptists in your argument?

Certainly in my understanding of baptism. And these days, although Baptists are historically congregational, I think I’m in a minority among Southern Baptists in being self-consciously congregational, though all of our forbearers were.

I think there was a pragmatism in the 20th century, where large churches became CEO-run. I think the multi-service movement, and now the multi-site movement, have just encouraged more confusion in terms of polity. ....

Credo is new to me. This issue, about "Old Princeton" is full of interesting articles about personalities once associated with Princeton Theological Seminary.

Current Issue- Credo Magazine

The dangers of an individualistic faith

Ross Douthat's recent book on the state of American Christianity has elicited quite a few responses, some of them quite content — even optimistic — about the direction things are going. He worries that the anti-institutional, individualistic trends in religious practice will have almost entirely negative effects. From Douthat's column in The New York Times:

...[T]his individualism has consequences that liberal Christians as well more traditional believers should find more worrying than cheering: Consequences for local community (because it’s harder to care for your neighbor when you don’t have a congregation around you to provide resources and support), consequences for society as a whole (because the declining institutional churches leaves a void that our insolvent government is unlikely to effectively fill, no matter how many elections the Democratic Party wins), and consequences for private morality (because an individualistic faith is more likely to encourage solipsism and narcissism, in which the voice of the ego is mistaken for the voice of the divine). Like many religious progressives, Bass has great hopes for Christianity after organized religion, Christianity after the institutional church. But I feel like we already know what that Christianity looks like: It’s the self-satisfied, self-regarding, all-too-American faith that Christian Smith and others have encountered when they survey today’s teenagers and young adults, which conceives of God as part divine butler, part cosmic therapist, and which jettisons the more challenging aspects of Christianity that the traditional churches and denominations, for all their many sins and follies, at least tried to hand down to us intact. [more]

Is Liberal Christianity Actually The Future? - NYTimes.com

Worshiping the god within

A recent conversation sent me looking for this quotation from G.K. Chesterton:

“That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners.” (G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy)

Quote by G.K. Chesterton: That Jones shall worship the god within him tur...

"Why don't they teach logic at these schools?"

In the course of an essay about Stephen Hawking's argument that the appearance of order in our universe could simply be result of an infinite number of universes, ours being the one—by chance—that is orderly, Charlie W. Starr, in "The Lion, the Witch and the Physicist" summarizes one of my favorite parts of the first Narnia tale (you'll have to go to the essay for the point he is making about Hawking):

.... Early in LWW, Peter and Susan go to the old professor at whose house they’re staying because they’re troubled over their youngest sibling, Lucy, who claims to have walked through a wardrobe into a magical land called Narnia. They fear Lucy might be going mad. What they expect is that the professor will assume what they already have: that Narnia isn’t real and Lucy is either lying or disturbed. But the old professor doesn’t assume that at all. He first asks them whether or not Lucy is truthful. They reply that Lucy is very honest. Then they ask about madness. The professor replies that Lucy is clearly not mad. But the children don’t understand. How could a magical land through a wardrobe be real, especially when they looked at the wardrobe and found nothing? There couldn’t be a doorway there one minute and gone the next; it’s impossible. The professor disagrees completely, questioning the logic of their assumption. He concludes, on the contrary, that if Lucy is not lying, and not insane, then she must be telling the truth! ....

From The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe:

"How do you know," he asked, that your sister's story is not true?"

"Oh, but—" began Susan, and then stopped. Anyone could see from the old man's face that he was perfectly serious. Then Susan pulled herself together and said, "But Edmund said they had only been pretending."

"That is a point," said the Professor, "which certainly deserves consideration; very careful consideration. For instance—if you will excuse me for asking the question—does your experience lead you to regard your brother or your sister as the more reliable? I mean, which is the more truthful?"

"That's just the funny thing about it, sir," said Peter. "Up till now, I'd have said Lucy every time."

"And what do you think, my dear?" said the Professor, turning to Susan.

"Well," said Susan, "in general, I'd say the same as Peter, but this couldn't be true—all this about the wood and the Faun."

"That is more than I know," said the Professor, "and a charge of lying against someone whom you have always found truthful is a very serious thing; a very serious thing indeed."

"We were afraid it mightn't even be lying," said Susan; "we thought there might be something wrong with Lucy."

"Madness, you mean?" said the Professor quite coolly. "Oh, you can make your minds easy about that. One has only to look at her and talk to her to see that she is not mad."

"But then," said Susan, and stopped. She had never dreamed that a grown-up would talk like the Professor and didn't know what to think.

"Logic!" said the Professor half to himself. "Why don't they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn't tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth." .... C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

C. S. Lewis Blog: The Lion, the Witch and the Physicist

Question authority

On the streets of the city where I live you can see cars so completely covered with bumper stickers that you wonder whether the vehicle would disintegrate without them. These are not the kind promoting political candidates but ones chosen to advertise some viewpoint, and often, seemingly, calculated to provoke. If you took the time to peruse them you would have no doubt about the worldview — even the personality — of the car's owner. They are, of course, slogans, not arguments.

Man In The Woods blog nominates his candidates for "The 7 Most Annoying Bumper Sticker Slogans of the Past 20 Years" and introduces his list with this:

In a world of bumper sticker slogans, one occasionally runs across an amusing, if not thought-provoking, message. That said, it is far more common to see one that simply annoys you. Sure, it may not be the worst message in the world, but after seeing it a hundred or so times it becomes a little like that song that is overplayed on the radio (need I mention Hootie and the Blowfish?). The other problem is that it comes off as a bit of the old "hit and run" mentality. Because I am anonymous, I can yell anything at you I want, and I don't have to bother listening to your response. Hah! I have won an argument that I don't even have to defend, because my opponent has been reduced to silence... sort of. ....

One of his choices:

There is also a similar one out there which says; "Question Everything." At any rate, both essentially amount to the same thing. I will not be daft and pretend that I don't understand where people are coming from when they make this statement. Read with a charitable eye this is saying that one should not just accept something without thinking critically about it. Absolutely, I would agree 100%. But this goes right to the heart of what's generally lacking from many of these back bumper formulations. They have no context! Unfortunately, I fear that many of the people who place them on their cars don't have any either. It is fine to say; "Question Authority", but what does that mean? Why are you questioning it? Is there any authority that is good? If you decide to reject that authority, what will you replace it with? If I had a bumper sticker on the theme of authority, I think I would have it say; "Question Anarchy". There is a profound shallowness in thinking that authority is intrinsically a wicked thing. There will always be an authority, the only real question is whether that authority is benevolent or wicked. That is question we should be asking. .... (more)

Man In the Woods: The 7 Most Annoying Bumper Sticker Slogans of the Past 20 Years

Van Morrison

Ever since I saw Van Morrison perform in The Last Waltz I've been buying his music and can't think of anything I've bought that I don't like. Even so I knew little about him except that he grew up in Belfast, Northern Ireland. This documentary, Van Morrison: Under Review: 1964-1974 describes where he came from and how he developed his music, his first single hits, the first big album, Astral Weeks, and on, including interviews with Morrison, his biographers, associates, and also a lot of music. The video takes about and hour and fifty minutes. [Apparently you need to go through to Crackle to watch.]

From Crackle: Van Morrison: Under Review: 1964-1974

"Thanks be to God..."

Via CyberBrethren - A Lutheran Blog, Martin Luther:

A Christian has already been thrust into death by the very fact that he became a Christian. Wherever he may be, he occupies himself with this hourly. He expects death any moment so long as he sojourns here, because devil, world, and his own flesh give him no rest. However, he enjoys the advantage of already being out of the grave with his right leg. Moreover, he has a mighty helper who holds out His hand to him, namely, His Lord Christ; He has left the grave entirely a long time ago, and now He takes the Christian by the hand and pulls him more than halfway out of the grave; only the left foot remains in it. For his sin is already remitted and expunged, God’s wrath and hell are extinguished, and he already lives fully in and with Christ with regard to his best part, which is the soul, as he partakes of eternal life. Therefore death can no longer hold him or harm him. Only the remnant, the old skin, flesh and blood, must still decay before it, too, can be renewed and follow the soul. As for the rest, we have already penetrated all the way into life, since Christ and my soul are no longer in death.

Rev. McCain provides a daily quotation from Luther.

Daily Luther: A Christian Only Has One Foot in the Grave. | CyberBrethren - A Lutheran Blog

Too agreeable

Josh Blunt continues his series about church planting posted at Kevin DeYoung's blog. In the first years of the plant they had used an "attractional, seeker-driven model" that increasingly seemed inadequate:

.... Our discipleship of new believers, our prayer culture, and our common understanding of the sacraments had been too anemic in the attractional years, and had failed to bring true unity. We had intended to “major in the majors and minor in the minors,” but instead had merely “agreed on the agreeables and avoided the avoidables.” ....

And as they avoided being disagreeable they avoided those doctrines that made their denomination distinctive:

.... We also grew more bold in our defense of our denomination’s paedobaptist theology. Attractional thinking had led us to soft sell our position and welcome those who espoused believer baptism. This tolerance was still affirmed; however, we began to realize we had worked so hard at honoring the exception that we had failed to champion the rule. [emphasis added] ....[more]

From Metro to Retro – Part 3 of 4 – Kevin DeYoung

Seventh Day Baptists and slavery

Several years ago I posted a series about the history of Seventh Day Baptists one of which was “A Nation cannot long endure…” about Seventh Day Baptists and abolitionism. That post was later reprinted in the Sabbath Recorder (September, 2011). The post (and the article) included this passage, referring to the only known Seventh Day Baptist church that had a slave owner as a member:

Unlike many other denominations, Seventh Day Baptists had few churches in slave states, and so there was little division on the question. A member of the Lost Creek Church, in Virginia [soon to be West Virginia], owned slaves he had inherited and that elicited general condemnation from other Seventh Day Baptists.

That was a very brief reference to a very interesting controversy. I received a communication yesterday from a descendant of a member of that church. Lynn Arden FitzRandolph writes:

I am not of that particular Lost Creek family, but please allow me to present some information.... The “slaves” in question were a mother and son who were both physically incapacitated. In today’s terminology we could say that they were in an “assisted living” arrangement in a Lost Creek, Virginia (now West Virginia) home. Under the laws of the State of Virginia they certainly were not free to walk away; had they been found “at large” in Virginia, they would have been arrested and sold at auction. All blacks were, under existing Virginia law, either owned or possessed by someone or were fugitives. They also had nowhere else to go, and no one else to care for them. ....

Mr. FitzRandolph referred me to Corliss Fitz Randolph's A History of the Seventh Day Baptists in West Virginia, a book that includes a chapter about the controversy. It summarizes the circumstance that gave rise to the anguish:

Deacon Abel Bond of the Lost Creek Church married, in Maryland, a wife, whose uncle made her a present of a slave girl. This slave girl, on reaching womanhood, married against the wishes of Deacon Bond, but nevertheless with his permission. She raised a family of children, who, according to the laws of slave-holding states, were born into bondage. Deacon Bond offered to set the family free and to pay their expences to a free state, but they preferred to remain with him, as he was a kind master exercising only such authority over them as the laws of the state and of humanity demanded at his hands. Deacon Bond provided in his will that they should be freed as soon as circumstances should warrant, but soon after his death all the coloured family died but the mother and one son, who was not physically strong. Deacon Bond's son, into whose care they were committed at the death of his father, again offered them freedom, but they still chose to remain where they were. ....

My own understanding is that the mother was elderly and that the surviving son was considered "simple" and that it was thought neither could survive on their own.

When the Lost Creek church applied to join the Eastern Association and it became known that one of its members was, at least formally, a slaveholder, controversy ensued, including considerable strongly stated correspondence in the Sabbath Recorder. Objections were particularly strong from the North-Western Association (Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, etc.). A "special committee" was appointed by the Eastern Association to investigate Lost Creek's attitude toward the institution and that committee questioned the delegate of the Lost Creek church, Elder S.D. Davis, eliciting these responses:

...[T]he committee propounded to Bro. Davis, the delegate from that church, four questions, which were answered as follows:-

1st. Does your church have or hold any sympathy, in any sense, with American Slavery? Ans. It does not.

2nd. Does the church hold that American Slavery ought to be abolished, as a sin against God and man? Ans. It does.

3rd. In what sense, if not as slaves, are those persons, understood by some as such, held by a member or members of your church? Ans. If held at all, it is to shield them from the action of the laws of the state that would otherwise enslave them.

4th. What would the church do with a member who should buy or sell or hold a person as property? Ans. It would exclude him.

The committee also found, that the Lost Creek Church, by its delegates, adopted the following resolution, at an association held in Ritchie County, Va., Sept. 1854:

"That we regard American Slavery as a sin of great magnitude in the sight of God, and a flagrant violation of the rights of our fellow men, and that it is our duty to use all of our influence against it."

From these and other facts before them, the committee came to the following conclusions:

1st. That the relation of master and slave does not exist in the Lost Creek Church, in the proper sense of the phrase, and only technically, and that the church is not justly chargeable with sustaining slavery.

2nd. That we deeply regret the acrimonious spirit, and the personal reflections and accusations, made against brethren, in the discussion had upon the subject in the denominational paper.

3rd. With regard to the resolution of the North-Western Association, we think the language used is stronger than the facts warrant, and that the regret expressed by that association results from the manner in which the subject has been discussed, more than from the existence of slavery itself.

W. B. MAXSON,
J. BAILEY.

The Lost Creek church, however, felt that the ongoing investigation was inquisitorial and withdrew its application. It wasn't until 1881 that all was resolved.

Corliss Fitz Randolph notes that of all the Seventh Day Baptists in West Virginia, only two fought for the Confederacy while every church contributed volunteers to the Federal forces [one of my Bond great great uncles among them].

Lynn FitzRandolph, in his most recent communication:

The wisdom that I glean from reading the accounts of this controversy is the realization that it is possible to become so emotionally invested in a moral issue that one becomes blinded to goodness, presented in this case in the form of the Good Samaritan “slave owner” and his local church — acting morally and openly in violation of local (Virginia) customs. This realization, I believe, is an appropriate and constructive epitaph to the controversy.

Someone complained

Our local bigots strike again:

STEUBENVILLE – City officials agreed Tuesday night to change the city logo after a Madison, Wis., organization threatened legal action.

Law Director S. Gary Repella announced the decision following a 15-minute closed-door meeting with City Council members.

“We will be approaching Mark Nelson of Nelson Fine Art and Gifts and asking him to redesign the city logo to remove the cross and silhouette of the Christ the King Chapel on the Franciscan University of Steubenville campus.,” said Repella.

“We were contacted in May by the Freedom from Religion Foundation Inc. in Madison, Wis., who said one of our citizens had complained about the city logo. .... [more]

Oh, for [Delete Deity]‘s Sake!–UPDATED

Seventh Day Baptist history

Don Sanford's A Choosing People: The History of Seventh Day Baptists has been out of print for some years — but no longer. Nick Kersten of the Seventh Day Baptist Historical Society announces the publication of a new edition [pictured here - I think that is probably Nick's thumb] and that it will be available for sale at the General Conference sessions next week in Buckhannon, West Virginia. The book is also available for pre-order at Amazon: A Choosing People: The History of Seventh Day Baptists. My understanding is that this edition was revised, corrected and updated by the author and, since Don's death, by others.

"A batsuited Cincinnatus"

Ross Douthat, a conservative, finds a conservative message in the Nolans' Batman films — a conservative message that is, not a fascist or an Objectivist one. From "The Politics of 'The Dark Knight Rises'":

.... Across the entire trilogy, what separates Bruce Wayne from his mentors in the League of Shadows isn’t a belief in Gotham’s goodness; it’s a belief that a compromised order can still be worth defending, and that darker things than corruption and inequality will follow from putting that order to the torch. This is a conservative message, but not a triumphalist, chest-thumping, rah-rah-capitalism one: It reflects a “quiet toryism” (to borrow from John Podhoretz’s review) rather than a noisy Americanism, and it owes much more to Edmund Burke than to Sean Hannity. .... [more]

The Politics of "The Dark Knight Rises" - NYTimes.com

Church planting

My denomination's annual conference sessions begin next week. The president of our conference, Pastor John Pethtel, has made the subject of church planting a significant part of the Conference program and so this series of posts at Kevin DeYoung's blog seemed particularly timely. DeYoung has invited RCA church planter Josh Blunt to share what he has learned, and unlearned, over the last decade about planting new churches:

...It was...the dawn of my denomination’s foray into intentional church planting, a season in which young, idealistic, evangelical pastors emerging from seminaries were encouraged to bypass the quagmire of tradition, bureaucracy, and stasis inherent in existing churches. We were enjoined to boldly go where no RCA pastors had gone before, claiming a new share in the Harvest for an increasingly obscure yet historically evangelical family of believers.

The RCA has always been a mixed denomination, boasting of its ability to balance both mainline and evangelical elements in one household. Nevertheless, our denominational landscape at the time seemed divided into two camps:

1) traditional methodology + progressive theology = mainline protestantism

2) progressive methodology + traditional theology = evangelicalism

The assumption in church planting circles was that, at least in terms of denominational survival, equation #1 led to death and equation #2 was the path to life. In this sense, planters genuinely believed that we and our new churches were going to be the great hope for the next generation of RCA believers.

Many within our little tribe insisted that church planting could restore our dwindling numbers, and even revitalize existing congregations who would parent new, daughter congregations. This plan seemed explicitly biblical and patently apostolic to me then, and it still does now – healthy, biblical, new congregations and church networks DO reach new people and expand the Kingdom. When I started out as a planter, however, most of us assumed that this growth potential would be largely connected to the new congregations’ ability to more nimbly and rapidly deploy progressive, attractional church methodology. In other words, we would adapt to the emerging needs of unbelievers far more easily, having fewer sacred cows to kill along the way. ....

What I have learned, and what Kevin has graciously invited me to convey through a short series of posts here, is that the future of ministry in historical denominations can’t be reduced to equation #1 OR #2 above. Whether a congregation is being freshly planted, or revitalized over time, I believe the math is something much more akin to this:

3) ordinary, historic methodology + orthodox, gospel-focused theology + patient, painstaking contextualization = sustainable fruitfulness

Over my next posts, I will offer some of the things I observed over the course of my decade-long church planting journey. I will explain the transformation my congregation and I underwent as our adherence to an attractional, progressive model of methodology inevitably worked against our traditional theology and tore irreparable rifts in the fabric of our fellowship. I will describe the attempts we made to change horses midstream and how they helped. I will also show how the previously lost and unchurched perceived each model, and how the pre-churched and re-churched among us did, as well. These dynamics tended to revolve around three key areas, each of which will be a focus in my remaining posts:

- Proclamation (Preaching of the Word, Worship, Evangelism)

- Life Together (Prayer, Discipleship, Sacraments)

- Unmentionables (Discipline, Conflict, Gender Roles, and Governance)

7/25: From Metro to Retro (2 of 4)
7/26: From Metro to Retro (3 of 4)
7/27: From Metro to Retro (4 of 4)

From Metro to Retro (1 of 4) – Kevin DeYoung

"The church of time and eternity bearing witness together"

"Contemporary worship not a fix-all" asserts this article. In my opinion it isn't even "contemporary worship" in many churches ineffectually attempting to catch up with whatever is happening now. In the American context attempting to "contextualize" often seems like anchoring worship to yesterday's "now" and becoming immediately "then." As C.S. Lewis once said, "all that is not eternal, is eternally out of date." It might be wiser for worship leaders to attempt to connect worshipers with something less ephemeral — and do it well.

.... About half of Protestant churches in America use electric guitars and drums in worship, up from 35 percent 12 years ago, according to a 2011 study of more than 10,000 churches by Faith Communities Today. That figure approaches 60 percent among evangelical churches generally and among all churches in the South, reported the multi-faith research group associated with the Hartford Institute for Religion Research at Harford (Conn.) Seminary.

But is the assumption — contemporary worship as essential to success — invariably true? Some American churches are saying no and are proving it with vibrant, creative traditional worship. No form of worship is inherently superior, they stress. The key to a healthy church is finding a mode of worship for which each congregation is uniquely equipped and carrying it off with excellence. Done well, traditional worship remains effective, they add. ....

...[E]very church’s challenge is “to give reign to the Spirit of the Living Christ. When we sing the hymns of the church from ages past, when we recite the Psalms and recount the witness of saints of old, we expand our praise to include theirs. We are not just the church of the here and now; we are the church of time and eternity bearing witness together. This gives depth to our worship and joins memory with hope.

“Some people are finding that churches that pay attention to tradition, without being enslaved by it, give them an identity with deep roots,” he added. “They are drawn to what lasts, what has endured the tests of time. Some forms of worship today quickly become irrelevant in their attempted relevance. Traditional worship is both intergenerational and transgenerational. It gives a voice to every generation, including those that have gone before.” .... [more]

Contemporary worship not a fix-all