Beale on the OT in the NT

Writing in the journal Irish Biblical Studies [Volume 21, November 1999], Greg Beale talks about the use of OT scripture in the NT and says:

I gave the analogy of picking an apple off a tree and making it part of a decorative table arrangement of fruit. The new context does not obliterate the apple’s original identity but it must now be viewed not merely in relation to its original context but in connection to its new context. Old Testament references gain “new significance” but not “new meaning” when placed in a new context. The original “meaning” does not change but the “significance” of that meaning changes.

2 Kings 11-13 “God Thwarts the Plans of the Wicked”

2 Kings 11-13 “God Thwarts the Plans of the Wicked”

Athaliah killed the entire royal family, or so she thought. There was a baby name Joash, who was taken and hidden in the house of the Lord. He later became king and Athaliah was eventually killed.

How can you not believe in providence? God chose Moses before time, spared him as a baby and providentially guided his life as a vessel for His glory. God also thwarts the plan here of Athaliah. Did she really think that she could overpower God and all His covenant promises? Apparently so…to her death.

Herod also thought he could thwart God’s plan by killing the baby Jesus. Again, no one, absolutely NO ONE can thwart the counsel of God.

So it is today. His plan will stand against all the fury hell will throw at Him. The gates of hell will not stand. They will crumble as His Church advances. Take heart believer!!!

Prayer-

Lord, thank You for Your Sovereign hand which accomplishes all the good things you have ordained. Forgive me for doubting Your hand or inquiring of Your secret counsel. Help me to simply trust in Your plans and submit myself to Your will, whatever it may be. Thanks you that your plans are to prosper those whom You love and that You will work ALL things for my good. Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will NOT fear. I will trust in YOU.

Excerpt from St. Patrick’s Prayer:

I arise today
Through God’s strength to pilot me:
God’s might to uphold me,
God’s wisdom to guide me,
God’s eye to look before me,
God’s ear to hear me,
God’s word to speak for me,
God’s hand to guard me,
God’s way to lie before me,
God’s shield to protect me,
God’s host to save me
From snares of demons,
From temptations of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone and in multitude.

I summon today all these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man’s body and soul.

Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me abundance of reward.
Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness,
Of the Creator of Creation.

Basketball Star Vying for Sole Custody of Pre-Born Baby….but what does it matter if mom can unilaterally murder the baby?

Story is here. Dirk Nowitzki’s girlfriend has some issues…you can read about it. As such, if she is carrying Dirk’s baby, He wants sole custody. While I disagree with lifestyle choices that brought them to this point, I give him props for wanting to raise the child.

I post this because the irony in our law system is that he can want the child, long for the child, is responsible for the child once born, but really has no say in the matter until that point as the mom is entirely free to kill the baby and move on. Those who know me know that I believe the baby deserves the right to life regardless, however I would support laws that make abortion permissible only if it is consented by both parents. Again, I am NOT for abortion. I am just saying that this would be a reasonable revision to our existing abortion laws.

I realze that fatherhood may be impossible to establish while the child is in embryo so that this stipulation could be bypassed, but I just do find it ironic that a father can want a child, but has no say. It is up to mom. At the same time, a father can not want the child because of not wanting to support the child, etc. and a mom could have the baby with the sole intent of binding the father to child support, etc.

Argggggggh. God’s way is the best way. One man marrying one woman and happily raising their children in a loving and nurturing home. Call it archaic, but it works. So many people use children in a manipulative fashion these days, either for child support, or for state support, etc. or they are murdered, or whatever. God’s heart grieves over the many children who are not born into stable homes. Anyhow, just some thoughts on a tense societal issue…and a vindication of God, who knows best and actually wants our joy. His way is full of joy.

1 Peter 4:12 “Deal With It (Suffering)”

1 Pt. 4:12 Deal With It (Suffering)

1 Pet. 4:12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.

Is it just me or does it seem like most believers are perplexed when trials befall them? Do we not try to find the root of the trial and get rid of it as soon as possible? Often times we think along the lines of Job’s ‘friends’ who concluded that his trials must have something to do with hidden sin.

While certain trials may in fact be a result of sin that needs to be dealt with, many are simply ordained by God for our sanctification. Doesn’t sound like fun, does it? Doesn’t sound like, “Your Best Life Now”, does it? Yet, listen to what Peter tells us to do in the midst of suffering:

13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

Rejoice? Really?

I think we all need a good dose of BIBLE and stop acting like it is the end of the world when God serves us up a bit of suffering. We are told not to be surprised and act like something strange is happening. This mindset is almost foreign in American Evangelicalism and we need to regain a Biblical theology of suffering or else we might whine ourselves out of God’s Kingdom. Think of how God felt about the whining wilderness generation…He could barely stand it. I know that it seems impossible to rejoice or be thankful for the testing God’s providence leads us through in this life, but your other alternatives are whining or anxiety, which are both condemned as responses unbefitting the believer. Let us not mind a little suffering.

Prayer –

Forgive me for the many times I have failed the tests set before me, either by whining or complaining or distrusting you with sinful anxiety. Help me to embrace the tests Your providence deal me and may they ever increase my joy for that day when Your glory is revealed in its fullness. Amen.

Psalm 137 “When Worship Music Becomes Entertainment”

No, I am not mocking contemporary worship or dealing with the regulative principle or any of that. Instead, I am responding to what Israel’s captors asked of them in Psalm 137:

3 For there our captors required of us songs, and our tormentors, mirth, saying, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

Babylon is making a mockery of Israel’s worship be requesting it be played for their mockery or entertainment. Well, how did Israel respond?

8 O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us!
9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

I know that this beatitude pronounced upon Babylon’s avenger and the Psalmist’s desire that the Babylonians be destroyed may seem harsh…well, because…it is harsh. As harsh as it is, the point to be taken is that it is the proper restitution for belittling the worship of God. He won’t stand for it and will crush all who despise the worship of God.

Prayer-

Lord, may I never cease to worship You. May I be zealous for your glory and the hallowing of Your name. May Your name be worshipped forever and ever. Though captors seek to mock and belittle the song on our lips, may we worship you nonetheless and may sinners be converted. Amen.

2 Kings 1-2 “Fire From Heaven”

King Ahaziah sent two groups of 50 soldiers to apprehend the lone prophet Elijah and were destroyed by fire that Elijah called down on them. The third group of 50 begged for mercy and Elijah was permitted to go down with him where he subsequently prophesied the King’s death. In 2 Kings 2, the ascension of Elijah and double blessing upon Elisha dominate the chapter. It also ends with that interesting story where 42 youths were devoured by bears because they were mocking the prophet. Anyhow, I really want to focus on the fire from heaven.

There is a similar NT parallel in Luke’s Gospel:

Luke 9:51-56 (ESV)
51 When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.
52 And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him.
53 But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem.
54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?”
55 But he turned and rebuked them.
56 And they went on to another village.

I’m sure that James and John were craving a raw demonstration of power from their prophet, but they were rebuked rather than commended. Why? God had sent fire on His enemies before, why not now? One can’t also claim that God is just plain nicer in the NT, after all Acts does record cases of God striking people dead.

I think that God is showing that He will do what He so wishes and retains the freedom to do whatever His hand pleases to do, BUT He would rather we love and pray for our enemies than wish their harm and destruction. Our God doesn’t delight in the death of the wicked. May we never forget that. Though He will destroy the wicked, He doesn’t have a sadistic pleasure in such acts and warns us against developing such ill-will towards others. Well some might be wondering, “What about the imprecatory Psalms?”. “Can Christians pray for God’s harm on others?”. There are appropriate times to pray for the destruction of a leader, but it must be in conjunction with prayers for their repentance. I pray for Kim Jong Il to repent of his wickedness, but could also see the good of God taking him out of office. I wish God to send fire down on Him, I really do…just as I am sure Bonhoeffer wished the same for Hitler.

Anyhow, this post is developing into more areas than I had intended. Needless to say, there are times when we can pray for one’s repentance and God’s vindictive justice and revenge to be carried out in the here and now of things. We must NOT, however take pleasure in the death of the wicked. Our feelings ought to be conflicted. When we captured Saddam, I was joyous that he was brought to justice. When he was hanged, I wasn’t giving high fives with a grin on my face. I stood speechless at the news, silent and humbled before the God who can raise kings up and bring them down. If not for God’s grace, we would all be like the youth who were mocking Elijah. We were God’s enemies…children of wrath.

Prayer-

Lord, thank you for your longsuffering with me and not striking me dead in judgment when I rebelled against You and mocked Your Word. You won me over with Your love and I am no longer your enemy. Grant me with this same love for others. Rather than calling down fire from heaven, may I weep for the lost and all who wish me harm and do me harm. Amen.

Congrats to Brian Andrews!!!

Brian, my buddy I met in Rochester, NY, who then got sent to TX, just won secondary teacher of the year!!! Much props are due him. You can read the article here.

Jesus on the Cross = Penal Substitution AND Sanctification

My evening readings were in 1 Pt. 1-2 and there is so much precious truth in it all, however 1 Pt 2:24 sticks out  for me today:

“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

I had the chance to visit with a dear brother this morning who is a missionary to the Ukraine and we ended up spending some time talking about the work of Jesus upon the cross. I informed him that the doctrine of penal substitution (Jesus satisfied our penalty for sin on the cross) is under attack today. He was shocked.

“How could they do that? Why did Jesus come to die then?” he asked.

I gave him the reasons and he was appalled that people have a problem with the idea that Jesus actually took our sin, its filth, the Father’s wrath against it, everything with Him into His body on that cross. You are left with an empty cross… a most unfortunate martyrdom that the Father had nothing to do with. How is this glorious?

Anyhow, Peter tells us plainly that Jesus bore our sins in His body. That is glorious in and of itself, however the good news doesn’t end there. Peter adds a purpose clause following that great statement, “…that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.”

Jesus not only satisfies the penalty and wrath for our sin, but purchases on the cross sanctifying power for the believer to die to sin and live for Him. This is great news!!! He not only forgives us, but empowers us to live a life pleasing to Him for His glory. 1 Peter has several important imperatives that help shape exactly how the ‘justified’ believer is to live out ’sanctification’. Let us praise our Lord that He truly “healed” us on that cross through the wounds He endured.

Prayer-

Thank you for saving me and not appointing me to destruction, but rather unto newness of life. Thank you for choosing to come and carry out the mission that the Father gave you to purchase me. Thank you for enduring every stripe and wound for my sin. As I ponder your wounded body, may I see in it the death of my own flesh and the power to live for You. I live for you Lord…for Your glory. I am not ashamed of the cross…it is a stumbling block for many, but you have made it precious in my sight. I have tasted Your sweet goodness and I long for more. May Your goodness shape me as a vessel to be used for Your glory. Amen.

Psalm 136, “His Love Endures Forever”

My afternoon reading today was from Psalm 136. The refrain, “His love endures forever”, occurs in all 26 verses of this Psalm and was recited in responsive fashion before the congregation.

I know that some folks don’t like ‘7-11′ choruses in Church (7 words sung 11 times), and I would be the first to say that there can be too much redundancy in our liturgy at times, however this Psalm is an apologetic for reiterating one magnificent truth over and over again. The redundancy ought never to invoke boredom, but rather an ever increasing joy in the truth proclaimed that is ever more true each time we declare it. We can declare forever that, “His love endures forever”, and would be inspired to eternally increasing adoration and appreciation for His love.

If God says something 26x in 26 verses, me thinks He is trying to get something in our hearts…do we get it?

Prayer-

Lord, I thank you for your covenant-keeping love towards me in spite of my sin and ingratitude. Thank you for loving me with a love that neither death, famine, or foe can quench. Thank you for your promise to love me for all of eternity and your promise to work all things out for my good. Your love brings me to my knees with ‘woe’ from my lips…Your love lifts my head and beckons me to go and do your will…your love abounds much more than my every sin…it is your love in Christ Jesus that has adopted me and saved me…it is your eternal love that will forever bind all your children in perfect fellowship now and in the age to come. Help me to declare of your love and to love with your love…all for your eternal glory. Amen

Free Biography on John Calvin

Link here for the free PDF OR go here to purchase a copy.

Ahab and 400 Apostate Prophets

I am reading through the following Bible plan. I read through the OT passage in the morning, the Psalms at midday, and the NT in the evening.  Anyhow, I thought I would offer some brief thoughts on each reading throughout the day.

In 1 Kings 22, we are introduced to the story of the evil king Ahab, who was a complete coward and threw a fit because he couldn’t have Naboth’s Vineyard, only to have his notorious wife, Jezebel put Naboth to death for it…anyhow, he was also a coward in that he surrounded himself with 400 prophets who would simply tickle his ears with good counsel.

BUT,

there was one prophet who spoke the Word of the Lord:

1 Kings 22:7-8 (ESV)
7 But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not here another prophet of the Lord of whom we may inquire?”
8 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “There is yet one man by whom we may inquire of the Lord, Micaiah the son of Imlah, but I hate him, for he never prophesies good concerning me, but evil.” And Jehoshaphat said, “Let not the king say so.” [1] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001

PRAYER -

Lord, guard my mouth and my heart. May I never shrink back from declaring Your Word. If even I should stand before a king, may my words be faithful and true. Also, be with Your Church…grant them ears that delight in Your Word. Guard us from apostate pastors who peddle Your Word to please itching ears. Amen.

New Exodus, New Gift, New Restoration, New Zion

Just a few brief thoughts as I continue to engage my studies for Seminary.

• - Luke 4 portrays Jesus as the Messiah, leading His people in a ‘new’ Exodus, delivering them from bondage, etc.
• - The Gospel of Luke shows how Jesus leads His people to salvation.
  
• - Acts 2 portrays Jesus as the Davidic king and a greater-than-Moses prophet who pours down the greatest gift (Holy Spirit)
• - The book of Acts then proceeds to show how the Kingdom of God is present…restoring, refreshing, expanding.

I see in Luke’s paradigm a program much like that of Israel, but in newness:

• - The old Exodus is fulfilled in the ‘new’ Exodus that Jesus leads
• - The passover is fulfilled in Jesus’ who secures our safe passage from our bondage
• - Jesus undergoes a ‘wilderness’ journey in his 40 day fast and He triumphs, incurring God’s blessing
• - The already delivered people of God enter the promised land and are given the ‘law’ as a gift to guide the nation of Israel…whereas the already ’saved’ followers of Jesus receive on Pentecost a new gift from on high, the Holy Spirit, which is intended to empower and guide this ‘new Israel’
• - This ‘new Israel’ experiences God’s promised times of refreshing and restoration…and global expansion, thus fulfilling what the former ‘Israel’ was to be to the surrounding nations

These thoughts aren’t new or novel, but it is quite remarkable how the ‘historian’ Luke develops a finely nuanced Christology and arranges his material in such a way so as to parallel the former Israel’s history.

N. Korean Quandary

I happen to be half Korean for those who don’t know. My mother came from South Korea when she was a young adult. Though I don’t speak Korean, I have an interest in its affairs. I have also served as an English Pastor at two Korean Churches in my past and have a certain kinship with such folks.

Anyhow, I am glad to see that Obama has granted to S. Korea assurances that we will protect them if assaulted by the North (link). We are certainly in volatile times as Iran and North Korea seek to flex their muscles. I have my thoughts on diplomacy and the course that should be taken, but I will leave them to myself. The most important thing that we can do is pray. A united Korea would be a most joyous thing!!!

On the Justice Journey

From Monday through Saturday this week, I will be going to some of the famous civil rights movements sites with about 40 white and black Chicagoans from several different churches.  We hope to learn about the history of the movement and also work on racial reconciliation.  I hope to have some interesting experiences to write about when I come back.

Of course, the Cubs and Sox have their first series against each other this week, so I hope that won’t create other reconciliation issues as I’m sure that the group will include fans of both teams.  For what it’s worth, here’s some research on the characteristics of Cubs and Sox fans that appeared in today’s Chicago Tribune.

You may or may not know about the stereotypes of Cubs and Sox fans.  The Cubs’ Wrigley Field is in a trendy part of town (Wrigleyville on the North Side) and the Sox’ US Cellular Field is on the South Side, near the old public housing project corridor.  I like to think that Wrigley is great but not nice (it was built in 1914 and isn’t in the best shape) and “the Cell” is nice but not great (it was built as a sterile new stadium in the early 1990s but looks a lot nicer now).  The two groups of fans have stereotypes about each other: Cubs fans often look at the Sox fans as low class, and the Sox fans often look at the Cubs fans as privileged, soft frat boys/yuppies who don’t care about the game that they’re watching.

I root against the White Sox at almost every opportunity, but I do like their fans.  The average serious Sox fan is pretty hardcore and hates the Cubs.  You see some Cubs fans who will root for both teams, but almost never a Sox fan who could ever think of rooting for the Cubs.  Talking with knowledgeable fans of the other team can be a lot of fun, although the fact that the Cubs haven’t won a World Series in over 100 years and the Sox had one lucky year a great run in 2005 means that the Sox fans always have a trump card.

Go Cubs!

Calvin and Cheney

My friend Rick from Endued sent me an article from Christianity Today that addressed the unitary executive theory advanced by Dick Cheney and others in the Bush Administration, and tried to put it in the perspective of Calvin’s political theory.  Here’s how the author, David Neff, defined the unitary theory:

But one young staffer in the Nixon administration, future Vice President Dick Cheney, became a champion of expansive executive power. Serving in Congress and in subsequent administrations, Cheney helped promote the theory of the “Unitary Executive,” the idea that, in [author Charlie] Savage’s words, the White House should exercise complete control over everything in the executive branch, which could be conceived of as a unitary being with the President as its brain. Attorney General Ed Meese, then-Representative Dick Cheney, and others pushed that notion in order to reclaim the de facto presidential powers that were squandered by Nixon’s overreach.

But after 9/11, the push to consolidate presidential power over national security issues took on new momentum. Sometimes Cheney’s rhetoric has gone to extremes. For example, he told Fox News’s Chris Wallace that because the President always has at his side a military aide carrying the nuclear “football,” and because the President therefore has the ability to launch a nuclear attack at any time without checking with Congress, he is free of any responsibility to check with Congress in exercising his national security duties.

Neff argues that Calvin saw the law, not a government, as supreme.  In fact, he believed that tyrants sacrificed their legitimacy.  It’s no surprise, I suppose, that Calvinists often resisted governments in France, Austria, England, and Scotland.

The first thing that struck me as I read the article is how much more I need to know about Calvin’s time in Geneva, in which he attempted to set up a godly government during the Reformation period.  I’ve heard it alternately characterized as a proto-Taliban state and as a “woman’s paradise” for the strict laws against men who beat their wives.  Neff writes that Calvin saw a balance between responsibility and liberty:

Calvin used the Reformation idea of church and state as separate and distinct spheres to foster liberty. For every duty God imposes, whether spiritual or temporal, there is a corresponding freedom that is required. If we are commanded to give our families material support, for example, economic freedom and the right to private property are essential. If we are to rest on the Sabbath, we must have the liberty to stop working and not be perpetually at the beck of employers. Each duty implies a corresponding liberty, and it is the duty of rulers to protect those liberties.

Because these duties come from God, religious liberty is a fundamental aspect of political liberty. Witte continues: “Political liberty and political authority ‘are constituted together,’ said Calvin. … When political officials respect the duties and limits of their office, believers enjoy ample political liberty to give ‘public manifestation of their faith.’?”

But what about the unfaithful political leader? Calvin wrote that “dictatorships and unjust authorities are not governments ordained by God.” They are no longer “God’s ministers” if they “practice blasphemous tyranny.”

In this part of the article, I wondered if there was some Americanization of Calvin.  It’s my impression that there wasn’t “religious liberty” in Geneva.  You wouldn’t necessarily expect to find religious liberty there, as the scorned and persecuted Anabaptists were the only ones really talking about it much in Calvin’s day (to my knowledge).  The church in Geneva, in my understanding, was to govern the moral aspects of people’s lives while the state maintained order.  One of the most famous cases in Geneva’s history was the buring of Michael Servetus at the stake for denying the Trinity.  There’s a tendency to think of the Reformers as the pioneers of our liberties when they seemed to be in a very different situation and time period from our  founders.

But as for Neff’s main point, I agree that law must above its enforcers.  He does well in painting a brief historical picture of the development of a powerful executive so that people know that it didn’t start with Nixon or Bush.  Part of the problem is that it’s unlikely that a president would give back power.  Some of the powers that the Bush Administration claimed are being claimed by the Obama administration, and certainly the recession has provided the justfication for further economic power for the president.

One of the troubling things about this is how results-oriented the political process has become.  Many people seem to be all right with expanded executive, legislative, and/or judicial power as long as policies that they like are enacted.  There don’t seem to be strong voices calling for the principles and limits found in the Constitution to be followed.  Sometimes I think our Constitution is almost worn-out from years of being asked to do things it was never meant to do.  In a free society, we have to be willing to tolerate things that we don’t like.

America’s God, Chapter 6: “Theistic Common Sense”

In Chapter 6 of America’s God, Noll continues in his exploration of how American Christianity became so connected with two streams of thought that were often associated with heresy or liberal theology in Europe: republican political thought and common sense moral philosophy.

Protestants, and especially Reformed (Calvinist) Protestants, had usually embraced an Augustinian view of man: there was a huge difference between the saved who had received God’s grace and spiritually dead who had not.  The damned did not have the same capacity to perceive morality that Christians did.  On the other hand, common sense moral theorists believed that all people had an innate moral sense that could discover true morality.  This goes along with the more optimistic view that the Enlightenment thinkers had of man’s nature: no matter how pessimistic some Enlightenment thinkers were that people would embrace reason, Enlightenment thinkers believed that people could embrace reason and make the world a better place.  The common sense moral theory is associated with Scottish thinkers like Francis Hutcheson and Thomas Reid.  Noll makes an interesting point about this theory: while it was in many ways a “liberal” idea that went against convention, it also was deployed against skeptics like David Hume who said that people really couldn’t know anything.  So it both criticized the traditional paradigm and tried to fend off something more radical.

Why did Americans come to believe that all people had the ability to discover moral truth, and why did Christians latch on to this system?  Noll admits that the evidence for his thesis is “circumstantial,” but he argues that the assault on traditional authorities that took place from the 1740s-1780s necessitated a new basis for morality and religion.  This was found in common sense ideas of morality.  For evangelicals and others, this meant that they could rest the American political, social, and religious order on principles that anyone could perceive through their natural common sense.

The challenges to authority had been many.  The Great Awakening preachers encouraged individuals to judge the purity of their churches rather than accept tradition.  Westward migration created new communities that people feared were devoid of order.  And of course the American Revolution overturned the political order.  The use of reason to order society could solve these problems.  Noll summarizes the appeal of common sense moral theory for traditional Christians as well.  For Protestants, it would:

preserve the hereditary position of Christianity that was turning against the structures of traditional religion (like the political episcopate or the Congregational establishment in New England) as actively as it was turning against other inherited authorities.  Moreover, patriots, both political and religious, needed not merely moral and intellectual justifications but justifications untainted by old world traditions associated with the corrupting forces of “tyrrany.” (109)

This makes logical sense to me, although I would have liked to see more evidence to be truly convinced.  Perhaps the evidence is coming later in the book.  For now, I wish he had followed up on this sentence:

Explicit in the lectures and textbooks of the nation’s leading intellectuals was the Enlightenment belief that Americans could find within themselves the resources, compatible with Christianity, to bring social order out of the rootlessness and confusion of the new nation. (112-113)

Given Noll’s careful work in the book so far and his reputation as a respected historian, there’s no reason to doubt him.  But I wish there had been some examples.  I wouldn’t be at all surprised if these come later in the book.

The marriage of Christianity and republican political theory in America

Noll’s fifth chapter analyzes the American combination of Christianity and republican political ideas, which was a rare combination in the 18th and 19th centuries.  You can see my notes on his previous chapter, where he explained more about this, here.

Noll argues that the most powerful influence in combining Christian beliefs and republican political principles was the period of conflict with France in the 1740s-1760s, the two wars known in America as King George’s War (1744-1748) and the French and Indian War (1754-1763).  French political and religious (i.e. Catholic) tyranny were contrasted with English liberty.  After the wars with France, religious Americans calling for religious freedom (as opposed to established churches) and the end of slavery used the republican language of rights and liberty.

Noll argues that during the time of resistance and open rebellion against British taxes and laws republican and Christian language were intermingled, so that Christianity was a “disinfectant” that sanitized the republican ideas that were so often connected with heretical ideas.  He gives the great example of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, which presented biblical examples in support of a republican form of government and against monarchy.  Paine had probably personally rejected Christianity at the time, but presented a very persuasive case that Christianity and republican ideas went hand in hand.  Noll calls this “Christian republicanism.”

Noll gives a plausible account of how “Christian republicanism” emerged.  He states early on in the book that he intends to do a history of theology that pays attention to high culture rather than a social history that looks at popular culture, while recognizing the necessity of histories that do the latter.  So the question remaining is how this worked at a popular level.  He contends that Americans in general tended to accept the synthesis hammered out in the theology that he explores, and I’m inclined to agree with him.

Noll closes with a great account from the always quotable de Tocqueville:

The character of the country that de Tocqueville visited in the 1830s seemed compounded of what he called “two perfectly distinct elements that elsewhere have often made war with each other, but which, in America, … they have succeeded in incorporating somehow into another and combining marvelously.  I mean to speak of the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom.” (92)

Christian orthodoxy and republican ideas: the American puzzle

Noll’s fifth fourth chapter in America’s God describes the unusual agreement between traditional Christians and republican political ideas in late 18-century America.  First, we have to define republican ideology.  Here’s how Noll does it:

American republican language returned constantly to two main themes: fear of abuses from illegitimate power and a nearly messianic belief in the benefits of liberty.  It presupposed, in the succinct summary of Blair Worden, that “man is a citizen, not (like Hobbes’ man) a subject.”  Moreover, “his citizenship is dependent on the free exercise of his virtue and of his reason, and upon his participation, as an elector of representatives and as arms-bearer, in the communal affairs of his country.” (56)

After the American Revolution, clergy from all Christian churches (whether Congregational, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, or Catholic) spoke highly of American political ideas, while their peers in Europe and Canada often decried the values of the new American Republic, especially in the face of war against the French Republic.  Philadelphia’s Jewish community even protested their exclusion from Pennsylvania’s government using American political dialogue.

Noll believes that this phenomenon needs explanation because for more than a century before the American Revolution, those who held republican ideas were usually suspected of heresies such as Arianism and Socinianism (which denied the full divinity of Christ).  Republican beliefs often assumed a more optimistic nature of human beings, believing that they could be independent and virtuous by nature, opposing traditional Christian teachings on man’s sinfulness.   Making sense of the American combination of evangelicalism and republicanism is the task of Chapter 6 5.

Jonathan Edwards and the Decline of the Puritan Covenant

In Chapter 3 of America’s God, Noll writes that while Jonathan Edwards ably defended the doctrines of Calvinism in a way that understood the Enlightenment, his conception of the church represented a break with the Puritan ideal.

The Puritan covenant bound society and church under a covenant with God, using biblical Israel as the model.  In Puritan Massachusetts, the official theology taught that the society was truly a covenant community.  One needed to give a convincing testimony of being born again to join a church, and men needed to be church members to vote, but all society was to be under God’s law.  Of course, there were tensions:

• Only church members could take communion, but by the terms of the Half-Way Covenant of 1662 the children of baptized nonmembers could themselves be baptized.
• Roger Williams argued that the faith could not be compelled, and set up a colony in Rhode Island to set up a colony with religious liberty.
• Anne Hutchinson denied the responsibility of believers to keep the law and held private religious meetings, and she also left Massachusetts.
• Edwards’ grandfather Solomon Stoddard argued that communion was a sign of the covenant with New England society and therefore allowed all church attenders to take communion, regardless of whether they had made a profession of faith.

These point to the central difficulty that the Puritans faced.  They held to the ideal of Christendom, a godly society ordered by Christian principles.  But they also were Protestants who believed that faith alone began the new birth of the Christian, unlike Catholics who believed that regeneration began with baptism.  So the number of true Christians was fewer than the number of baptized Christians.  But all people were under the covenant of God with society.

Noll argues that for all of Edwards’ defense of traditional doctrine, his writing and revivals of the 1730s-1760s (the Great Awakening period) helped to destroy the Puritan idea as a comprehensive system.  Edwards saw the church as a gathering of born-again people only, and eventually argued that only Israel was a truly covenanted nation with God.  In this vein, he only allowed church members (who had given testimony of their conversion) to recieve communion and only church members to have their children baptized.

Noll writes that the Puritan ideas of a chosen nation continued in their influence after the Great Awakening, but the convenant as a systematic way of looking at life lost its considerable influence.  This opened theology in America to new influences.

The Roots of American Theology

I’ve finally gotten a chance to begin, for at least the second time, Mark Noll’s America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln.  He’s set out an interesting task for himself: answering the question of how theological ideas in America became so thoroughly integrated with American cultural ideas.  Specifically, he is exploring how evangelical religious beliefs, “republican” political ideas (arguing for a representative government without a king), and commonsense moral ideas (the idea that all people, not just Christians, possessed a strong sense of and ability to discover true morality) became so connected in American culture.  Noll draws an interesting contrast in his first chapter to illustrate this mixing of religious and political ideas in American thought:

Why did [Abraham] Lincoln, though never a church member, use the Bible more frequently in [his Second Inaugural Address] and also address questions of theological significance more directly than his near-peers as heads of state in other Protestant lands who were dedicated members of Christian churches like William Gladstone in Britain or Abraham Kuyper in the Netherlands? (6)

In Chapter 2, Noll argues that none of this fusion was evident in the writings of the theologians of the first half of the 1700s.  American church groups like the Congregationalists (Puritans), Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Quakers were very traditional, affirming the historic doctrines of their various traditions even more than some of their European counterparts (beginning to be influenced by rationalism) were.  Puritans and Presbyterians articulated the doctrines of Calvinism, arguing that man could do nothing to save himself and that human nature was damaged by the fall and therefore did not have a strong moral sense.  Therefore, only God could convert sinners and impart a true sense of morality to those he chose to regenerate.  Even Jonathan Edwards, conversant with the Enlightenment ideas of the day, concentrated on defending the traditional Puritan doctrines while stating them in contemporary terms.

As he notes at the end of Chapter 2, even the very disruptive Great Awakening showed “the continuing power of a religion with scant room for the intensely this-worldly preoccupations of republicanism or the optimistic universalism of moral-sense philosophy” (29).  The main figures of the Great Awakening were traditional Calvinists, and the strongest theological tradition when it was all said and done was still Puritan Calvinism, which had just received Edwards’ forceful defense.  Yet Noll hints that Puritan theology would break up soon.

If you’re confused by idea of the “commonsense” moral ideas, I still am too, but I believe that he will be explaining it further.  I hope that I’ve summarized his point accurately so far.  I’m going to blog my reaction to each chapter as I go to help me remember what he writes.

And finally, if you’ve never read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address that Noll referred to in the quote above, it’s really short and at the same time packed with profound ideas.  Do yourself a favor and check it out.

Another perspective on the growth of Chinese Christianity

Chuck Colson’s BreakPoint from yesterday quotes from Pastor Hong Yujian, who argued that the Tiananmen Square crackdown helped the growth of the Church.  This was the key passage for me:

“Many people are beginning to realize that they in themselves have nothing praiseworthy,” Pastor Yujian said. “The end of human efforts is the beginning of God. . . . The only way out is coming to the throne of grace of God and surrendering to Him.”

How has God used the Tiananmen tragedy to build his Church? Before the massacre, the house churches were mainly in the countryside, Pastor Yujian noted. But after June 4, the churches “spread to urban areas and into intellectual circles.” In these arenas, in the aftermath of the massacre, students were suffering from a sense of passiveness, depravity, and loss—but then they began to listen seriously to what house church pastors had to say.

In other countries, Chinese churches and Bible classes had previously been attended mainly by immigrants from Hong Kong and Taiwan. But after Tiananmen Square, people began to reach out and show their care and love to students from mainland China. “As a result,” Pastor Yujian said, “there was an upsurge for God among the students from mainland China.”

Out of the ashes of Tiananmen Square, and the failure of the student movement, its leaders began a search for truth—and ultimately have “found hope and reality in Jesus Christ.”

This post discussed another Chinese Christian’s perspective, focusing on the growth of Reformed (Calvinist) Christianity in universities in China.

Combined Book Review: Evangelism, Racial Reconciliation, and Community Development in Mississippi

• John Perkins, Let Justice Roll Down (1976)
• John Perkins, With Justice for All (1982)
• Dolphus Weary, I Ain’t Comin’ Back (1990, 1997)

On June 15, I’m heading down Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee with members of 9 different Chicagoland churches.  Organized by Willow Creek Community Church, the idea of the “Justice Journey” is to get white and black Christians together to visit prominent sites from the history of the Civil Rights movement and to discuss racial reconciliation in the church.  One of the speakers along the way will be John Perkins, and his autobiography (Let Justice Roll Down) was assigned reading.  Since I had some time, I decided to read two other related books, one by Perkins and another by someone who became part of his ministry, Dolphus Weary.

Let Justice Roll Down is a really powerful story of Perkins’ ministry in Mississippi through the mid-1970s.  He had grown up in rural Mississippi and seen his brother shot and killed by a policeman.  When his family moved to California, he eventually became a Christian in his mid-20s.  As he shared the gospel in the Los Angeles area, he eventually felt called back to Mississippi to spread the gospel and knowledge of the Bible in his native state.  With the early financial support of California churches that included Calvary Bible Church in Burbank, pastored by John MacArthur’s father Jack MacArthur, he returned to Mississippi to begin his work.  He named his ministry Voice of Calvary after MacArthur’s radio broadcast.

Integrating a Christian College

Dolphus Weary describes his predicament in mid-1960s Mississippi in I Ain’t Comin’ Back:

I also developed a vague idea that I wanted to so [sic] something similar to John [Perkins] and the others at the ministry.  I didn’t know what, but I wanted to prepare for it as best I could.  To me that meant finishing my education at a Christian college.  There was just one problem — I didn’t know of a single accredited four-year Christian college that would admit a black person.  I knew some Bible institutes that educated blacks.  But I wanted a full college education as well as Bible instruction. (52)

Fortunately, he met the director of admissions of Los Angeles Baptist College in Newhall, now The Master’s College, after chapel at Mississippi junior college (a young John MacArthur was also visiting).  LABC offered Weary and his friend Jimmie Walker basketball scholarships.

When they got there, they realized that they were the first and only full-time black students at LABC.  While they noticed the more open racial climate of California and soon made good friends with many other students, they found that some students purposely ignored them and that others were openly hostile.  Weary recalls the cheers that he heard from some students after Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated.

Weary writes that he and Walker committed to confronting this prejudice without resorting to hatred.  They were eventually able to get more of their friends from Mississippi to come, including Dolphus’ future wife, Rosie.  Weary’s story is a testimony of the power of God to give courage to the downtrodden.

Short Term Missions

Last week, the Desiring God Blog posted on short-term missions throughout the week.  This is the wrap-up with links to their different posts.  The major messages that came through were that those going on short-term missions must have a servant’s attitude, take care that their efforts don’t harm the poor and the local Christian efforts that they mean to help, and realize that those who go on the trip often receive more than those they mean to help.

Two articles from the Chalmers Center at Covenant College were particularly interesting.  They sought to differentiate between relief and development, arguing that when the poor can help themselves we must pursue development.  The second article that I linked to provides this suggestion (the DG Blog quoted a shorter section of this):

Despite these words of caution, STM trips can play a positive role in the lives of all those involved, but a different paradigm is needed. Rather than going as “doers,” some powerful dynamics can be unleashed if STM teams go as “learners” from the poor or as “co-learners” with the poor. Consistent with an asset-based model, going as a learner emphasizes the gifts which poor people have to share with others: the spiritual, intellectual, physical, and social resources that God has already placed in their community. Listening to poor people and asking them to share their insights affirms their dignity and reduces the tendencies towards pride on the part of the outsiders. Furthermore, the poor really do have something to teach us, for they have unique insights on what it means to trust in a sovereign God to “give us this day our daily bread.”

This article also had a good discussion of different cultural views of time:

An important dynamic that affects the interaction of STM teams and low-income communities is that there are often core cultural differences with respect to time. Most Americans are from a monochronic culture which believes that time is a very important resource that should not be wasted. Of course, there is some good in that perspective, and it enables Americans to produce a lot. But many other cultures have a polychronic view that says time is primarily an opportunity to invest in relationships. In such cultures, knowing and serving others is more important than pursuing many new projects or activities. Hence, people from polychronic cultures may not feel unduly impatient or burdened if life unfolds a little bit slower than the people from monochromic cultures would like.

STM teams that fail to understand these dynamics can inadvertently undermine long-term development. For example, when Americans gain a reputation for needing to do things very quickly, it can foster an attitude in poor communities that discourages local people from doing things to improve their own situation. Locals start to say, “We don’t need to do anything. Let’s just wait and some outsiders will show up and do it for us!” Again, if the STM teams would focus less on “doing” and more on “being and learning together,” this problem could be mitigated.

Perkins on the importance of informed solutions

After John Perkins essentially fought the Mississippi court system to a draw twice, dropping his charges against the local authorities when they promised to drop theirs against him, he believed that the most important part of his experience was informing people about the injustices of police misconduct and brutality:

One of the things for Christian observers is that there are times when the biggest need is for information rather than exhortation.  We need to know more about what really goes on before we solidify our theoretical ideas about what a Christian “ought” or “ought not” to do.

Whether we admit it or not, our reading of biblical ethics is colored by our perception of the world around us.  If we think that there are only a few “bad guys” such as burglars or murderers, and that all the given political, legal and economic structures around us are basically okay, then we are bound to read our Bibles in a certain way.  We will assume that it tells us to “lay low,” whether we are a part of the law or only under the law; that the person who speaks out is a rebellious agitator.

But that assumption can be badly shaken up by a good look at what happens to many people who are simply crushed by, rather than helped by, these social structures and institutions that we take for granted.  If sin can exist at every level of government, and in every human institution, then also the call to biblical justice in every corner of society must be sounded by those who claim a God of Justice as their Lord. (Let Justice Roll Down, Ch. 21, pg. 195, 1976 edition)

This is a great reminder that we need to see if justice goes beyond rhetoric and good ideas and is actually carried out.

After John Perkins essentially fought the Mississippi court system to a draw twice, dropping his charges against the local authorities when they promised to drop theirs against him, he believed that the most important part of his experience was informing people about the injustices of police misconduct and brutality:

One of the things for Christian observers is that there are times when the biggest need is for information rather than exhortation.  We need to know more about what really goes on before we solidify our theoretical ideas about what a Christian “ought” or “ought not” to do.

Whether we admit it or not, our reading of biblical ethics is colored by our perception of the world around us.  If we think that there are only a few “bad guys” such as burglars or murderers, and that all the given political, legal and economic structures around us are basically okay, then we are bound to read our Bibles in a certain way.  We will assume that it tells us to “lay low,” whether we are a part of the law or only under the law; that the person who speaks out is a rebellious agitator.

But that assumption can be badly shaken up by a good look at what happens to many people who are simply crushed by, rather than helped by, these social structures and institutions that we take for granted.  If sin can exist at every level of government, and in every human institution, then also the call to biblical justice in every corner of society must be sounded by those who claim a God of Justice as their Lord. (Let Justice Roll Down, Ch. 21, pg. 195, 1976 edition)

This is a great reminder that we need to see if justice goes beyond rhetoric and good ideas and is actually carried out.

When the church looks irrelevant

From John Perkins’ autobiography Let Justice Roll Down:

You see, in all my years growing up in Mississippi, I had never heard the simple truth of the gospel: the fact that Jesus Christ could set me free and love His life in me.  I grew up knowing nothing about Jesus Christ.

In fact, I had always looked at black Christians as sort of inferior people whose religion had made them gullible and submissive.  Religion had made so many of my people humble down to the white-dominated system with all its injustices.  Religion had made them cowards and Uncle Toms.

But I was a Perkins and I wasn’t like that at all.  No way was I like that.  So I did not see the black church as relevant to me and my needs.

And I did not see white Christianity as meaningful either.  To me it was part of that whole system that helped dehumanize and destroy black people; that system which identified me as a nigger.  So how could the white church really be concerned about me?

I had lived in the South.  I had drunk at separate drinking fountains.  I had ridden in the back of buses.  And never in the South had I heard one white Christian speak out against the way whites treated blacks as second-class citizens.

I had never accepted the falsehood that I was a second-class citizen.  Nor had I ever accepted the myth that I was a nigger.  So I did not see the white church as relevant to me and my needs. (Ch. 7, 57-58, 1976 edition)

Perkins eventually found forgiveness for his sin and meaning for his life in Christ, as well as a passion for justice that he found so lacking in his boyhood home.

Paul Tripp: the American dream compromises Christian community

I’m excited that the New Calvinists are challenging the American-evangelical synthesis that blesses the assumptions of American life with religious approval.  At the Desiring God blog, Paul Tripp states it about as strongly and as well as it can be said:

I read a book on stress a few years back, and the author made a side comment that I thought was so insightful. He said that the highest value of materialistic western culture is not possessing. It’s actually acquiring.

If you’re a go-getter you never stop. And so the guy who is lavishly successful doesn’t quit, because there are greater levels of success. “My house could be bigger, I could drive better cars, I could have more power, I could have more money.”…

You can’t fit God’s dream (if I can use that language) for his church inside of the American dream and have it work. It’s a radically different lifestyle. It just won’t squeeze into the available spaces of the time and energy that’s left over.

And I’m as much seduced by that as anybody. We have sold our four-bedroom house because our kids are gone, and we’ve bought a loft in Chinatown, Philadelphia. And we’re amazed at how simple our life has become. We’re grieving over how we let our life get so complicated.

Last year, for example, I put almost $2,500 worth of gas in my car. This year, I’ve put $159 in the first quarter. It’s because we’re walking places, and that slows our life down, and we’re near the people in our church because we’re within walking distance of the church. And we’ve had so many natural encounters with people because of that.

We’re living in a much smaller place. We got rid of most of our stuff. As we went through it, we laughed about how we just collected stuff. All that stuff has to be maintained. It grabs your heart, it grabs your schedule, it grabs your time. It becomes a source of worry and concern and need to pay.

So we’ve just been confronted with how all of those things that aren’t evil in themselves become the complications of life that keep us away from the kind of community that we need in order to hold on to our identity.

Let me be clear about a couple of things.  First, I’m a beneficiary of the American dream and of the incredible opportunity that America offers to so many of its citizens.  I’m not suggesting a political overhaul that would deny that to others, but rather that we as Christians may want to reevaluate how living a fully American life might compromise the higher priority of living a fully Christian life.  Second, as in so many things, I’m much more in the thinking and talking phase of this than in the acting phase, so I don’t want to pretend that I’ve got it figured out.  I did think that this was worth sharing, though.

I think that the New Calvinism seems to share some of the same concerns that the Emerging church movement does.   The best example of this that I know is Mark Driscoll’s ties to the Emerging leaders early in his career, before they parted ways.  Adherents of both seek a more authentic commitment to God and the Christian life than they find in the American evangelical mainstream.  What’s so exciting about the New Calvinism, in my opinion, is that it addresses the concerns of the Emerging movement in a biblically faithful and confident way, in contrast to some in the Emerging movement’s uncomfortableness with traditional doctrines.  As I’ve said before, I’m watching the New Calvinist movement with great excitement.

If you want to see what I’ve written on the New Calvinist movement, check here for of my posts with this tag.

If you want to see my analysis of the Emerging movement from the perspective of challenging the American-evangelical synthesis, you can see it here.

“Coram Deo” Sermon on Psalm 1

6.14.09 Liturgy:

-      Silent heart preparation

-      Opening prayer

-      Worship in song

-      Testimonials, words of exhortation from god’s people

-      Corporate Prayer

-      Teaching: Psalm 1

-      Closing Song

Psalm 1 – “Fruitful Trees vs. Useless Chaff”

Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
Psalm 1:2 but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night.
Psalm 1:3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.
Psalm 1:4 The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away.
Psalm 1:5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous;
Psalm 1:6 for the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

This first psalm is intersteingly a “beatitude”, a declaration of blessing. It also sets the framework for the rest of the Psalter. There are two ways to live, two types of people, two destinies. All of it is summed up briefly in this first psalm.

The Person God Blesses (1-3)

-          Separated from the World (1)

-          Saturated with the Word (2)

-          Situated by the Waters (3)

The Person God Judges (4-6)

-          Chaff (4)

-          Collapse (5)

-          Cursed (6)

The Person God Blesses (1-3)

Separated from the World (1)

• Christian life is compared to a walk (Eph 4.1). We are to walk after our Lord. Jesus recruited some of his disciples with the words, “Follow Me”. He also applies this idea of following to all of us:
  • Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
• We are told that there are two paths to follow:
  • Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

A Trip to the Donut Shop Inspires this Post

I just took my kids to the local donut shop. It was their first experience. Next two us was a pair of elderly men who were kind enough to wave at our children and come up to me and express some kind sentiments.

While we were eating our donuts (Apple Fritter, Raised Old Fashioned Chocolate, Chocolate Bar, Chocolate Cake w/ sprinkles, Chocolate Cake w/ Coconut, 3 chocolate milks and a large coffee for me). I couldn’t help but notice that the elders near us were WWII veterans who were expressing some concern for “our president”…not liking that he is schmoozing with foreign leaders and apologizing for America.

To paraphrase them, “We fought their wars, forgave their debt, fed them. Why are we apologizing?”

I realize that we have done much for other countries and am not suggesting that it is a blank check for us to now do whatever we would desire, but hearing such words from two WWII vets did sting a bit. My patriotic spirit rose and I wanted to shout an “amen”. My grandpa also fought in WWII, so you can say that I am bias to these kind men in the donut shop. That they were kind and playful with my kids also didn’t hurt. I wanted to join teh conversation, but I realize that I lacked the “ethos” to speak with authority. As they left I did thank them for their service and wished them well.

I sat there thinking about how Obama had treated England, our greatest ally in WWII and in the current war on terror (or whatever they are calling it now). He gave Gordon Brown a rather normal reception at the White House and bestowed him with the now infamous DVD pack featuring some American classic movies. Me thinks Obama was regifting it, but just a speculation.

Here is an article from the Daily News posted below noting the remarkable hospitality of our president:

London aghast at President Obama over gifts given to Prime Minister Brown

BY David Saltonstall
Daily News Senior Correspondent

Updated Saturday, March 7th 2009, 2:03 AM

Edmonds/APPresident Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown walk from the Oval Office of the White House.

You’d think President Obama had booted the Brits out of America — again!

London newspapers are howling over a string of alleged snubs by Obama to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown during his visit to Washington last week — including a squabble over presidential gift-giving.

“President Obama has been rudeness personified towards Britain,” sniffed The Daily Telegraph Friday. “His handling of the visit of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to Washington was appalling.”

The list of complaints is longer than the Magna Carta: Obama canceled a planned, podium-to-podium news conference with Brown (actually, none was ever scheduled); he recently removed a bust of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the Oval Office; and he gave gifts to the Brown family that were “about as exciting as a pair of socks,” one Fleet Street wag whined.

That last bit might be true. After Brown presented Obama with a pen holder crafted from the timbers of the 19th century British warship HMS President (whose sister ship, HMS Resolute, provided the wood for the Oval Office’s desk), Obama offered up … 25 DVDs of American movie classics.

“Oh, give me strength,” wrote one appalled Daily Telegraph staffer. “We do have television and DVD stores on this side of the Atlantic.”

Never mind that Brown is blind in one eye and may have a hard time seeing the stars in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” or that American DVDs are usually incompatible with British players.

Equally insulting, decided the Times of London, was Michelle Obama’s “solipsistic” and “inherently dismissive” gifts to the Browns’ two little boys, Fraser and John.

The offending souvenirs? Toy models of Marine One, the President’s helicopter — gifts no doubt plucked from the White House gift shop at the last minute, The Times decided.

Brown’s wife, Sarah, by contrast arrived with dresses for Sasha and Malia from the UK’s trendy Top Shop (with matching necklaces) and a selection of books by British authors.

“A bit of thought had clearly gone into choosing them,” crowed The Daily Mail. “Lovely.”

The Brits have blown up the alleged snubs into new evidence that the “special relationship” between the two nations is no longer quite so special.

The hand-wringing began last month when Obama removed a bust of Churchill from the Oval Office and replaced it with his hero, Abraham Lincoln.

The Times of London immediately traced Obama’s “disdain” for Churchill to Kenya, where Obama’s grandfather was caught up in the Churchill-led suppression of the 1950s Mau Mau Rebellion that left thousands of
Kenyans dead.

“It’s not surprising that Mr. Obama didn’t want Churchill looking over his shoulder,” explained one correspondent.

At this point, the two sides seem to be in full repair mode. The White House let it be known that Obama and Brown shared a chummy phone call as the prime minister was headed home.

And Friday, it was revealed that Obama would be granted a private audience with Queen Elizabeth when he is in London next month.

Quipped one reader of The Sun, “I hope Her Majesty likes DVDs.”

dsaltonstall@nydailynews.com

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/03/06/2009-03-06_london_aghast_at_president_obama_over_gi.html#ixzz0HfjW4nK8&C

I was absolutely embarrassed to be an American when this story broke. Perhaps I was the only one.  Also note that the posted article was before Oabama’s visit with the Queen. Tempers were already high in Britain and all eyes were on what Obama would bring. Well, he didn’t fail to disappoint, bestowing an Ipod. Yes, an Ipod. The Queen already owned an Ipod, perhaps she gave it back to our president, but one would never expect such rudeness from the superiorly cultured Brits. Oh, did I also mention that the DVD gift wasn’t even compatible with Brit DVD players. Perhaps it was intentional on Obama’s part to get him to purchase a DVD player in America that was imported from China.

One other thing, Obama also sent back a previous gift from Britain, a bust of Sir Winston Churchill that previous president Bush placed alongside other busts of great leaders.

Okay, just wanted to honor these two men in the donut shop by posting some similar thoughts I had. I hope for better from our president and wish that he cared as much about pleasing our long-time allies as he did the Arab world. I am not racist and realize why he is taking such great effort to schmooze the Arabs…just disappointed that he didn’t do the same to the Brits…and wonder why?

State vs. family

In a prescient statement, Frederick Engels wrote:

With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the anxiety about the “consequences” which today is the most essential social-moral as well as economic-factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves. Will not that suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maiden’s honor and a woman’s shame? And, finally, have we not seen that in the modern world monogamy and prostitution are indeed contradictions, but inseparable contradictions, poles of the same state of society? Can prostitution disappear without dragging monogamy with it into the abyss?

Rushdoony comments on this and says that “The Marxist wants to “emancipate” woman by making her an industrial worker…The family is to all practical intent abolished whenever the state determines the education, vocation, religion, and the discipline of the child…In all modern societies, the transfer of authority from the family to the state has been accomplished in varying degrees.