Blog on the Lillypad
Saturday, August 09, 2003
I got more sick last night than I've been in years. Everything hurt, and it hurt for a long time. I don't know if I had a flu bug or had eaten something I'm allergic to, or if it was one of those girls things, as I'm code red right now. After an hour of trying every chair in the house to find a comfortable way to rest (and the floor), I tried a hot bath in spite of the late hour. That did help. I dozed in the tub for about 20 minutes or so. All the pain suddenly congregated in that one critical spot, and I had just enough time to grab the trash can and lean over the edge of the tub. I threw up several times, and that eased all the symptoms, but then I was so weak I wasn't sure I could get back to bed. This scared me, to some degree, but I told myself that if I couldn't get back to bed I could just lie down on the floor until I could.
But once I got to my feet I knew that I could at least get as far as the bed. THe discomfort came back but then gradually faded, and I slept until almost nine o'clock this morning. And I seem to be fine. There's a certain way you wake up after being really sick---a kind of peacefulness and stillness all through you.
However, his defense of the Church as sacramental----an experience of the God-Man Jesus Christ as Christ interacts and continues to reveal Himself by visible union with us---is true only if we recognize that "sacrament" is not made up of what man decrees sacrament to be. Nor can man broker the sacrament of Jesus Christ.
Christ instituted the sacraments, not man. Christ is the basis of the sacraments, not man. And Christ creates the union with His people that we depend on, not man. The Orthodox churches have heaped up ritual upon ritual, pageantry, gold, processions, for the same reason that Fundamentalists heap up rules after rule after rule of strict behavior. The religious leaders are trying to provide a human framework and a human engine ti dispense that which remains the divine prerogative.
Christ meets His people in the real world and has union with them in real events. It is true that the revelation of Him is ongoing to each one of us (and that revelation occurs in accord with Scripture). But His revelation is that He is ours and we are His, and He has given us His Sonship with the Father. (And we do have to understand that intellectually, as well as experientally, so we must have Scripture as the text of our faith.) Sacraments, as observed in too many orthodox churches, are given as a means to "allow" this, yet it is quite ironic, for no priest or pope or elder can halt what Christ has decreed. Therefore, that sacramental union with Christ must occur at His administration of Himself.
I am not knocking people who find meaning and comfort in the sacraments that Christ has ordained, but it's important to define the difference between the form, which serves only as the reminder, and the essence, which is Christ Himself. Sacramentally, we come into line with the reality of Who He is by taking up a cross and following Him in our everyday lives; thus we show we are ready to have fellowship with Him and enjoy union with Him.
So there are two ways to define "sacrament": the first is that in real situations, Christ is present with us, acting to unite to us through events and by use of this material world. The second definition is the ritualized event that takes place repetitively in Orthodox churches. When the second definition becomes the sole definition or takes precedence over the first, then that church too has missed Christ and is simply engaging in a pageant, where our Savior is not a participant.
It looks to me lke the writer of the article is behaving as a marriage counselor who tries to draw a line of difference between conversation and sex in a marriage. "Ah!" he says, a marriage based on informational conversation (Fundamentalism) leads only to rational understanding! Marriage is so much more than that! Cut the conversation and start having lots of sex! (Orthodoxy)" Well, eventually, a marriage based on sex without a genuine understanding of who the other person is, what that person values, and where he's been becomes just as empty and meaningless as the marriage based on rational conversation. No matter how elaborate the sexual encounters become, there is still no real union, and the encounters might just get so elaborate that the bride wakes up and realizes she's been alone in that bed for years, having sex with no one but her own reflection. (Just as the Fundamentalist bride may realize she's been talking to herself for the last several years.)
If we Christians as the bride of Christ wake up and realize we're alone, let's remember that our husband would only leave us in order to give Himself to us and take us based on what our union really is, so that we stop enjoying our image of the union and instead enjoy the real thing. Our union is founded in Him. We must know Him and also experience Him, but He is the broker of who He is and what He gives us. Christ labored for us. Christ won us. He is all we can ever truly possess.
But once I got to my feet I knew that I could at least get as far as the bed. THe discomfort came back but then gradually faded, and I slept until almost nine o'clock this morning. And I seem to be fine. There's a certain way you wake up after being really sick---a kind of peacefulness and stillness all through you.
Sacramentalism
But back to the theology. I like the idea (and commend the insight) of the man who said that one lack in Fundamentalism (even the scholarly branches) is the hyper rationalism of it. If that rationalism goes nuts or becomes banal, the faith itself turns into the sideshow that so much of it has become.However, his defense of the Church as sacramental----an experience of the God-Man Jesus Christ as Christ interacts and continues to reveal Himself by visible union with us---is true only if we recognize that "sacrament" is not made up of what man decrees sacrament to be. Nor can man broker the sacrament of Jesus Christ.
Christ instituted the sacraments, not man. Christ is the basis of the sacraments, not man. And Christ creates the union with His people that we depend on, not man. The Orthodox churches have heaped up ritual upon ritual, pageantry, gold, processions, for the same reason that Fundamentalists heap up rules after rule after rule of strict behavior. The religious leaders are trying to provide a human framework and a human engine ti dispense that which remains the divine prerogative.
Christ meets His people in the real world and has union with them in real events. It is true that the revelation of Him is ongoing to each one of us (and that revelation occurs in accord with Scripture). But His revelation is that He is ours and we are His, and He has given us His Sonship with the Father. (And we do have to understand that intellectually, as well as experientally, so we must have Scripture as the text of our faith.) Sacraments, as observed in too many orthodox churches, are given as a means to "allow" this, yet it is quite ironic, for no priest or pope or elder can halt what Christ has decreed. Therefore, that sacramental union with Christ must occur at His administration of Himself.
I am not knocking people who find meaning and comfort in the sacraments that Christ has ordained, but it's important to define the difference between the form, which serves only as the reminder, and the essence, which is Christ Himself. Sacramentally, we come into line with the reality of Who He is by taking up a cross and following Him in our everyday lives; thus we show we are ready to have fellowship with Him and enjoy union with Him.
So there are two ways to define "sacrament": the first is that in real situations, Christ is present with us, acting to unite to us through events and by use of this material world. The second definition is the ritualized event that takes place repetitively in Orthodox churches. When the second definition becomes the sole definition or takes precedence over the first, then that church too has missed Christ and is simply engaging in a pageant, where our Savior is not a participant.
It looks to me lke the writer of the article is behaving as a marriage counselor who tries to draw a line of difference between conversation and sex in a marriage. "Ah!" he says, a marriage based on informational conversation (Fundamentalism) leads only to rational understanding! Marriage is so much more than that! Cut the conversation and start having lots of sex! (Orthodoxy)" Well, eventually, a marriage based on sex without a genuine understanding of who the other person is, what that person values, and where he's been becomes just as empty and meaningless as the marriage based on rational conversation. No matter how elaborate the sexual encounters become, there is still no real union, and the encounters might just get so elaborate that the bride wakes up and realizes she's been alone in that bed for years, having sex with no one but her own reflection. (Just as the Fundamentalist bride may realize she's been talking to herself for the last several years.)
If we Christians as the bride of Christ wake up and realize we're alone, let's remember that our husband would only leave us in order to give Himself to us and take us based on what our union really is, so that we stop enjoying our image of the union and instead enjoy the real thing. Our union is founded in Him. We must know Him and also experience Him, but He is the broker of who He is and what He gives us. Christ labored for us. Christ won us. He is all we can ever truly possess.
Friday, August 08, 2003
Interesting article titled "Failure of Fundamentalism" I disagree with the man's premise and conclusions, but the article is enlightening and does show how some of the thinking in Fundamentalism has gone astray. If you read his article, come back tomorrow and see some notes on what "sacramentalism" really is. I think the Orthodox church has made the same mistake with sacraments that they point out regarding Fundamentalists and Scripture.
"Failure of Fundamentalism"
"Failure of Fundamentalism"
On a Meaningful Cosmos
We live in a meaningful world that runs according to a pattern set down by an omnipotent God, and it's like living in the house of a great man. By being born into this great and majestic mansion, we may never learn how to build such a mansion, but as we grow older, we see that surely a powerful, wise, and kindly Hand built this place. Some of us may never even figure out what's in the attic or what's in the basement or how the pipes work. But we could, if we set out to study it. We could at least get some good ideas about the layout and design of this place, and perhaps recognize by structural emphasis what this great house is for, and how we are intended to occupy it and beautify it.
Otherwise, we live in a meaningless universe in which events simply happen. Most Evangelicals are trying to support Creation by bolstering arguments and a method of inquiry used by evolutionists. They look at fossils. They theorize about things they can never examine in full. Their arguments to support Creation are just as flawed as the arguments of evolutionists to support evolution.
Understand that most people through the entire history of Christianity recognized that the heavens are meaningful, and they lived according to some recognition of astrology. Maybe they didn't read charts, but they planted by the signs, carried out commerce by the signs, married by the signs, and journeyed by the signs. Astrological forecasting of weather, planting, and great national events were commonly accepted and people did not draw lines seprating one from the other. All were considered a normal part of living in a meaningful, coherent universe. Queen Elizabeth wrote letters to John Fox (FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS) asking for his prayers and calling him her spiritual father, and she also consulted John Dee, the court astrologer. Dee, in fact, picked the day and time of her coronation as the best time for such an event, to help secure a peaceful reign. Fox did not object to the presence of a court astrologer. It was not perceived as idolatry or witchcraft (in a day when people were tried for witchcraft.)
There are two views of astrology, equally incorrect----according to the common Evangelical view, the court astrologer of Olde squinted into crystal balls, poured blood over parchment, threw down some flash paper, and came up with a decree that would work perfectly yet create misery for everybody involved. This never happened. Astrology has been dragged into a lot of religions, but it only "works" in terms of pointing back to a good and wise creator.
In the view of many traditional astrologers, the court astrologer lived at the top of a high tower. He squinted out the window at the night sky; then adjusted his astrolabe, wrote down several figures onto a piece of paper and did some calculations, and correctly predicted that the firstborn of the king would be a son, the wheat crop would fail two years hence, the enemies to the south would have a good dose of plague to keep them busy and out of our hair, and Princess Rhondelay would sprain her ankle on her next birthday.
Well, that never happened either. For one thing, the astrologer was normally asked questions by the king. He tracked a few charts very intensely all his life and would warn of anything he thought a danger. But for the most part, he was asked to fix times for events such as weddings, and he was consulted with questions about births, wars, crops, etc. When the massive Spanish Armada was on its way to conquer England, John Dee correctly predicted that events themselves would hamper the Spanish Armada, and they would not set foot on English soil. Elizabeth still called for a day of prayer. There was no perceived contradiction between prayer and the consultation of the pattern of the heavens. Elizabethan England, in fact, was extremely conscious as a society that "as above, so below." They recognized that the heavens rule the earth because God rules all.
And no astrologer has ever always been correct. Complex answers usually had some errors, though from good astrologers their overall emphasis would be correct. (One man on the Mountain Astrologer web board predicted a stock market crash for 9/11/01. OK, he was wrong, but that's a remarkable prediction. He was sure close.) As John Frawley has noted, we see traditionalists today yearning for the Golden Age of astrology, long gone, when predictions were always correct. In the Renaissance, Bonatus longed for the exact same thing, looking back to Ptolemy. And I'm sure that in Ptolemy's day, some astrologer was looking back and wishing the good old days would return.
On the one hand, astrological prediction is fallible, as it is based on man's reading of a complex mathematical language. On the other, there's always some correct prediction floating around as evidence that God has created a meaningful universe and He is in charge of it. And finally, astrology relies on a grasp of the real world, which is not the same thing as the material world. The traditional astrologer is looking at the meaning of the created order and trying to bring it into the context of reference points. Skill in astrology *is* tested by prediction, but the point of astrology is not prediction. Just like skill in math is tested by a test on paper, but the point of studying math is not to take the test.
The point if studying the stars is to see this pattern that God has created and recognize that it is a full declaration of His sovereignty, majesty, and righteousness.
We live in a meaningful world that runs according to a pattern set down by an omnipotent God, and it's like living in the house of a great man. By being born into this great and majestic mansion, we may never learn how to build such a mansion, but as we grow older, we see that surely a powerful, wise, and kindly Hand built this place. Some of us may never even figure out what's in the attic or what's in the basement or how the pipes work. But we could, if we set out to study it. We could at least get some good ideas about the layout and design of this place, and perhaps recognize by structural emphasis what this great house is for, and how we are intended to occupy it and beautify it.
Otherwise, we live in a meaningless universe in which events simply happen. Most Evangelicals are trying to support Creation by bolstering arguments and a method of inquiry used by evolutionists. They look at fossils. They theorize about things they can never examine in full. Their arguments to support Creation are just as flawed as the arguments of evolutionists to support evolution.
Understand that most people through the entire history of Christianity recognized that the heavens are meaningful, and they lived according to some recognition of astrology. Maybe they didn't read charts, but they planted by the signs, carried out commerce by the signs, married by the signs, and journeyed by the signs. Astrological forecasting of weather, planting, and great national events were commonly accepted and people did not draw lines seprating one from the other. All were considered a normal part of living in a meaningful, coherent universe. Queen Elizabeth wrote letters to John Fox (FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS) asking for his prayers and calling him her spiritual father, and she also consulted John Dee, the court astrologer. Dee, in fact, picked the day and time of her coronation as the best time for such an event, to help secure a peaceful reign. Fox did not object to the presence of a court astrologer. It was not perceived as idolatry or witchcraft (in a day when people were tried for witchcraft.)
There are two views of astrology, equally incorrect----according to the common Evangelical view, the court astrologer of Olde squinted into crystal balls, poured blood over parchment, threw down some flash paper, and came up with a decree that would work perfectly yet create misery for everybody involved. This never happened. Astrology has been dragged into a lot of religions, but it only "works" in terms of pointing back to a good and wise creator.
In the view of many traditional astrologers, the court astrologer lived at the top of a high tower. He squinted out the window at the night sky; then adjusted his astrolabe, wrote down several figures onto a piece of paper and did some calculations, and correctly predicted that the firstborn of the king would be a son, the wheat crop would fail two years hence, the enemies to the south would have a good dose of plague to keep them busy and out of our hair, and Princess Rhondelay would sprain her ankle on her next birthday.
Well, that never happened either. For one thing, the astrologer was normally asked questions by the king. He tracked a few charts very intensely all his life and would warn of anything he thought a danger. But for the most part, he was asked to fix times for events such as weddings, and he was consulted with questions about births, wars, crops, etc. When the massive Spanish Armada was on its way to conquer England, John Dee correctly predicted that events themselves would hamper the Spanish Armada, and they would not set foot on English soil. Elizabeth still called for a day of prayer. There was no perceived contradiction between prayer and the consultation of the pattern of the heavens. Elizabethan England, in fact, was extremely conscious as a society that "as above, so below." They recognized that the heavens rule the earth because God rules all.
And no astrologer has ever always been correct. Complex answers usually had some errors, though from good astrologers their overall emphasis would be correct. (One man on the Mountain Astrologer web board predicted a stock market crash for 9/11/01. OK, he was wrong, but that's a remarkable prediction. He was sure close.) As John Frawley has noted, we see traditionalists today yearning for the Golden Age of astrology, long gone, when predictions were always correct. In the Renaissance, Bonatus longed for the exact same thing, looking back to Ptolemy. And I'm sure that in Ptolemy's day, some astrologer was looking back and wishing the good old days would return.
On the one hand, astrological prediction is fallible, as it is based on man's reading of a complex mathematical language. On the other, there's always some correct prediction floating around as evidence that God has created a meaningful universe and He is in charge of it. And finally, astrology relies on a grasp of the real world, which is not the same thing as the material world. The traditional astrologer is looking at the meaning of the created order and trying to bring it into the context of reference points. Skill in astrology *is* tested by prediction, but the point of astrology is not prediction. Just like skill in math is tested by a test on paper, but the point of studying math is not to take the test.
The point if studying the stars is to see this pattern that God has created and recognize that it is a full declaration of His sovereignty, majesty, and righteousness.
Thursday, August 07, 2003
Apparently the widow of everybody's favorite Independent Baptist preacher, Jack Hyles, is getting put out to pastor at Pedophilia Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana. After years of putting up with Jack's alleged affair with Ginny Nischik, turning her back on her first daughter-in-law Paula and the two children fathered by son Dave Hyles, closing her eyes to allegations that Dave Hyles killed Brent Stevens and pleaded the fifth at the inquest of the dead child, and not saying a word when her husband Jack welcomed a convicted child molester back to the church, Bev "What-Me-Worry" Hyles is being cut out of the pie at PBC, Hammond (actually FBC). That's the legend and rumor. Anonymous letters are flying fast, accusing son-in-law Jack Schaap (who got the whole pie when Pa passed away a couple years ago) of treating his mother-in-law badly.
I have no idea of what the whole story is. No doubt whoever is behind the letters will stir up some support, but times have changed, and the backlash is mounting. Bev Hyles sold her own self respect and integrity down the river years ago in my opinion, supporting a man who turned mysogyny into a foundational doctrine. (No wonder a slew of graduates from FBC's school, Hyles Anderson College have been imprisoned for child molestation and sodomizing young boys.) Several people on the FFF have greeted the new round of anonymous letters with a "So What?" attitude.
I have no idea of what the whole story is. No doubt whoever is behind the letters will stir up some support, but times have changed, and the backlash is mounting. Bev Hyles sold her own self respect and integrity down the river years ago in my opinion, supporting a man who turned mysogyny into a foundational doctrine. (No wonder a slew of graduates from FBC's school, Hyles Anderson College have been imprisoned for child molestation and sodomizing young boys.) Several people on the FFF have greeted the new round of anonymous letters with a "So What?" attitude.
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
Just got the fundies going again with a defense of astrology (though a brief one). As Mars approaches this amazing perihelion I am filled with a sense of doom. Don't let that frighten you. I always see calamity in the stars. I'm usually wrong. But I must admit, Mars has never been this close to the earth in the history of man. Astrologically speaking, it is a sign in the heavens, though I don't know what it means. I don't know whether to check a chart for the moment of closest proximity or to look at the full moon that forms right before Mars is at its closest. Mars, in case you didn't know it, is known in traditional astrology as "the lesser malefic." It never brings good news in the astrology of nations and worldwide events. (Saturn is the "greater malefic". Jupiter is the "greater benefic" and Venus is the "lesser benefic.")
If the idea of a Christian studying the stars as meaningful beacons in the heavens amazes you, check John Frawley's THE REAL ASTROLOGY. His main thesis is that astrology apart from revealed truth of scripture will fall apart and become trivial. So he rakes modern astrologers over the coals while also giving an excellent basic explanation of the scope and method of traditional (Renaissance) astrology.
If the idea of a Christian studying the stars as meaningful beacons in the heavens amazes you, check John Frawley's THE REAL ASTROLOGY. His main thesis is that astrology apart from revealed truth of scripture will fall apart and become trivial. So he rakes modern astrologers over the coals while also giving an excellent basic explanation of the scope and method of traditional (Renaissance) astrology.
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Over on the Fighting Fundamentalist forum (and yes, here is such a place), a troll the following:
If you think this is scary, bear in mind that some of these guys really believe this. Jim Berg once said that the weakest form of authority is the authority that we claim and try to enforce. This is why Fundy men shout so much. It's all they can do. Anyway, while Christ the Saviour is meek and kind, ready to bind up and mend the broken, you'll find that Fundy men are pretty quck to tear down, as rule. Of ocurse, there are some sterling exceptions who try to pull the entire movement back to some semblence of civility.
Anyway, here's the first rule of Fundy conduct: men are right and women are wrong. And if women aren't wrong, it's okay to tell them that they are, because by God's will, they should be wrong.
Rule number two is that if anybody disagrees with you, he or she is gay. Hence, after I once again showed how unbiblical this guy's statement is, he called me a lesbian, but one of the other guys shamed him out of it, so he deleted the post.
Then the other guy told me that as my father is dead and I have no husband, I should be under my pastor's authority. After trying to explain in vain that my poor pastor does not especially need every unmarried woman in the chuch without a father to come under his authority (and one of the men told me I would be amazed at how readily he and his wife would accept such an arrangement), I waded through some further name calling from a few of the men and said it was not Scriptural and would only embarrass my pastor to have me asking his permission and advice on what to write, when to pick up a new contract for employment, etc. So the guy who pulled the pastoral authority line said he'd never told me to do those things. So I posted the following:
To this, he made no reply.
The Bible is explicitly clear that a woman is not to usurp authority over a man. Does this not include bashing him and trying to make him to seem less intelligent and appear to be the weaker vessel mentally and spiritually. Some of you women would never wear pants... but you need to. Furthermore, you should just go ahead and put on your husbands weapon of war or his utensils and be honest about your violation of Deutoronomy 22:5.
My KJV says that a woman is to have a meek and quiet spirit.
If you think this is scary, bear in mind that some of these guys really believe this. Jim Berg once said that the weakest form of authority is the authority that we claim and try to enforce. This is why Fundy men shout so much. It's all they can do. Anyway, while Christ the Saviour is meek and kind, ready to bind up and mend the broken, you'll find that Fundy men are pretty quck to tear down, as rule. Of ocurse, there are some sterling exceptions who try to pull the entire movement back to some semblence of civility.
Anyway, here's the first rule of Fundy conduct: men are right and women are wrong. And if women aren't wrong, it's okay to tell them that they are, because by God's will, they should be wrong.
Rule number two is that if anybody disagrees with you, he or she is gay. Hence, after I once again showed how unbiblical this guy's statement is, he called me a lesbian, but one of the other guys shamed him out of it, so he deleted the post.
Then the other guy told me that as my father is dead and I have no husband, I should be under my pastor's authority. After trying to explain in vain that my poor pastor does not especially need every unmarried woman in the chuch without a father to come under his authority (and one of the men told me I would be amazed at how readily he and his wife would accept such an arrangement), I waded through some further name calling from a few of the men and said it was not Scriptural and would only embarrass my pastor to have me asking his permission and advice on what to write, when to pick up a new contract for employment, etc. So the guy who pulled the pastoral authority line said he'd never told me to do those things. So I posted the following:
On the one hand you say that a single woman with no husband should be under her pastor's authority. Yet when I tell you that I do as I think best in regard to my business, ministry, service, and career, without consulting my pastor, you seem to think that's fine and you insist that you never suggested I should do otherwise. So what then, do you mean by being under my pastor's authority?
Certainly I accord him respect and deference. Yet if he should preach opposite to what is doctrinally correct about Christ, I would leave in a heartbeat and find another church. And if he were to fall into adultery (as a previous pastor did), I would vote him out (as I did with the previous pastor). So even in that sense my respect and deference for him stem from my decision to be respectful and deferential to him according to the Scripture and would change in accord with Scripture, not with his authority.
Once again, T-----, an honest appraisal of your words leads me to think you are saying two opposite things at once.
To this, he made no reply.
