The Christian View of History

A gem from Herbert Schlossberg’s Idols for Destruction.  Italics mine.

Modern people seriously considering the meaning of history generally conclude either that it has no meaning — “just one damn thing after another” or a more sophisticated equivalent — or that it contains within itself its own principle of teleology, what we have referred to as the historicist fallacy.  The Christian faith that once informed Western society had an answer that was different from either, but people who rejected that faith naturally rejected the interpretation of history that was an integral part of it.  The biblical view is that history had a beginning and will have an end, and that both the beginning and the end are in God’s hands.  Therefore, what comes between them is invested with meaning and purpose; the creator is not the prime mover of ancient philosophy, and the terminator is not the bleak exhaustion of resources or the running down of the sun.  Will and personality dominate everything and make of history a moral arena.

This conception takes lordship out of history, recognizes God as creator, sustainer, and lord of the universe, and acknowledges history as an artifact of the creation.  The dual effect of this revolutionary idea is to dedivinize history, removing it as an idol, and, paradoxically, to acknowledge its vital importance.  It is no longer to be idolized but also is not to be regarded as trivial meaningless, or absurd.  It is important but not all-important.  It has much to teach but is not the source of knowledge and wisdom.  It imposes limitations on the actions of men, but it does not control them.  It commands respect but not worship.  Taking history down from above the altar, Christian faith also lifts it up out of the pit.

Missing the Forest for the Trees

Up to this point, I was on the sidelines. But now, looking on from my oh-so-objective hilltop, I will toss in my $.02, which, when you think about it, probably isn’t even worth that anymore.

There have been some interesting discussions going on over at Pastor Wilson’s blog regarding the issue of paedo-communion.  This all apparently started in response to a relatively innocent CanonWired video about a child’s first communion.  Pastor Wilson gave the kind of response I would expect (and am overjoyed to see): he did not state that there’s a black and white answer that must be hammered to the forehead of every Bible-thumping Calvinist; rather he explained how they administer the Lord’s Supper at Christ Church in Moscow.  There is no law decreeing how this process should take place.  It is not Wilson’s way or the highway, nor does he suggest that.  In fact, his answer suggests the opposite, as well as his desire to prevent a controversy, which of course meant that one would surface.  This really should not be a difficult issue, and is not one worth splitting hairs over.  There’s just no need.

Let me speak plainly: the Gospel is good news, but we seem to be fond of missing the forest for the trees.

Let me speak more plainly: much of the elbow-throwing, theological bullying and bickering that happens so often in Reformed circles is unfruitful and unfortunately harmful to the body of Christ.

The Lord’s Supper is a joyous occasion, where after we as Christians have sat at the feet of the Word and received Godly instruction, we dine with the Word on the Word.  We are all Christians, we are all at the table and we have all been welcomed to participate.  The bread is broken and the wine flows freely… and we are filled.  All of us.

The discussion at Blog and Mablog has appeared to revolve around whether or not it is appropriate to give your baptized infant a morsel of bread or a drop of wine before they can understand what is happening.  Red herrings have been spotted recently, and as an observer you might get the feel that this debate is crucial to your 8-month old being able to survive in your Church.

But let’s think of it this way: when you sit down at the table as a family every night to eat dinner, and your 8-month old Johnny is awake and sitting happily in his baby seat, is he any less a participating member of your family because he isn’t partaking of the steak and potatoes?  He will get there eventually, through a process that is called maturing.  Every parent knows this, and knows that there’s no need for Johnny to taste the potatoes prematurely.  The point is for Johnny to taste the potatoes at a point when he understands that there’s more to eating than just Mommy’s milk.  Other people are eating other stuff, and Johnny will catch on.  Whether he reaches for the potatoes or you give him a crumb really isn’t the point.  The point is that when that moment happens, he begins that important transitional process, and you teach him along the way.

The same applies to the Lord’s Supper.  Johnny has been washed by the water, he has been given the sign of the covenant, and he is a member of the Church just as much as you are.  Just he’s as much a Smith as you are.  The debate should not be whether you should start shoving the bread down little Johnny’s throat prematurely or wait until Johnny starts reaching for the plate every Sunday as it’s passed along. Johnny is a member of the body and the rewards that come with being a covenant member apply to him, too.  The debate is not over that.

Partaking of the Lord’s Supper as an infant/child is not an issue of when, but how.  How you begin that transition is key, and this is what Pastor Wilson has been deliberately pointing out – he’s concerned with the attitude of the parent, not the child.  Just because Johnny has 2nd amendment rights doesn’t mean you give him a .22 for his first birthday.  Pay attention to the attentiveness of your child and when he is ready, joyfully show him and give him the rewards of the covenant.  It is all good.  It is all Gospel.

The Decline of Morality Leads to Destruction

History will always repeat itself.  Who else could make this obvious to us than Livy?  Here is a fantastic quote from the Introduction to Livy’s Early History of Rome, by R. M. Ogilvie:

“Livy made history comprehensible by reducing it to familiar and recognizable characters, but the process was one which could not be divorced from his attitude to his own times and his vision of the future.  In the Preface he asserts that the present state of Rome was the direct consequence of the failure in moral character of the Roman.  ‘I would have [the reader] trace the process of our moral decline, to watch, first, the sinking of the foundations of morality as the old teaching was allowed to lapse, then the rapidly increasing disintegration, then the final collapse of the whole edifice, and the dark dawning of our modern day when we can neither endure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them.’”

Should I suggest that maybe we’ve seen this movie before?

The Question of Unalienable Rights

Much thanks to Credenda/Agenda for their print issue this summer.  It does my heart good to see it in the flesh.  Much thanks also to Pastor Wilson for his article entitled, “Life, Liberty, Property.”  Within its thought-provoking content was this gem:

As it was said, “And are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Governments are instituted among men in order to secure and defend such rights, not to create them. God bestowed them, and God commands governments to defend them…not threaten them.

Now some will no doubt reply that it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote those words, and that Jefferson was a deist. And I would reply that it is a pity, and not only so, but a screaming pity, to think that Jefferson the deist was more of a robust Trinitarian political thinker than many of our Reformed leading lights and seminary profs. Don’t tell us that Jefferson was a deist. Tell whether or not these sentiments are correct. Tell us whether or not it is true that the Creator of men has endowed men with unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Did the Creator of all mankind do that?

The phrase life liberty, and property comes from John Locke, and was modified for our Declaration. And don’t tell us that John Locke was an Enlightenment thinker–tell us rather if the Creator God has bestowed life, liberty, and property upon men. Is it true? Not a popular question these days, I’ll grant you.

Inspiring Tidbits

• Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all.  Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach.  Check your road and the nature of your battle.  The world you desire can be won.  It exists.  It is real.  It is possible.  It is yours.   – Ayn Rand

• If you’re going through hell, keep going.   – Winston Churchill

• There are times to stay put, and what you want will come to you, and there are times to go out into the world and find such a thing for yourself.   – Lemony Snicket

• Never grow a wishbone where your backbone ought to be.   – Dorothy Parker

• A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that others throw at her.   – David Brinkley

• Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.   – Will Rogers

• Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box.  - Unknown

Repost: A Table for the Riff-Raff

I couldn’t pass up re-posting this communion exhortation from Pastor Wilson:

This is a Table set for sinners. But because sinners is a Bible word, many of us slip into our church-going trance, and we don’t rightly consider the ramifications of such a statement. This is a Table for riff-raff. This is a Table for losers. This is a Table for self-righteous fussers. Are you all screwed up? That is good news indeed—you qualify!

“Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him” (Matt 21:31b-32).

If you are here, if you have come, this means that you are presenting yourself here as someone who doesnot deserve to be here. The world has its tables for the deserving, but you cannot find that here.

Grace is not a theology-word only, grace is a reality that invites you to drop everything and come. You must drop your sins, which is what repentance is, but having sins to drop is not a disqualification in the slightest. Are you an adulterer? Then come. Are you a thief? Then come. Have you had an abortion? Then come.

“Wait, wait,” someone will say. “Don’t you need to say ‘drop your sin’ with every invitation?” Don’t you need to mention true repentance every other sentence? Not really. Grace is not something you can turn to without simultaneously turning away from that which is not grace. And all sin is not grace. You cannot turn toward the north wall without turning away from the south wall. You cannot turn toward the Mt. Gerizim without turning away from Mt. Ebal. You cannot turn toward this Table without turning away from the table of demons. So come, and welcome, to Jesus Christ.

The superiority of the Italian meal

Pointed out in Angels in the Architecture is this fantastic quote on feasting and dining from Maresca and Darrow’s La Tavola Italiana:

An Italian meal is not just for allaying hunger.  Dining in Italy is an affirmation of the preciousness of simple things — of the worth of bread, of oil, of wine, and of ourselves.  It’s a rite of renewal, a celebration of human triumph over the daily abrasions that wear us down — the heat of summer, the demands of the job, the indignities of the flu, the indifference of bureaucracy, the perfidy of inanimate objects.  For animals, eating is survival.  For humans, eating is a rite of civilization.  For Italians, eating is the single great art accessible to us all.