Who Said That?

A denial of our creatureliness leads to a denial of the various ways we are indebted and gives rise to the autonomous individual. Autonomous individuals are marked by ingratitude, for their faces are turned unstintingly toward the blinding light of progress, and they cannot recognize either limits or debts. Such people live on borrowed capital just as a nation, blinded by consumption, lives on money borrowed from future generations. The ungrateful person (and the ungrateful society) is characterized by hubris, which seeks to dominate reality by a sheer act of will. But such a will to power necessarily entails expansion as the uncertainties of reality press in from every side. The ungrateful person or society cannot get the question of scale right because the human question is so badly answered.

In contrast, the grateful person (and society) recognizes dependencies on every level. Such a person is characterized by humility, which gives birth not to the urge to dominate but to the desire to preserve that which has been passed down, that which has been tended and cultivated, that which has and will produce fruit. In short, grateful people are stewards. They understand that they are part of a chain, a succession of responsibility. They grasp that their stewardship is not solitary but bound to a long line of stewards, stretching back in time. Indeed, grateful people understand themselves as members of a community of stewards, and among this membership are the living, the dead, and the yet to be born. Such people can rest in the mystery of existence, the goodness of community, and propriety of a scale suited to human beings.

Answer:

This is from Mark T. Mitchell’s “Politics of Gratitude.” I find Mitchell’s writing intriguing, both in this book and over at The Front Porch republic. He writes in a simple and modest manner, a form to match the content of much of his writing. As I said, the only quibble I have is his consistent suggestion that the modern ills of individualism and personal autonomy owe to the Protestant Reformation, suggesting further that something like the Roman Catholic Church is an institution good for cultivating the virtues of community, authority, place, modesty, and restraint.

But how anybody can read the confessional statements of Reformed Protestantism and conclude that the Reformation helped give modern society individualism and the atomization of society?

Belgic 31: We believe that ministers of the Word of God, elders, and deacons ought to be chosen to their offices by a legitimate election of the church, with prayer in the name of the Lord, and in good order, as the Word of God teaches.

So everyone must be careful not to push himself forward improperly, but he must wait for God’s call, so that he may be assured of his calling and be certain that he is chosen by the Lord.

As for the ministers of the Word, they all have the same power and authority, no matter where they may be, since they are all servants of Jesus Christ, the only universal bishop, and the only head of the church.

Moreover, to keep God’s holy order from being violated or despised, we say that everyone ought, as much as possible, to hold the ministers of the Word and elders of the church in special esteem, because of the work they do, and be at peace with them, without grumbling, quarreling, or fighting.

Belgic 36: We believe that because of the depravity of the human race our good God has ordained kings, princes, and civil officers. He wants the world to be governed by laws and policies so that human lawlessness may be restrained and that everything may be conducted in good order among human beings.

For that purpose he has placed the sword in the hands of the government, to punish evil people and protect the good.

And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, subject to God’s law, of removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship.

They should do this while completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them, with the means belonging to them.

And the government’s task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word.

Moreover everyone, regardless of status, condition, or rank, must be subject to the government, and pay taxes, and hold its representatives in honor and respect, and obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God’s Word, praying for them that the Lord may be willing to lead them in all their ways and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life in all piety and decency.

And on this matter we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings.

WCF 20.4: And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate.

WCF 23.4 It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less has the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.

I’m not sure of Mitchell’s own religious affiliation, but the impulse to ascribe what is bad in modern society to the Reformation just seems like the mirror error of the neo-Calvinists ascribing whatever is good in modern society to the same (perhaps even all the way back to the advent of Christ). Conservative Calvinism seems to take a very different view and interpretation of history that isn’t quite as religiously loaded as either a pro-Catholic or neo-Calvinist take.

On a lighter note, a hopeless GenXer, every time I pick up this book to read or pass it by as it lays on the bed stand or coffee table or wherever I last set it, I can’t help but have this song play in my head for at least the next fifteen or so minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eabefjsJsAQ

 

ESV Online Study Bible on sale

Just wanted to highlight a great deal: for the next week, the online version of the ESV Study Bible can be purchased for just $5.99.

Normally the price is $19.99 for eternal access (well, for the duration of this present evil age…), and I think even that is a good deal. Or, online access code is included with purchase of a hardcopy ESV Study Bible. Obviously the ESV is the translation of choice of the Reformed, and the ESV Study Bible is the official study bible of the Reformed, in particular of WSCAL-o-philes.

I requested my hardcover ESV Study Bible as a Christmas present when they were new (I guess that would be 2008), and ever since I’ve been a frequent user of the online version. But if I had it to do over again, instead of dropping a dollar-per-pound on the hardcover I would have bought the supermini pocket ESV (my current bible, which I got after the wheelbarrow that I used to carry around the study bible broke), and paid $20 for the online study bible. In addition to the expected benefits of faster computerized searching, and clicking around to chase down cross-references, I also found that it was distracting to have the whole study bible there in church — I would be distracted from worship by all the notes and articles and pictures and maps and such.

So if you have somehow not yet jumped on the bandwagon of the ESV Study Bible, now’s the time to do it!

NCC in 2013?

So, obviously, the Outhouse has been especially lonely lately. A new year is coming up, and since my family’s catechesis has also fallen on hard times over the past few months, I am considering taking the family through NCC in 2013, and blogging a review of each week’s question.

On the plus side, such a plan will provide a steady (though not voluminous) stream of new content here at the ‘house, while simultaneously adding some public accountability from you kind folks. On the minus side, I think the jury’s still out on NCC, whether it is a Good Thing, or whether I should just buckle down and get back into SC and Training Hearts, Teaching Minds where we trailed off somewhere around the 2nd commandment.

What do you all think? Is anybody else out there willing to jump in with both feet and expose (indoctrinate?) their family to NCC?

Thoughts on the New City Catechism

Last time, we noticed that The Gospel Coalition (Tim Keller and Sam Shammas) had released a new catechism, named the New City Catechism (direct PDF download). Heidelblog has already provided a good deal of helpful commentary, which I don’t want to overlap too much, but I thought it would be good to discuss here, since this outhouse is of the Confessional variety.

Treatment of Baptism — Don’t Love It, Don’t Want to Dwell On It

The elephant in the room is that New City Catechism is paedo/credo-agnostic (see Q43-45). This is the first place critics of TGC will look to criticize (show of hands, how many of you looked at only a few questions before fast-forwarding to questions on Baptism? I know I did.) But I’d like to assume for the sake of argument that this is not a trump card, and set it aside — for now at least — to look at other matters. If you are stuck on the baptism thing, and don’t want to give the New City Catechism any further consideration because of it, well, there’s no lock on the Outhouse, don’t let the door hit yer butt on the way out!

Name — Don’t Love It

I mean c’mon, “New City”? I can only suppose they’re aiming at Heb 11:10 here (“looking forward to the city…whose designer and builder is God”), but coming from the citiest of all possible churches in the citiest of all possible cities, it strikes me more as a shameless plug for everything Redeemer NYC stands for; kind of like the sneaky practice of calling a law something like “The Freedom and Puppies Act” (what kind of cad could possibly be against Freedom — AND PUPPIES?!) If the goal was for Redeemer NYC to make a catechism for their own use, and also make it available for others, that would be one thing. But the introduction seems to imply the goal is a catechetical tool for not just Redeemer or even the PCA, but all Reformed churches (including “Reformed Baptists”). So why not search for a name that will not stick in the craw of country folk?

Plagiarism — Love it!

From just the authors and the name of this project, I would have guessed it would be a ground-up fresh effort (like the new PCUSA catechisms). But I was very pleasantly surprised to see that the New City Catechism (let’s call it NCC so I don’t have to keep typing “New City”, see above) is positively littered with quotes from HC and SC. It’s as if HC and SC were dropped in a bag, crushed with a hammer, many of the best bits were fished out, and glued back together with modern language. But that makes it sound bad, really I mean this in the best possible sense!

Length — Meh.

One prominent feature of the NCC is its brevity — just 52 questions, one per week of a single year. I appreciate the nod to the HC’s 52 Lord’s Days; and I am also sympathetic with the concern to provide something digestible by our modern, attention defecitted culture. But 52 questions is not a lot of room to cover what needs to be covered. One response to baptism grouches (who are not reading this far, see above…) might be that with two whole questions about baptism already, there just isn’t space to delve deeper.

More significant than this, however, is that with just 52 questions, NCC fails to follow in SC and HC’s footsteps and provide comprehensive coverage of the 10 commandments, the Lord’s Prayer (and in the HC’s case, the Apostle’s Creed). Some of this lack may well be covered by supplemental materials, at this point I just don’t know.

Structure — Love it!

As already noted, we’ve got the 52-week structure of HC. At a higher level, we have this three-part structure:

1. God, creation and fall, law
2. Christ, redemption, and grace
3. Spirit, restoration, growing in grace

This meshes well with HC’s guilt, grace, gratitude, and it also is fairly similar to SC except pushing the ten commandments before Christ and redemption (which makes pretty good sense, actually).

Also, I think it’s a brilliant touch to pack both children’s and adult’s catechism into one, by making each children’s answer just a subset of the words of the full answer. This catechism was obviously designed with memorization in mind.

Technology — Love it!

The website is very slick, with a clean, consistent layout. Each answer has a fuzz-out toggle to assist memorization, and four buttons, v:[erse], c:[ommentary], play button (video commentary), and p:[rayer]. The color scheme is clever and useful: brown and sand for Part I, blue and water for Part II, green and vine for part III. Apparently the iPhone app has even more bells&whistles, but not being a smartphone user myself, I wouldn’t know. (I’m not sure why there’s no Android app. This seems to be a slight against those who are not trendy enough to own an iPhone — akin to my comments above about the name.) Regardless, I hope  these toys serve to mitigate some of the unavoidable drudgery of catechesis, and reel a new generation into the practice.

 

Surprise! Guess who’s Presbyterian…

It seems to me common knowledge that Charles Finney was ordained as a Presbyterian minister, but I had never heard that Billy Sunday was as well. Apparently Sunday was ordained in 1903. He died this day in 1935.

Read more at This Day in Presbyterian History.

Non-Westminster Catechism

It’s not just old, it links us to our fathers.

Speaking of creating a new catechism…

I’m in favor of revising confessions and catechisms, in principle. For instance, I think we could use some language about male ordination. And how about nailing down IAOC? It would be nice to replace “in the space of six days” with some of the some of the results of the OPC Creation Report, which a little more clearly spelled out latitude among various doctrines of creation. One of my pet peeves is that grammar of the beloved SC Q. 1 doesn’t match A. 1. I mean c’mon, just choose one of “Man’s chief end” or “The chief end of man” and stick with it. Fer da kids. (And I can recommend many more grammatical improvements to aid memorizability, from my experience developing this.)

But the Achilles heel of the Westminster standards is that they are so good, so close to infallibility, that they have stood unchanged for centuries, and like the original freewheel on a 1970 Falcon San Remo, after all that time it gets pretty hard to move. And if we open the door to change, who knows what shenanigans would go on. I’m worried the net result would not be an improvement, but, um, what’s the opposite of improvement? Deprovement? Exprovement? You get the point. Baddening.

But not everybody is so squeamish to protect Westminster. It’s an interesting exercise to see what the Presbyterian Mothership is up to in the catechism department. I had trouble finding confessional documents at pcusa.org, but it seems that the PCUSA web presence is spread across a few different URLs, the biggest of which is for the Presbyterian Mission Agency (formerly General Assembly Mission Council), which hosts a page on confession and catechism. The word “Westminster” is strangely absent from that page, but they’re big on Belhar, they’re fond of French, and as of 1998 they seem to have replaced the Westminster Shorter and Larger (or judging by scope, perhaps Children’s and Shorter?) with Belonging to God: a First Catechism, and The Study Catechism.

I plan to wander through those artifacts in coming posts. I expect to have mostly a critical response, but I will try to keep an optimistic eye open for good stuff as well. I hope Keller et al also read through them as a guide for what not to do (and maybe a little what to do), as they embark on their new writing project. (And of course it wouldn’t hurt to take another pass through the Shorter and Larger to see what to keep.)

[UPDATE] Immediate change of course! I didn’t realize that Keller had just yesterday “launched” New City Catechism. I think it would be more timely if we dove into this first (the new PCUSA catechisms have waited 14 years, they can wait a little longer…), to ask penetrating questions like, Why is there only an iOS app? Are Android smartphones inherently less sanctified (sanctifying)?

Colbert For President

 

Probably not. But Pulpit Freedom Sunday, the evangelical version of the Catholic Fortnight for Freedom, is upon us tomorrow. And in addition to receiving Christ and him crucified tomorrow, it may be more edifying today to listen to Gross interview Colbert, or watch Colbert interview Garlow than have preachers endorse candidates.

We have this idea in our minds that there’s this separation of church and state in America, which I think is a good thing. And we extend that to our politics — not just church and state, but it’s also there’s a separation of religion and politics. But of course there isn’t. Every president says, ‘God bless America’ at the end of the State of Union address. And everybody, every candidate is quoting some form of the Old and the New Testament in speeches to try and make their own moral points.

But we don’t think of … a preacher or priest or rabbi or imam, for that matter, endorsing from the pulpit. And I was fascinated by the idea that these guys were going to force the issue, because they’ve done this for five years — this isn’t the first year they’ve done it. Now they’re videotaping it and sending it to the IRS, to just try to poke the hornet’s nest of the IRS and say, ‘Please take us to court.’ Because they’re trying to get this forced into a court case, because they think they can win.

And I, after some thought and talking about it with my writers, I think they’re right. … I think they should be able to endorse from the pulpit. Now whether or not they should get tax-exempt status is another thing, because that is the rest of us subsidizing their political speech. …

I think they should be able to do it, but I also think that it’s a very dangerous thing to do — not just for our politics, but it’s also dangerous for the faith of people who are exercising that right. Because they seem to think that it’s a one-way membrane — that they’ll get religion into our politics. But they’re ignoring the fact that politics will come right back through that gate onto our religion.

And if you actually have a political party that is this religion, or a political party that is that religion, I think that’s a short road to the kind of religious civil war — whether or not it’s actually an armed war — but religious civil war that we fled in Europe. America has avoided that. And I think our politics are so horrible these days. … Why anyone would want that horrible tar on something as fragile as faith is beyond me.