Readers interested in knowing more about the attacks on Paul Helm’s piece…

Is there any limit to the spin here? Responding to this is an attack? What? Like when the Texan colonists attacked the Mexican army at the Alamo?

Well, for those who are interested, here is another piece of aggression.

For the record, I am really happy that Dr. Helm, whether he has succeeded in making his case or not, has at least started constructing arguments for the verdict he originally pronounced (and for all I know at this point, there may be something to his case). But responding to those pronunciations is about as much an “attack” as shooting at a stranger who has broken into your house on a dark and stormy night. This should never have happened the way it did. Reason, truth, and objectivity would have been better upheld if the argumentation had taken place before shots were fired.

Reformed theology is simple in that it requires no elaborate formula, no prescribed confession or catechisms, but is merely based on the unadorned an unpretentious principles and order found in the Bible, by precept and example, which supply the substance of new-covenant teaching. There is of course, a small but intelligent and literate movement advocating formal theological renewal in Reformed evangelicalism. Usually emphasizing the contributions of the writings of the early Reformed thinkers of Strasbourg and Geneva and unwittingly adopting a nineteenth-century Thornwellian interpretation of their significance, this movement, ….

Paul Helm’s attack on John Franke (See here) now continues.

I’m too busy to track down links to how this fares in blogdom. Happy hunting.

Guardians for Profit: When a Family Matter Turns Into a Business:

Jones’ conservator is part of a young, growing and largely unregulated trade in California.

Conservatorship began as a way to help families protect enfeebled relatives from predators and self-neglect. As a final recourse, courts take basic freedoms from grown men and women and give conservators sweeping power over their property, their money and the smallest details of their lives.

But lawmakers and judges did not foresee that professionals would turn what had been a family matter into a business.

In the hands of this new breed of entrepreneur, a system meant to safeguard the elderly and infirm often fails them.

A couple of thoughts. First, my guess would be that this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Second, how could lawmakers not foresee this result?

Postscript (8:29 AM / Mon- Nov 14, 2005)

Here is part two.

Emmeline Frey was wheeled toward the bench, escorted by a family friend. She was 93 years old and frail, suffering from dementia and a broken hip.

In San Diego County’s busy Probate Court, it was up to Judge Thomas R. Mitchell to decide how to preserve the $1 million she had amassed pinching pennies over a lifetime. On the recommendation of Frey’s attorney, he appointed a professional conservator named Donna Daum.

Frey’s affairs were now in the hands of a caretaker acting under court supervision. Her money should have been safe.

It was not.

Daum gave her son, a car salesman turned financial advisor, more than $500,000 of Frey’s savings to invest. Over the next four years, the investments lost more than $100,000 in value while the son collected commissions.

Mitchell, who described himself as the “super father” of the seniors who entered his courtroom, never questioned what Daum was doing with her client’s money or why her son was involved.

The case illustrates how inaction and inattention by the courts have left many elderly Californians vulnerable to abuse by the very people entrusted with their care. (Read the Rest)

God on their side.

Are there words strong enough to describe what is wrong with this? Is there any point in doing so?

In the case of authors writing about post-modernism and theology sins could include:

1. Writing an introductory book without a bibliography.
2. Writing an introductory book without an annotated bibliography (fun to read and fun to write! Why would anyone deny himself and us such pleasure?)
3. Writing an introductory book without mentioning Fergus Kerr’s Theology After Wittgenstein.
4. Mentioning the Reformation Tradition in the context of an introductory book but without mentioning either John Frame’s The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God or Vern Poythress’ Symphonic Theology.

Of course, none of these necessarily spoil the book. And, one is free to decide that Tuesday-morning-quarterbacking a book is also a sin and discount all this.

I haven’t read John Franke’s The Character of Theology. Clearly, in this day and age, a book on theology could contain almost anything bad. The publisher, Baker Book House, might limit that a bit, but I wouldn’t trust such a publisher to protect us from error. I know nothing about Franke so it is completely possible, from my point of view, that he could teach almost anything.

Still, even as a stranger, I can glean from the publisher and some other sources that he names the name of Christ. And even if that were not the case, the fact remains that I am not supposed to go around making railing accusations against the man based on my lack of knowledge.

Blogger, Kyle Newcomer directed my attention to this book review by Paul Helm. Please take some time right now (or before you read further) read it.

Helm may be entirely correct. This response may be entirely wrong. I don’t know. I haven’t read the book and in this hour that means I have no way of knowing anything about it.

And this is the point. What gives Helm the right to simply tell us that Franke is guilty of rejecting objectivity and truth and a myriad of other crimes without even attempting to provide us with any evidence whatsoever? In fact, most of what we find quoted from Franke are statements that admit to things which Dr. Helm assures us that Franke denies so that Helm can conveniently condemn Franke for inconsistency. But, in point of fact, this is exactly how things would seem if Helm was completely wrong about what Franke believes in the first place.

In the entire review there is one and only one substantial quotation:

As concluded in the previous chapter, the unending task of theology is to find ways of expressing and communicating the biblical story in terms that make use of the intellectual and conceptual tools of a particular culture without being controlled by them. This suggests the need for both critical and constructive reflection on the beliefs and practices of the church in order to scrutinize continuously the life of the church by the standard of the biblical witness and to envision all of life in relationship to God and the mission of God in the world (p.119).

Now, readers might know that I would quibble with this statement (since it comes to me without any context) because it seems to posit the theologian as someone who stands outside his culture. But that would be a quibble. What is amazing about this is that, for Helm, this is his “smoking gun.” First of all, in a review where he blasts away and this is the only substantial quotation, it has to be his justification. Second of all, his following analysis treats this statement as some sort of proof of unrighteousness–or rather, as proof of unrighteousness once we discount the words within the quotation which Helm assures us don’t really count. “To be sure, there is the warning about not allowing the intellectual and conceptual tools of a particular culture to control theology, though no suggestions as to how this might be achieved.” (Wright is right: if you don’t say everything every time you will be accused of denying it.)

When you attack someone, you are supposed to provide an argument and, preferably, proof. Without such hard work, “defending” orthodoxy, simply becomes a series of assertions based on human authority. Is that all we have to offer?

I really appreciated Michael’s honesty and willingness to serve as an example. I think his last sentence is profound, perhaps more than he realizes.

Thanks to John Barach, here is some advice Luther gave to a ruler prone to depression:

I should like to encourage Your Grace, who are a young man, always to be joyful, to engage in riding and hunting, and to seek the company of others who may be able to rejoice with Your Grace in a godly and honorable way. For solitude and inwardness are poisonous and deadly to all people, and especially to a young man. Accordingly, God has commanded us to be joyful in his presence; he does not desire a gloomy sacrifice. [Luther quotes Ecclesiastes 12.] No one realizes how much harm it does a young person to avoid pleasure and cultivate solitude and sadness. Your grace has Master Nicholas Hausman and many others near at hand. Be merry with them; for gladness and good cheer, when decent and proper, are the best medicine for a young person–indeed, for all people. I myself, who have spent a good part of my life in sorrow and gloom, now seek and find pleasure wherever I can. Praise God, we now have sufficient understanding of the Word of God to be able to rejoice with a good conscience and to use God’s gifts with thanksgiving, for he created them for this purpose and is pleased when we use them (Martin Luther, Letters of Spiritual Counsel, trans. Theodore G. Tappert [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955], pp. 92-93).

Of course, this may be all aggravated by the internet to some degree. A website is not a tavern and cyberspace has many things but communities are not among them.

Last night I was reminded how much meat and drink around a table can matter more than words. That’s not an absolute comparison, of course. Just like diamonds are priced higher than water, when words are common and real-life closeness is missing then the doing of the latter is much more important than yet another set of words. Sharing a bottle or a brat over a table can form something that will never come to be sharing words over the screen.

Something much more cheerful.

From chapter 3 of Titus:

1 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, 2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. 3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

As a pastor there are a couple of challenges that have especially struck me.

1. We are supposed to be motivated to love those who are foolish and disobedient by our confidence that God loves us though we were and often are foolish and disobedient. If we preach for people to doubt there standing before God, to question whether they are among the number of those whom God loves, then we can expect them to be rather half-hearted in their devotion to good works. According to Paul, to say of God that “he saved us” because of “his own mercy” and his “kindness” is to utter a trustworthy saying. We are supposed to “insist” that such things are true because they “are excellent and profitable for people.
2. Notice Paul’s unapologetic basis in the love and redemption we have received in the midst of our horrible behavior and desires for the obligation we have “to be submissive,” and “to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.” These people are not easy to be gentle with but are easy to quarell with. The are “foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to varioius passions and pleasures. they pass their days “in mallice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.” For Paul, we can extrapolate from the way God has treated us to the way all men should be treated. In other words, the free offer of the Gospel is really true. The doctrines of particular grace do not deny the reality of God’s universal love for humanity. We are supposed to reason on the basis of God’s treatment of us how we should represent God’s attitude in our treatment of others irrespective of what has been decreed about their final destination.

   What this means is that, if I so preach and emphasize particularism in a way that leads people to deny or neglect to imitate God’s grace to all men, then I am not teaching trustworthy sayings. I will be guitly of promoting things (not because they are not true but because of the context in how I proclaim them) that are neither excellent nor profitable for people. In fact, even though i suspect Paul has other concerns than those that worry me as I look at various forms Protestant predestinarian thinking can take, I can’t help but wonder if vv. 9-11 show us that the wrong sort of teaching of “the doctrines of grace” will lead us to “foolish controversies” that are “unprofitable and worthless.”

Wow. Doing some brainless work I downloaded this sermon on the temptatons of Jesus in the wilderness. Actually, I was listening to another one, got distracted, and this one came next so that I accidently heard the beginning of it.

Rich presents the idea that Jesus was fundamentally tempted about what the Son of God deserved to experience. Certainly the Son of God shouldn’t have to suffer, right? Surely he deserves a better life.

This perspective certainly matches that of the author of Hebrews:

5 And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”

7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12)

You would think that Jesus’ sinlessness eliminates him from this sort of thing, but this comes after the climax of Hebrews 10.37 to 12.3 which literally begins and ends with Jesus (the LXX version of Habbakuk 2.4 giving a messianic sense). Furthermore, the author of Hebrews has already tied Jesus suffering to his learning obedience:

7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5).

And this is not simply the example of a pious human being. This is the revelation of the true god:

1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power (Hebrews 1).

I can’t improve on Lusk’s pastoral application for saints tempted to sin, but I’ll try to summarize. When you think that you are going through something that you shouldn’t have to put up with. When you think your spouse is unworthy of you, for example. You are believing something false about being God’s son. You’re not called to what’s worthy of you. You’re called to serve others.

Convicting stuff.