The other side

Any war has to have two sides or it isn't a war. The "Religious Right" is the side of the "culture war" that has received the most attention. What about the other side? Christianity Today interviews George Yancey, one of the authors of What Motivates Cultural Progressives?: Understanding Opposition to the Political and Christian Right. The book examines the results of surveys of some 2,500 "cultural progressives." From the interview, some observations:

.... Their main values are rationality, progressive politics, and a fear of religion having too much influence in both politics and society in general. These values both define them and unite them. While I say that rationality is a central value for them, that doesn't mean that they are more rational than other people. Rather, this is a way in which they justify their activities and their purpose in society. ....

Many of our respondents expressed fear that conservative Protestants are trying to take over the country and establish a theocracy. Cultural progressives aren't necessarily against religion, though many of them view it as foolishness; rather, they just want Christians to keep it in their churches and homes. It's as if they are saying that people with religious beliefs should let "rational adults" rule the world. It's not religion, per se, that they organize against, but rather any social influence of religion. ....

I was very surprised by the intense animosity that many of the respondents expressed. Here are people who are highly educated, which most people assume would make them more enlightened, but many of their statements were flat-out hateful. They spoke against prejudice, but they themselves expressed deep levels of religious prejudice. To give one example, one of the respondents found out that his friend had a born-again experience, and he ended the friendship solely for that reason. .... [more]

The Other Side of the Culture War | Christianity Today

A Bible help that helps

J. Mark Bertrand, at his site "Bible Design and Binding," provides a unique service: he reviews editions of the Bible. Paper quality, typeface, layout, bleed-through, binding, and more, all receive his evaluation. Today he reviews a new entry in the many choices of ESV [English Standard Version] Bibles, "The Schuyler ESV in Black and Brown Goatskin". In a long review discussing many of that Bible's characteristics, he notes among the things he likes an uncommon inclusion in the back of the book:

.... For years, whenever Bible publishers have asked what features I'd like to see in an edition, the one suggestion I've repeated over and over is the inclusion of creeds and confessions in the back. To my mind, this is a "help" that actually helps, because it gives access the church's tradition of interpretation. Traditionally, this material would have been placed inside a hymnal, but singing from a hymnal is about as popular with today's evangelical as elevating the host was in Puritan New England. ....

...[T]he Schuyler omits the Three Forms of Unity, perhaps the most important of the Reformed standards, which consists of the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dordt, and one of the few catechisms I'm aware of which is the subject of a rap song, the Heidelberg.

Having said that, what the Schuyler does include are the ecumenical creeds which all orthodox Christians have in common — Apostles', Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian — along with the Augsburg Confession, the 39 Articles, the Westminster Standards, and the London Baptist Confession of 1689. With the exception of the Dutch Reformed, this covers the major Reformation-era confessional Christian groups still in existence today.

Why include this stuff in the Bible? Good question. The short answer is for ready reference. The long answer goes something like this. Including these documents accomplishes a similar goal to that of a study Bible, with one significant difference: the views summarized are not those of an individual, or even a committee of scholars, but of a confessing church. They represent a collective endorsement and exposition of the faith contained in Scripture. While there is a great deal of consensus among the confessions, there are differences, too — and I think that's helpful, as well, to those of us who want to have an informed view of what our fellow believers actually confess (as opposed to what they're accused of believing, if you see what I mean). ....

I like this idea. Whenever I encounter a new hymnbook I almost always look for the statements of faith or the creeds that are included.

Bible Design and Binding: The Schuyler ESV in Black and Brown Goatskin

Belief

Roger Olson, Baptist, explains how he can be a “confessing evangelical” without committing to a doctrinal statement. His position is about the same as that of my denomination:

.... Churches and other Christian organizations should not rely on written statements of faith but should ask potential employees and community members to offer their own faith statements (by which I mean doctrinal statements). In other words, rather than putting a written statement in front of them and asking them to sign it or swear allegiance to it, they should ask them to produce their own statements of belief about God, Jesus, the Bible, etc. And then they should examine them and determine whether the person belongs among them. I hope that would be done generously. ....

Now, I do think it’s fine for a Christian organization (church, college, seminary, mission agency, etc.) to have a written statement of faith as a CONSENSUS STATEMENT only. “This is what our community generally believes to be true.” But I’m opposed to requiring individuals to sign them. In place of that, I suggest individuals wishing to join (be hired, become members, whatever) be given the opportunity to write out their own doctrines. Then there should be a trusted group (deacons, elders, pastoral staff, committee, whatever) who looks at it and decides if the person’s beliefs are sufficiently consistent with the organization’s ethos. .... [more]

My denomination's "Statement of Belief" is prefaced with these words "The following statement is not intended to be exhaustive, but is an expression of our common belief, which is derived from our understanding of Scripture." I've described it as descriptive rather than prescriptive. I recall at the time that statement was adopted a conversation with someone who said that he was being read out of the denomination because he couldn't affirm some of the articles. That, of course, was not the case. What he needed to decide was whether he wished to associate with a people most of whom held those doctrinal convictions.

Why (and how) I am a “confessing evangelical” (response to Al Mohler, et al.)

"O taste and see..."

Via Feast of Eden, from John Henry Newman:

The Psalmist says, “They that sow in tears shall reap in joy;” and our Lord says, “They that mourn shall be comforted.” Let no one go away with the impression that the Gospel makes us take a gloomy view of the world and of life. It hinders us indeed from taking a superficial view, and finding a vain transitory joy in what we see; but it forbids our immediate enjoyment, only to grant enjoyment in truth and fulness afterwards. It only forbids us to begin with enjoyment. It only says, If you begin with pleasure, you will end with pain. It bids us begin with the Cross of Christ, and in that Cross we shall at first find sorrow, but in a while peace and comfort will rise out of that sorrow.

That Cross will lead us to mourning, repentance, humiliation, prayer, fasting; we shall sorrow for our sins, we shall sorrow with Christ’s sufferings; but all this sorrow will only issue, nay, will be undergone in a happiness far greater than the enjoyment which the world gives,—though careless worldly minds indeed will not believe this, ridicule the notion of it, because they never have tasted it, and consider it a mere matter of words, which religious persons think it decent and proper to use, and try to believe themselves, and to get others to believe, but which no one really feels.

This is what they think; but our Saviour said to His disciples, “Ye now therefore have sorrow, but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.” … “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you.” [John xvi. 22; xiv. 27.] ....

John Henry Newman: The Cross of Christ wounds us so as to heal

Safe haven

In church this week we sang Isaac Watts' great hymn version of Psalm 23 that ends "There would I find a settled rest, While others go and come, No more a stranger, nor a guest; But like a child at home." I love that image of the security we will find in God's presence. And then I read, later that day, on Kevin DeYoung's blog, this quotation from John Calvin "commenting on Exodus 21:22-25":

The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being (homo), and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.

More Atrocious than Being Killed at Home – Kevin DeYoung

Definitions establish limits

Timothy Dalrymple asks "When Do You Stop Calling Someone an Evangelical?" arguing that terms become meaningless if boundaries are not set:

• .... There’s nothing inherently oppressive or intolerant or authoritarian in seeking to identify who is an evangelical and who is not. The Jews, for instance, have clear terms of definition. If they did not, they would not have survived as a people for so many centuries. Similarly, any group that wishes to maintain some semblance of coherence over time will need, so to speak, to patrol its borders. ....
• Finally, saying that Person P is not an evangelical is not at all the same as saying that P is not Christian or does not have a saving relationship with God in Christ. If I were to say that P is not an evangelical, that’s not intended as an insult or exclusion. It’s not to say that P is wrong or unrighteous, an enemy or unwelcome. It’s merely an observation of what evangelicalism means and an observation of whether or not P comports with that definition. A community that does not define what it holds essential will not survive as a community for long.

When Do You Stop Calling Someone an Evangelical?

The test of time

Stephen Miller explains "Why New Churches Should Sing Old Songs":

We don't need scientific studies to know that music and melody fuses truth into our memories and intellects. We can all observe how melody infuses meaning, emotions, affections, and experiences into words. It takes lyrics to new heights and depths that they couldn't go on their own.

.... These hymns were written with that very purpose in mind. Pastoral and theological giants of the past went to pain-staking lengths to pen doctrinally rich, gospel-centered songs with the intention of shaping the people under their care. They poetically developed their thoughts to tell stories that would most memorably engage the intellects and emotions of the people who would be singing them. As a result, many of these songs became gems that have withstood the crucible of time. ....

I believe new churches ought to sing old songs. I do not think that the only way is the old way. But we are standing on the shoulders of giants who have written songs that describe and declare the glory of Christ in a way that is unlike many songs written in our day. We miss out when we fail to teach with these songs that have shaped generation after generation before us. ....

Why New Churches Should Sing Old Songs – The Gospel Coalition Blog

Any damned fool

In distinct contrast to Eric Hobsbawm [see the post below], American historian Eugene Genovese, who also died last week, was a Communist, then a Maoist, and until late in life a man of the Left, who did come to see the monstrousness of what he had supported. And he also came to see that it had been to no purpose. In the Summer, 1994, issue of Dissent, he explained. Excerpts:

...[A]t the age of fifteen I became a Communist, and, although expelled from the party in 1950 at age twenty, I remained a supporter of the international movement and of the Soviet Union until there was nothing left to support. Now, as everyone knows, in a noble effort to liberate the human race from violence and oppression we broke all records for mass slaughter, piling up tens of millions of corpses in less than three-quarters of a century. When the Asian figures are properly calculated, the aggregate to our credit may reach the seemingly incredible numbers widely claimed. Those who are big on multiculturalism might note that the great majority of our victims were nonwhite. ....

Reflecting here on moral responsibility, I have referred to "we." For it has never occurred to me that the moral responsibility falls much less heavily on those of us on the American left than it fell on Comrade Stalin and those who replicated his feats in one country after another. And I am afraid that some of that moral responsibility falls on the "democratic socialists," "radical democrats," and other leftwingers who endlessly denounced Stalinism but could usually be counted on to support—"critically," of course—the essentials of our political line on world and national affairs. ....

Especially amusing has been the spectacle of those who pronounced themselves anti-Stalinists and denounced the socialist countries at every turn and yet even today applaud each new revolution, although any damned fool has to know that most of them will end in the same place. ....

.... The horrors did not arise from perversions of radical ideology but from the ideology itself. We were led into complicity with mass murder and the desecration of our professed ideals not by Stalinist or other corruptions of high ideals, much less by unfortunate twists in some presumably objective course of historical development, but by a deep flaw in our very understanding of human nature—its frailty and its possibilities—and by our inability to replace the moral and ethical baseline long provided by the religion we have dismissed with indifference, not to say contempt. ....

The allegedly high ideals we placed at the center of our ideology and politics are precisely what need to be reexamined, but they can no longer even be made a subject for discussion in the mass media and our universities, to say nothing of the left itself. They are givens: an unattainable equality of condition; a radical democracy that has always ended in the tyranny it is supposed to overcome; a celebration of human goodness or malleability, accompanied by the daily announcement of newly discovered "inalienable rights" to personal self-expression; destruction of all hierarchy and elites, as if ideological repudiation has ever prevented or ever could prevent the formation and reformation of hierarchies and elites; condemnation of "illegitimate" authority in the absence of any notion of what might constitute legitimate authority; and, at the root of all, a thorough secularization of society, bolstered by the monstrous lie that the constitutional separation of church and state was meant to separate religion from society. And we have yet to reassess the anti-Americanism—the self-hatred implicit in the attitude we have generally affected toward our country—that has led us into countless stupidities and worse. ....

Dissent, Summer, 1994, pp. 371-376.

"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic."

Stalin is reported to have justified his crimes by saying [perhaps quoting Robespierre] that "you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." Last week a lifelong unrepentant Stalinist died, described in the New York Times as simply "...Britain’s pre-eminent Marxist historian," with honorary degrees, and the Companion of Honor awarded by Tony Blair. The Weekly Standard doesn't think his political faith should have been so lightly passed over.

...[W]e would like to think that even Blair might have hesitated to embrace this “tireless agitator for a better world” had he pondered this exchange on the BBC in the early 1990s:

INTERVIEWER: What your view comes down to is saying that had the “radiant tomorrow” actually been created, the loss [in Soviet Russia] of fifteen or twenty million people might have been justified?
HOBSBAWM: Yes.

Suppose Eric Hobsbawm had been a lifelong fascist, a member of the Nazi party long after the death of Hitler and the collapse of the Third Reich, sentimentally attached to the “dream of the...revolution,” and happy to justify—decades after the end of World War II—the killing of fifteen or twenty million people for National Socialism. Would Cambridge have awarded him an honorary degree? Would the New York Times have set aside four columns for his obituary? Would Tony Blair overlook Auschwitz to celebrate Eric Hobsbawm’s sense of compassion and justice and intellectual history of the highest order?

The question answers itself. (The Weekly Standard, Oct. 15, 2012, p. 4)

Joy

The Gospel Coalition site has invited various Christians to write about "The Page That Changed My Life." For Matthew Lee Anderson it was reading G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy:

.... Chesterton does not simply magnify "joy," a concept we hear much about and experience very little. He understood the permanent temptation to view the sadness and the sorrow as the substance, and the cheerful and uplifting as the shadow.

Chesterton marks out a path that leads away from despairing cynicism, the besetting sin of hipster Christians. When our resistance to the overwrought, pollyannish cheerfulness of suburban megachurch Christianity (or so the story goes) crosses over into treating the "real" and "authentic" as that which is broken and sorrowful, we have embraced a sub-Christian outlook on the world. ....

...There is a joy beyond words, a joy behind the veil that runs too deep to show others. And it is a joy that, when we taste, we realize that we are ill equipped to live with. Like those poor Israelites who plead with God to hide himself, it is goodness that we are not equipped to handle, even while we include sorrow and suffering among our friends. Here Chesterton closes his work: "Joy, which is the small publicity of the pagan, is the gigantic secret of the Christian. . . . There was something that [Jesus] hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray. There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or impetuous isolation. There was one thing that was too great for God to show us when he walked upon the earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was his mirth." [more]

Our Delightfully Strange World – The Gospel Coalition Blog

A path to the classics

Much of my earliest reading was comic books and at some point I discovered Classics Illustrated. That series introduced me to books I would not read as books until I was much older — and provided me with a knowledge of characters and plots in books I have never read, thus expanding my cultural literacy [although perhaps not my appreciation of literature]. It pleases me to discover that the series has been revived, with new art, and now with a hardback option as well, by the graphic novel publisher Papercutz. A review of a book in the current series provides some background:

When they first appeared on newsstands in the early 1940s, Classics Illustrated stood alone among comic books. At the time, everything else published in the new “four color magazines” was horror, crime, superheroes, and funny animals.

The series was the dream of Albert Kanter who, in 1941, saw how incredibly fast comic books were growing. He wanted to add something of substance to this new publishing sensation. It was his idea that the rapidly expanding readership in the field of comic books could be used to introduce younger readers to the great works of literature. ....

...[A]fter reading Classics Illustrated comics, kids, soldiers, and autodidacts were often inspired to find the original novels and dig into “real literature.”

Reading Classics Illustrated helped my father find Jack London and classical myths and also introduced me to Sherlock Holmes. ....

Today, the original idea behind Kanter’s very successful publishing breakthrough is being kept wonderfully alive by Papercutz Publishing. Their two concurrent series of Classics Illustrated are once again inspiring both young and the old to find their way to the classics. .... [more]

Most of the rest centers on a favorable review of one of the new series, two of Dickens' Christmas stories: A Christmas Carol and the Remembrance of Mugby. Amazon offers many more of the Papercutz Classics Illustrated titles, including Treasure Island, The Count of Monte Cristo, The Three Musketeers, H.G. Wells' The Invisible Man, and many more.

Here is the Classics Illustrated link at the Papercutz site.

Classics Illustrated Deluxe: A Christmas Carol and the Remembrance of Mugby | New York Journal of Books

Church revitalization

Rev. Brian Croft was one of the guest speakers at this year's Seventh Day Baptist General Conference sessions. His subject was church revitalization, i.e. re-energizing an established church, something he has thought a lot about and has experienced. His messages are now available online at his site, Practical Shepherding, and I've also linked to them below. I thought them very practical and useful. He suggests that the best way to listen to them is in this order:

• Keynote: Why do Church Revitalization?
• Q and A: Following the Keynote
• How to Persevere through Church Revitalization?

Church Revitalization audio…now available | Practical Shepherding

Seven of ten

Assuming the Bible and excluding devotional works and classics of the faith, James Emery White proposes composing a list of ten books that would qualify as "mainstream, accessible to the average reader, and offering foundational help to anyone’s walk with Christ." He suggests seven, and asks his readers to recommend three more. His is a very good selection, at least based on the five I know. I haven't read the Gordon MacDonald title or Philip Yancey's What's So Amazing About Grace but everything else I've read by Yancey, especially Disappointment with God, was very good. Several of White's commenters suggest Timothy Keller's The Reason for God, a choice which I would enthusiastically support. His seven, alphabetical by author:

Friesen, Gary. Decision Making and the Will of God.
Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity.
MacDonald, Gordon. Ordering Your Private World.
Packer, J.I. Knowing God.
Stott, John R.W. Basic Christianity.
ten Boom, Corrie. The Hiding Place.
Yancey, Philip. What's So Amazing About Grace?

Church & Culture Blog | Church and Culture

Not at all cuddly

Today, September 29, is observed by some Christian traditions in the West as Michaelmas [or the Feast of Saints Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, the Feast of the Archangels, or the Feast of Saint Michael and All Angels]. One site identifies Michael this way:

.... The name Michael signifies "Who is like to God?" and was the war cry of the good angels in the battle fought in heaven against Satan and his followers. Holy Scripture describes St. Michael as "one of the chief princes," and leader of the forces of Heaven in their triumph over the powers of Hell. ....

Peter Kreeft's blog includes "Angels: The Twelve Most Important Things to Know About Them" [excerpted from his book Angels and Demons: What Do We Really Know about Them?]:

1. They really exist. Not just in our minds, or our myths, or our symbols, or our culture. They are as real as your dog, or your sister, or electricity.
2. They’re present, right here, right now, right next to you, reading these words with you.
3. They’re not cute, cuddly, comfortable, chummy, or “cool.” They are fearsome and formidable. They are huge. They are warriors.
4. They are the real “extra-terrestrials,” the real “Super-men,” the ultimate aliens. Their powers are far beyond those of all fictional creatures.
5. They are more brilliant minds than Einstein.
6. They can literally move the heavens and the earth if God permits them.
7. There are also evil angels, fallen angels, demons, or devils. These too are not myths. Demon possessions, and exorcisms, are real.
8. Angels are aware of you, even though you can’t usually see or hear them. But you can communicate with them. You can talk to them without even speaking.
9. You really do have your very own “guardian angel”. Everybody does.
10. Angels often come disguised. “Do not neglect hospitality, for some have entertained angels unawares”—that’s a warning from life’s oldest and best instruction manual.
11. We are on a protected part of a great battlefield between angels and devils, extending to eternity.
12. Angels are sentinels standing at the crossroads where life meets death. They work especially at moments of crisis, at the brink of disaster—for bodies, for souls, and for nations. .... [more]

Angels by Peter Kreeft

I will arise and go to Jesus

A friend reminds me of this great hymn from the Sac­red Harp tradition: "Come, Ye Sinners, Poor and Needy"

Come, ye sinners, poor and needy, Weak and wounded, sick and sore; Jesus ready stands to save you, Full of pity, love and power. Refrain	Come, ye weary, heavy laden, Lost and ruined by the fall; If you tarry till you’re better, You will never come at all. Refrain
Refrain: I will arise and go to Jesus, He will embrace me in His arms; In the arms of my dear Savior, O there are ten thousand charms.	View Him prostrate in the garden; On the ground your Maker lies. On the bloody tree behold Him; Sinner, will this not suffice? Refrain
Come, ye thirsty, come, and welcome, God’s free bounty glorify; True belief and true repentance, Every grace that brings you nigh. Refrain	Lo! th’incarnate God ascended, Pleads the merit of His blood: Venture on Him, venture wholly, Let no other trust intrude. Refrain
Come, ye thirsty, come, and welcome, God’s free bounty glorify; True belief and true repentance, Every grace that brings you nigh. Refrain	Let not conscience make you linger, Not of fitness fondly dream; All the fitness He requireth Is to feel your need of Him. Refrain

A variation on the hymn by the Missouri All State Choir:

Stupidity

Anthony Esolen notes that “to thine own self be true” were words spoken by Polonius "a shallow, prating, tedious old man, who is anything but straightforward in his behavior" and that "Shakespeare is deeply suspicious of people who are true to themselves, and not to God or to their country." From "Lemmings, Unite! Be True to Yourself?":

...[T]he leaders of the Girl Guides of Australia...have recently revised the oath the girls must take. From now on, instead of swearing loyalty to God, to the Queen, and to Australia, each girl will swear, “I will be true to myself and to my beliefs.”

It’s easy enough to enjoy a hearty laugh at the stupidity of the change. Indeed, the oath is not an oath at all, but rather implies the repudiation of all oaths. To say, “I will be true to myself,” is equivalent to saying, “I will do just as I please,” nor does the addition of “my beliefs” provide any limit to the narcissism, since what is emphasized is not the objective truth of those beliefs, or their transcendent authority, but merely the fact that they happen to be mine. When they cease to please me, then, I am free to alter them, to “believe” something else, to “bend with the remover to remove.” When the wind turns, so does the weathervane. ....

...It is bad to be ignorant, but someone who is ignorant of the courses of the planets can yet be wise in the ways of men. Stupidity is different. Stupidity, I believe, takes real work. Nature provides each of us with a certain measure of dullness and sluggishness of mind; it is only by means of persistence and, for some, hard study that one can deepen that dullness into stupidity. The leaders of the Girl Guides give us a fine example. They say they have striven to be “relevant,” just as the cultural lemmings of the last fifty years have striven to be relevant, whatever that is supposed to mean. So they took a fine old oath, one that just might jog one girl in a hundred from her sleepy self-satisfaction, and tossed it away, in favor of their new invention. They are too stupid to suspect the stupidity. .... [more]

Lemmings, Unite! Be True to Yourself? « Public Discourse

Doxology

"How the Doxology Shapes Us" by Zac Hicks is a reminder of how much is packed into just a few words:

James K. A. Smith, in Desiring the Kingdom, reminds us that the very form and rituals of worship have a shaping effect on us. We don’t just become more godly by learning the theology of the songs and imbibing the propositional content of the sermon. Our desires and habits, as we move along the path of the liturgy, are shaped to more subconsciously and instinctively move along the direction of that path. ....

First, the Doxology shapes us into whole worshipers.

Praise God from whom all blessings flow,
Praise Him, all creatures here below;

The first line gives us the “why” of worship (because of what He does). But next is the “who.” First, “all creatures” are summoned to God’s praise, and suddenly our minds are blown about the fact that worship is not merely a human activity. It is an activity of all creation. ....

Second, the Doxology blows open the supernatural nature of worship.

When we begin worship, I will often start by reminding congregants that today’s worship attendance numbers are larger than they appear. If the folks tallying our worship count were really being honest, every week, they’d write “myriads upon myriads.” Revelation 4-5 reminds us that when we enter into gathered worship on earth, we step into the already moving stream of the perpetual worship of heaven–the elders, the heavenly beings, the white-robed martyrs, the saints that have gone before. In the Doxology, we sing:

Praise Him above, ye heavenly host.

The Doxology does not allow us to tally worship attendance based on who is seen physically in the room.  ....

Third, the Doxology makes us a Trinitarian people.

Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Is the Trinity just an esoteric theological construct, or does it have existential import? In other words, what good is it to us in our day to day lives that our God is one, yet three? To tease out just one implication, it reminds us that because God exists in interdependent community, so should we. ....

Doxology and Theology » How the Doxology Shapes Us by Zac Hicks

Do it to experience it

From an interview with Dr. Matthew Sleeth, author of the book 24/6: A Prescription for a Healthier, Happier Life:

Gayle Trotter: How do we build a Sabbath refuge?

Matthew Sleeth: For me, building a Sabbath refuge means that we — my wife and I have been married 31 years — have to do the work to make sure that we have a day off. We cannot leave a chore undone because the thing is we can all run to the store any day of the week now. We plan for that. We build some margin into our lives so that day we are not miserable thinking about the work we have not gotten done. We really plan for simple meals. We almost always go on an extended walk. Describing the Sabbath is like describing ice cream to somebody. If somebody has never eaten ice cream, you can describe it all you want. But the proof is in the big spoonful of Cherry Garcia.

GT: Yes.

MS: I remember, I have been able to give about a half a dozen children their first bite of ice cream. Being a doctor in a small town like I was then you could get away with stuff. People would put their babies in their lap. Lots of these children had been raised with perfect nutrition. Sugar was never going to cross their mouths. But when I put the spoonful of ice cream in, those children gave me a look like they would love me forever.

The Sabbath is like that. I can talk about it forever, but you have to try it for yourself. You have to try it more than once. In 24/6, I make the analogy of sit-ups. If we did some sit-ups one day, the next day all you are going to have is a sore belly. There is not much good that happens.

The Sabbath is like that, if you just take one Sabbath and try it out. You are not going to get the effect that you are going to have at least trying it for one month, every seven days and taking one day off. It is something that has to be experienced. It can only be described up to a point. I think the Bible is pretty clear about that. God tells people to do it, but they do it in order to experience it. ....

Antidote to Fast Living » Evangel | A First Things Blog

"There is nothing in the world so good as good neighbours."

The Library of America has just published The Little House Books, all of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House books in two volumes. I don't believe I ever read most of them but I do recall reading Little House in the Big Woods—the one about the family's time in Wisconsin—in grade school. I probably should read them. Everyone seems to think they are good and the Ingalls' family experiences seem very like those my Skaggs and Whitney ancestors had during the same times.

From Meghan Clyne's review of the new collection:

The fictionalized account of a girl's transformation into a young woman is also the story of America's growth and maturation. Wilder's stories for children document the Westward Expansion and explore surprisingly grown-up themes—the nature of self-government, the responsibilities that go along with freedom and what it means to be an American.

Essential to understanding those themes is the fact that Wilder wrote the "Little House" books during the Depression and New Deal, at a time when she saw the nation sliding into an unhealthy dependency on government. In addition to educating American children about a crucial period of their history, Wilder wanted to show them a freer way of life. "Self reliance," she explained in a speech in the winter of 1935-36, is one of the "values of life" that "run[s] through all the stories, like a golden thread." ....

If Wilder's pioneer families are resourceful, government is depicted as meddling and incompetent—a contrast that emphasizes the importance of providing for oneself. Indeed, Washington's bungling is blamed for the Ingallses' forced departure from Indian Territory in "Little House on the Prairie," and in "The Long Winter" a family friend denounces politicians who "tax the lining out'n a man's pockets" and "take pleasure a-prying into a man's affairs." Fear of debt hangs over these stories like a dark cloud; to be "beholden" to anyone is a mark of shame. The only respectable path to subsistence—let alone comfort—is hard work. "Neither [my parents] nor their neighbors begged for help," Wilder explained in a 1937 speech. "No other person, nor the government, owed them a living."

But no man in Wilder's stories is an island. When people fall on desperate times—and they do constantly—Wilder's pioneers exhibit one of those other "values of life": "helpfulness." There is a sacred code of neighborliness, and Wilder's heroes are those who forgo their own safety to the benefit of others. In "The Long Winter," for instance, Almanzo and a friend make a near-suicidal trip to find wheat for the starving residents of De Smet. In "On the Banks of Plum Creek," a prairie fire threatens to destroy the family's home. Knowing Pa is away, a neighbor, Mr. Nelson, rides to the farm to help Ma, beating back the fire with wet sacks. After he leaves, Ma remarks: "There is nothing in the world so good as good neighbours." .... [more]

Book Review: The Little House Books - WSJ.com

"We bow down before Him, and we stand upright before Men"

Via Power Line, Rabbi Leo Baeck, October 10, 1935, Berlin, for the Kol Nidre service beginning Yom Kippur:

At this hour the whole House of Israel stands before its God, the God of Justice and the God of Mercy. We shall examine our ways before Him. We shall examine what we have done and what we have failed to do; we shall examine where we have gone and where we have failed to go. Wherever we have sinned we will confess it: We will say “we have sinned” and we will pray with the will to repentance before the Lord and we will pray: “Lord forgive us!”

We stand before our God and with the same courage with which we have acknowledged our sins, the sins of the individual and the sins of the community, shall we express our abhorrence of the lie directed against us, and the slander of our faith and its expressions: this slander is far below us. We believe in our faith and our future. Who brought the world the secret of the Lord Everlasting, of the Lord Who is One? Who brought the world understanding for a life of purity, for the purity of the family? Who brought the world respect for Man made in the image of God? Who brought the world the commandment of justice, of social thought? In all these the spirit of the Prophets of Israel, the Revelation of God to the Jewish People had a part.

It sprang from our Judaism, and continues to grow in it. All the slander drops away when it is cast against these facts.

We stand before our God: Our strength is in Him. In Him is the truth and the dignity of our history. In Him is the source of our survival through every change, our firm stand in all our trials. Our history is the history of spiritual greatness, spiritual dignity.

We turn to it when attack and insult are directed against us, when need and suffering press in upon us. The Lord led our fathers from generation to generation. He will continue to lead us and our children through our days.

We stand before our God; we draw strength from His Commandments, which we obey. We bow down before Him, and we stand upright before Men. Him we serve, and remain steadfast in all the changes around us. We put our faith in Him in humility and our way ahead is clear, we see our future….

Beginning in September, 1935, the Nuremberg Laws required every Jew over the age of six to wear a Star of David when in public. This was only one of the many discriminations and indignities visited on German Jews with much worse to follow.

Leo Baeck, Berlin, 1935 | Power Line