Monthly Archives: April 2009

Is being able to talk and write certain statements on demand really “the art of living to God”?

I keep thinking about some of the comments on this entry.

Once there was a man who had a son who seemed somewhat different in his thinking and speaking.  He seemed slower than other children and unable to grasp words and talk about things (mainly abstractions) the way most of his peers did.

However, the father was diligent in raising his child and even challenging him to be like others when it seemed appropriate and healthy.  He enlisted his son in a softball team made up of children his son’s age and was gratified to see that his son did quite well.  He hit the ball.  He caught the ball.  He threw the ball.  And he was able to keep track of the game well enough to do all these things how and when he was supposed to.  Watching him in practice it was obvious his son would be as valuable a player as anyone else.

But at the first game the father was shocked to see the coach keep his son on the bench for the entire time.  Seeing his son just sit there and watch everyone else play was hard to take, but the father forced himself to be patient and wait for the game to end before asking the coach what was going on.  He didn’t want to interrupt the coach’s work during the game, and he didn’t want to come across as upset when he did talk to him.

So after the game,  he told his by-now-tearful son to wait by the car and went up to talk to the coach.  “Coach, I was surprised my son didn’t get to play.  It seemed like he not only never got to go on the field, even though you don’t have that many players, but he also wasn’t on the batting roster.”

The coach looked surprised and (though the father tried to discount this) more than a little self-rightous.  “I thought you knew that children had to answer the Baseball Questions, in order to play.”

“Questions?”

“Yes, about the nature of the game and why we play it and the main rules.”

“Is there any doubt my son can play ball?”

“Oh none at all, if you’re talking about mere bodily rituals.  But anyone can hit a ball with a stick or catch it or throw or touch bases.  We need to know if he really understands it.”

“Um, I’m not sure if that really makes sense but maybe we can ask him those questions now?”

“Oh no.  We have to assemble a meeting of the coaches when we are all dressed up in business suits and have an official secretary to record proceedings.”

“Isn’t that intimidating.”

The coach grinned.  “Right.  Mrs. Brown didn’t bring her child to the game today, Brian, today because he is so shy.  He wouldn’t say a word in front of all of us at our Team Council Meeting.  After he failed our exam, I exhorted her that it was good for him to sit and watch the game whenever he had a chance (and much better than watching on TV).  But she must be too embarrassed or something.”

“Or something.  Why is it better to watch from the dugout if you don’t even get to play?  I think the playing is better on TV.  And at least there are half-time shows.”

“Oh sure, if you think baseball is only about entertainment.”

“No, I think baseball is for participation, but you’re the one mandating that they observe only.”

“Well, right.  Because if you can’t go through the interview how do we know that you are truly participating.  If you want your son to play he needs to be able to answer our questions.”

Of course, this kind of treatment of a child by a baseball coach would be totally condemned as insane….

Continue reading

Moral, civil, ceremonial?

The Bible’s laws can easily be assigned to three categories. I use them and teach them.

But in doing serious Biblical analysis, they can be misleading.

For example, I’ve read people claiming the decalogue contains “only moral” law. Since the civil penalty for murder goes back to Noah, I have doubts about this. But apart from that, what about the ceremonial law? How are laws about images (2nd command) and Sabbath (4th command) not ceremonial?

The answer seems to be that “ceremonial” laws are viewed by some as only temporary. Therefore the decalogue must contain no ceremonial laws. But this gets to be a circular definition.

And what about the dietary prohibition on drinking blood? That goes from Noah (where meat eating is first permitted) to Acts 15 and laws for the Gentiles.

And what is the Biblical penalty for the civil crime of involuntary manslaugher? One had to flee to a city of refuge and stay there until the High Priest died. Is that civil law or ceremonial?

And when Reformed exegetes argue from circumcision to baptism, aren’t they agreeing that the principles of the ceremonial law still apply by analogy? Don’t the ceremonial laws have “direct equity”?

How do children (or anyone else) learn? How do they think?

Additional Note: By the way, in case anyone wonders, I’m glad that this blog is engaging in a conversation with Doug Wilson about paedocommunion, and appreciate the tone. I didn’t think I needed to spell this out, but I am second-guessing that decision now (for no reason other than my imagination; I have seen no feedback).

I do not think that most 6-year-olds would be able to understand the significance of the Lord’s Supper. Maybe I have seen too many modern-day public school educated 6-year-olds. My daughter is 5 and nowhere near ready, in my opinion, and she will not be publicly educated, at least for the first grades. In fact, to my knowledge, she hasn’t even asked about what the bread and the wine mean yet. We’re still working on what Jesus Christ means, and His sacrifice. After that, we’ll move on to the physical sign He has given us of His Person and work.

via Bread and Generalizations « Green Baggins.

Interesting.  My first son started spontaneously telling me the significance of the bread and wine, as body and blood of our Lord, when he was four, I think.

But my first pastorate was in a practicing paedocommunion church so he had been living this reality for at least a couple of years.  He learned the meaning of the Lord’s supper the same way the Israelites in the wilderness were taught the Sabbath–by eating.

How else would the Lord want to disciple the children of the Church?

There seems to me to be something fundamental that needs to be addressed.  Wittgenstein addressed it when he began Philosophical Investigations with a quotation of Augustine claiming to have learned to speak as an infant by means of ostensive definition.  Wittgenstein dismantles this claim, but not many Christians care about Wittgenstein.

Cartesian Christianity is the default practice of the churches now.

Eventually the Watchdog thinks he’s earned the right to be a Wolf for a moment

Recently I was reminded of this scene from Episode 1 of Season 1 in Angel:

I think this is the constant temptation of people who think they are “defending” the establishment.  They eventually get to the point where they believe that the society they claim to protect owes them some sustenance.  They’ve done so much good for us.  Surely it is reasonable to demand our blood.

What sparked my memory of this scene was this quotation:

If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am)… By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are. Safeguarding the status quo, protecting traditional institutions, can be healthy and useful, stabilizing and reassuring.

And if the establishment has through hubris rigged it’s own decline from power, then it can double up on hubris and claim that strip mining society of what it has left in order to stay in power is justified by the “importance” of the establishment to the protection of society.

Do you doubt this is what David told himself while he was taking Bathsheba?

Why would Paulson or Geithner think any differently?