Church History and Presuppositions: Dioscorus and Oriental Orthodoxy

In a post last year, I noted that works of history involve presuppositions (link). History is not methodologically neutral. So, too, it is with those who read church history. So, too, it is with this post. 

This does not lead to skepticism, however. Truth is objective. When two people agree about what is historically true, it becomes easier to compare and evaluate their presuppositions at points of disagreement.

When I read church history, I don't expect to see pristine models of perfection. Why? Because I accept the doctrines of total depravity and progressive sanctification. Professing Christians can be nominal Christians, and true Christians battle sin (Romans 7-8, Galatians 2, 1 John 2). While we can commend the faith of those who've gone before us (Hebrews 11), Christ is our model of perfection, and it is in His image Christians are conformed. This presupposition dovetails with sola scriptura, for it is what Scripture itself teaches.

Contrast this to the presuppositions of those whose traditions align with solo ecclesia (link). Because adherents of this sort of tradition - e.g. Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism - tend to create lists of venerable "saints" from church history which are discordant with lists of other traditions, adherents are incentivized to be zealous for the sake of sinful men rather than God. Solo ecclesia entails a distorted anthropology.  

One example of this can be seen in a recent dialogue I had with an Oriental Orthodox believer (link) who attempted to defend the actions of Dioscorus at the council of Ephesus II (otherwise known as Ephesus 449). Dioscorus is regarded as a saint in Oriental Orthodoxy. 

I pointed out that on Oriental Orthodoxy's own presuppositions, Dioscorus seems to have acted wrongly at Ephesus II. In particular, Dioscorus did not follow Apostolic Canon 74 (link):

If any bishop has been accused of anything by men worthy of credit, he must be summoned by the bishops; and if he appears, and confesses, or is convicted, a suitable punishment must be inflicted upon him. But if when he is summoned he does not attend, let him be summoned a second time, two bishops being sent to him, for that purpose. [If even then he will not attend, let him be summoned a third time, two bishops being again sent to him. ] But if even then he shall disregard the summons and not come, let the synod pronounce such sentence against him as appears right, that he may not seem to profit by avoiding judgment.

Maria Constantinou's article, "The Threefold Summons at Late Antique Church Councils," details in what way Dioscorus, who presided over Ephesus II, subverted this canon (link):

It is fortunate that the details of the parallel ecclesiastical threefold summons procedure and the way it evolved can be deciphered from the copious pertinent evidence from conciliar acts of the fifth and sixth centuries. The fact that detailed accounts of threefold summonses are a substantial and extensive part of conciliar proceedings and the minutes thereof does not come as a surprise, since the validity of a trial in absence depended upon the attestation of the orderly conduct of the summons...

A trial in absentia without three summonses was considered illegal, since the accused had to be given the opportunity to defend himself. It is indicative that the condemnations at the Second Council at Ephesus 449, almost all of which were imposed on absentees and uninvited, were unanimously declared void at the first session of the Council of Chalcedon; see, for instance, the bishops’ request to annul the deposition of Ibas of Edessa at the tenth session of Chalcedon: κακῶς ἐποίησαν οἱ παρὰ τοὺς κανόνας κατακρίναντες αὐτόν. τὰ κατὰ ἀπόντος γενόμενα ἀργείτω. ταῦτα πάντες λέγομεν· οὐδεὶς ἀπόντα κατακρίνει: Those who condemned him contrary to the canons did so wrongly. The proceedings against an absentee should be annulled. We all say this: nobody condemns someone in his absence, ACO II.1.3 § 5 p. 17 lin. 16–18; cf. also the verdict regarding Ibas’ reinstatement pronounced by Francion of Philippopolis and Basil of Trajanopolis: τὸν ἐν τῆι κρίσει μὴ παρόντα, ἀλλὰ μήτε προσκληθέντα κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον βλάπτεσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἐξενεχθείσης κατ’ αὐτοῦ ψήφου δοκιμάζομεν: Since he was not present at the trial and was not even summoned, we decide that he should in no way be wronged by the sentence passed against him, ACO II.1.3 § 175 p. 41 lin. 31 to p. 42 lin. 2; cf. Steinwenter, Kirchlicher Rechtsgang (fn. 4) 66–67; Troianos (fn. 4) 78 with n. 49...

ACO II.1.2 § 5 p. 9 lin. 16–19. Eusebius emphasised that he and Flavian were deposed at Ephesus II without being summoned to defend themselves.

Likewise does Richard Price speak of Ephesus II and Dioscorus in his The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. I (pg. 34):

None of those accused and condemned was present to defend himself – a breach of due process that was one of several reasons why this council ultimately acquired its distasteful reputation… 

Theodoret had been barred from the council by imperial decree (Chalcedon, I. 24) and Ibas was actually imprisoned (Chalcedon, X. 1). Although Domnus was in town, pleading absence due to illness, the synod made no attempt to give him any notification that he was to be put on trial – let alone the canonical three summonses – before proceeding with his case. None of the other bishops dealt with at the second session appears to have been present.

In short, Dioscorus acted uncanonically and against his own presuppositions. This is a problem for Oriental Orthodoxy. The problem is not merely that someone who is regarded as a saint did something bad - rather, it's that also Oriental Orthodoxy holds Ephesus II rather than Chalcedon (the latter of which condemned Dioscorus and revoked decisions made at Ephesus II) to be "ecumenical." If decisions made at Ephesus II were uncanonical (which, the Oriental Orthodox must admit, entails immorality), that must in turn affect Oriental Orthodoxy's theology of "ecumenical" councils and jeopardize its underlying presupposition of solo ecclesia. 

The Oriental Orthodox believer with whom I spoke attempted to undercut my argument in four different ways:

1) He argued that Chalcedon also acted uncanonically.

2) He argued that Ephesus II was accepted by the emperor at the time.

3) The Apostolic Canons only apply to Christians.

4) Ephesus II had good reasons for their charges against those they accused.

The first counter is a tu quoque fallacy. He appears to have assumed that I was an Eastern Orthodox believer. His reasoning was that if I take it that Oriental Orthodoxy has a problem in dealing with Ephesus II, I would similarly have a problem in dealing with Chalcedon. Firstly, that wouldn't discharge the burden he bears regarding Ephesus II; secondly, because I am not Eastern Orthodox, even if I did admit that Chalcedon acted uncanonically, there is no issue. On the contrary, errors and immorality in church history are to be expected (WCF 31.4). As an aside, though, Chalcedon did follow Apostolic Canon 74 before ratifying the deposition of Dioscorus (Price, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. II, pgs. 69ff.).

The second response is irrelevant. If churchmen can make mistakes, so can an emperor. Even Dioscorus tries to blame the emperor instead of owning his own mistakes (see below). It might also be pointed out that when the emperor who accepted Ephesus II (Theodosius II) died and the new emperor called and then accepted Chalcedon, does that therefore obligate Oriental Orthodoxy to accept Chalcedon? Obviously, Oriental Orthodox believers say no. Further, how does Oriental Orthodoxy view the decision of Theodosius II to depose Cyril of Alexandria for a time at Ephesus I (i.e. Ephesus 431)? Did that deposition put in question the ecumenicity of Ephesus I? From conversations I've had, this is not the perspective of the Oriental Orthodox. In fact, I've been told by notable Oriental Orthodox apologist Daniel Kakish that 1) Ephesus I "could have been been considered ecumenical" even during the time Theodosius II deposed Cyril and, therefore, 2) imperial policy is "irrelevant as a criterion for ecumenicity. Eventual imperial backing of the determinations of the Cyrillian council is a bonus rather than a necessary condition" (link). 

The third assertion is absurd. Nowhere do the Apostolic Canons say that they only apply to those one regards as Christians. On the contrary: "If any bishop has been accused of anything by men worthy of credit, he must be summoned by the bishops..." The idea that the Apostolic Canons only apply to those whom one regards as a Christian would undermine the very purpose of canon 74. Even Nestorius was summoned three times at Ephesus I. He ignored the summons and was deposed.

Like the second response, the last one is irrelevant. The question is whether Dioscorus and Ephesus II acted canonically, not whether they had good reasons for charging those they accused. Did not those accused have canonical rights which, in the case of Ephesus II, were prevented them? Why were the accused 1) barred from being able to defend themselves or 2) uninformed they were even on trial? When Eusebius confronted Dioscorus about this at Chalcedon, Dioscorus' response to to try to pass the blame:

187. During the reading Eusebius the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘When Eutyches, whom I had accused, presented his plaint to the holy council, he mentioned that I was his accuser. I demand an inquiry of how, when the judge Flavian of sacred memory demanded that I as the accuser should appear, as proper procedure and the canons required, I was prevented from doing so.’ 

188. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘When Flavian of sacred memory requested the appearance of Eusebius as Eutyches’ accuser, why did you, to whom authority to act as judge had been committed, not give orders for this in accordance with the canons?’ 

189. Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I ask that the testimony of Helpidius be read. I would not have had the power to prevent it, had not Helpidius brought an instruction in which he certified that the emperor had ordered him [Eusebius] not to appear.’ 

190. Juvenal the most devout bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘It was the admirable count Helpidius who didn’t allow him to appear.’ 

191. Thalassius the most devout bishop of Cappadocian Caesarea said: ‘I was not responsible.’ 

192. The most glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘When the faith is being decided, this is no excuse.’

Dioscorus tried to excuse his uncanonical action by blaming emperor Theodosius II for barring Eusebius from appearing at Ephesus II - yes, the same emperor that the Oriental Orthodox believer above appealed to regarding the ecumenicity of Ephesus II is the same emperor to whom Dioscorus attempts to shift blame. Dioscorus is justly reprimanded.

When his responses failed, the Oriental Orthodox believer turned to obscenities (link), at which point I ended the conversation. 

There is an irony in having zeal for sinful men rather than God: a distorted elevation of sinful men will always lead to a distorted degradation of others. A distorted anthropology leads to a distorted understanding of history. Both of these follow from a distorted theology, such as when one fails to uphold solus Christus, sola scriptura, soli Deo gloria, sola fide, and sola gratia. Presuppositions matter, and history confirms the principle that we become like that which we worship (Psalm 115:8, Romans 8:29). Let us take care to avoid idolatry.

Veneration, Prayer, and the Possibility of Apostasy: A Dilemma

Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox are known to venerate and pray to those whom they consider to be saints who have died: Cyril of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, etc. These traditions also are known to reject the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints: those who come to be saints at one point in life are thereafter capable of apostatizing, losing the salvation which they once possessed.

This leads to a question: do these traditions have grounds for believing that it is impossible that those whom they regard as saints apostatized on their deathbeds? Raising this hypothetical may be thought of as offensive, but if it is possible or may even have happened, the real offense would be against Christ.

Supposing it is possible that some of those whom these traditions regard as saints apostatized, is it not also possible that members of these traditions are venerating and praying to someone who is actually in hell? Orthopraxy depends on orthodoxy. If we cannot be sure someone is orthodox, should that not have implications for one's praxis involving them? Surely, veneration of and prayer to one who may be in hell cannot be obligated. I expect most of the aforementioned traditions would reject this supposition.

What is the alternative? Infallible assurance of another's faith (let alone perseverance) is ordinarily impossible. If these traditions argue that it is not possible that those whom they regard as saints apostatized - if one can have infallible assurance that those who are venerated and prayed to remained saints unto death - such can only be the case if they accept an extraordinary source of and means for such knowledge. I can think of no other possibility than that it somehow has been divine revealed which saints persevered.

The mechanism by which these traditions believe God has revealed those who persevered currently differs among these traditions. For example, papal approval obviously will not be viewed as necessary in Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Actually, though, while Roman Catholics would argue that papal approval is now required by canon law, the process of canonizing saints is apparently revisable. In fact, it seems that even Roman Catholics admit that papal involvement was not only unnecessary but also entirely absent in the first nine centuries (link). A Roman Catholic, then, would have to be open to defending different mechanisms.

Another consideration is that Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy consist of autocephalous or self-governing churches. This may lead some churches within these broader traditions to venerate as saints those who are not venerated by another church within the same, broader tradition. For example, within the broader tradition of Oriental Orthodoxy, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church venerates John of Damascus (link), whereas the Coptic Orthodox church does not. 

This is interesting in that John of Damascus opposed miaphysitism, a Christology typically characterized as distinctive to the tradition of Oriental Orthodoxy. In fact, as a Chalcedonian, John of Damascus is ironically anathematized by the Ethiopian Orthodox. Here, the problem is even more obvious than the hypothetical I posed above: how can one coherently venerate or pray to a theologian whom he regards as having been anathematized?

One possibility is that anathematizations can be lifted. One case of this happening occurred when the Roman pope and Eastern Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople mutually agreed to nullify the anathemas of 1054 (link). This appears to be mental gymnastics, however, and I know of some within the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church who would sooner admit John of Damascus should be removed from their synaxarium than defend the possibility that John of Damascus is venerable or worthy of hearing one's prayers. 

Another possibility is to suggest that a synaxarium (or parish, priest, bishop, or any other vehicle of communicating a list of saints) is only infallible indirectly, i.e. insofar as those who are listed as saints have been declared so by that which is the direct mechanism of divine revelation - say, a synod.

Regardless, the logical end of each of the aforementioned traditions is a hyper-realization of solo ecclesia. These traditions might speak of "historical investigation" that goes into their decision-making. These traditions might speak of only "recognizing" who already is or is not a saint. But this cannot be. 

Given their rejection of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, to rule out deathbed apostasies as a live possibility presupposes that these traditions not only have the prerogative of interpreting divine revelation but also have the prerogative of actively creating such ex nihilo, upon which they further obligate the consciences and practices of their members. 

For these traditions, new and public divine revelation is ongoing. They are not merely drawing out inferences from the God-breathed Scriptures but are claiming themselves to be able to draw out the breath of God - through their papal, synodal, or popular voice - at will. Protestations to the contrary will logically entail, as has been pointed out, that members of these traditions could be venerating and praying to someone who is actually in hell.

Infants and Sacraments

My recent post on the role of the church in Christian education (link) brought to mind a post from several years ago in which I argued that only baptized persons can be "participants" in corporate worship:

...elders administer discipline to their sons, the visible flock over which they shepherd. If infants are never members of the visible church, then they are never disciplined by elders. You might discipline your son, but just because his friend is around when you do doesn't mean his friend is a "participant" in that discipline. To the extent one wants to speak of someone as a participant in worship and yet without discipline, I think such a person would be an illegitimate child rather than a son (Hebrews 12:7-8). (link)

To develop this further, unbaptized persons are onlookers. They are spectators rather than participants in liturgy. They are not, during corporate worship, authoritatively led, represented, instructed, or disciplined by elders. Just as elders guard the Lord's Supper, so too does baptism fence off participation in worship. Just as the Lord's Supper communicates covenant blessing or judgment, baptism analogously initiates one into either covenant blessing or curse. Sacraments are neither ex opere operato nor ex opere operantis. 

In this way do we see how sacramentology is tied to ecclesiology. Liturgical participants draw near to God. Those who do so in an unworthy manner will be judged more severely than those who do not draw near at all. Judgment begins at the house of God, after all. In a sense, it is for their own protection that unbaptized persons are not counted as participants, although it is obviously not good that they should remain as they are. Insofar as the Lord's Supper is proleptic of the marriage supper of the Lamb, everyone will have to reckon with the [Sabbath] day of the Lord sooner or later.

If Baptists agree - as they should - that unbaptized persons are not, in public worship, authoritatively led, represented, instructed, or disciplined by elders, that has significant implications. If one denies this by affirming that an elder, in his authoritative capacity as an elder, ought, in public worship, to instruct and discipline the unbaptized, I will only say that such a denial appears either 1) misconstrues liturgical duties of an elder or 2) trades on semantic ambiguity: some teaching, admonishment, etc. is proper or particular to an elder, whereas some teaching or admonishment is informal and not exclusive to that which only an elder can offer. 

Considering the second point first, we can say that in one sense, a Baptist elder can "teach" or "admonish" persons who are not members of the visible church (or even the invisible church). But to the extent that all men are needful of spiritual and physical nourishment, all Christians are capable of "teaching" or "admonishing" others by being living testimonies of the light of the gospel. In living such lives, through the work of the Spirit, some needs of all men may be met. Of course, that one has these needs met does not suggest that all his needs are met.

Case in point, what is being spoken of here is not proper or particular to an elder. I would argue that some of man’s spiritual needs can only be met by being members in the visible church. That is, I am not questioning whether Baptist elders are capable of meeting some needs of persons who are not in the visible church, needs that can also be met by laity in non-liturgical settings. Rather, I question whether Baptist elders are capable of meeting specific needs of unbaptized persons, particularly in the context of worship. 

I think a consistent Baptist would agree that Baptist elders can no more meet certain needs of unbaptized persons than a Presbyterian elder could - until the persons in question are baptized. Recognizing this would avoid the semantic ambiguity alluded to above and confirm a distinction in belief regarding ecclesial scope of authority, as Presbyterians baptize infants whom Baptists would not.

Now, given Baptistic thought that believing parents of infants have no obligation to incorporate said infants into the visible church (quite the contrary, in fact), it looks to be a straightforward inference that these infants are not, during worship, authoritatively led, represented, instructed, or disciplined by Baptist elders. And if a Baptist elder would say that he does not authoritatively lead, represent, instruct, or discipline unbaptized persons – if he attempts to be, as I see it, relatively consistent with Baptistic thought – then while one can certainly tell infants (or, for that matter, any unbaptized persons) that they need full, spiritual nourishment, while they remain unbaptized, a Baptist elder cannot be said authority or responsible for their spiritual nourishment.

This leads to another consideration: it seems Baptist elders should leave the extent to which unbaptized, infants are exposed to "teaching," "admonition," "discipline," etc. that is proper and particular to elders to parental discretion. In other words, if parents decided not to bring their infants to public worship until or unless they have made a credible profession, on what grounds could a Baptist elder voice a legitimate problem with that?

I find that most Christian parents want their infants (or unbaptized) children to be present for worship of God. However, the question is whether this intuition can be backed such that a Baptist elder could, consistent with Baptistic principles, morally obligate parents to bring their infants to worship by and in the midst of a visible, covenant community to which the infants do not, on Baptist grounds, "belong." Worship is a time particularly intended for the visible church to draw near to God, whereas the infant is implicitly told by Baptists that he does not belong as a worshipping member to the visible church. 

That I've met with resistance from Baptists on this question indicates to me some tension between Baptistic principles and Baptistic practice. Indeed, one wonders about the implications of the London Baptist Confession XXII.6 when it states, "God is to be worshipped everywhere in spirit and in truth; as in private families daily..." If infants can be counted as worshippers in private families, why not in the visible church? Or if they cannot be so counted as worshippers in private families, are they then not members of the private family worshipping? The tensions compound.

Turning to another argument for infant baptism, on Baptistic thought, ecclesiology and sacramentology don't mirror soteriology. Soteriologically, Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians agree that the Father monergistically elected and regenerates men, both of which [logically] precede the faith of these men - even dispositional faith (on how this importantly relates to infants, see here). Yet ecclesiologically and sacramentally, Baptists invert the order such that mature articulation of faith ought to precede [a holy parent or parents choosing the] baptism of [their] infants. This is odd, as baptism signifies regeneration.

I find Baptistic ecclesiology, sacramentology, and argumentation to be more unfortunately tied to pragmatism. Interestingly, some Baptistic arguments against infant baptism intentionally highlight this inverted order of events as experienced by members of the invisible church compared to those experienced by members in the visible church, arguing on pragmatic grounds that since infants can't remember their baptisms, the baptisms are of no use. Perhaps this is why some Baptists have historically gone further in expecting an articulation of a memorable conversion experience before admittance into the visible church.

In any case, this is like arguing that because one doesn't remember being named at the time of his naming, there is no use in the naming. On the contrary, those who belong in the midst of the visible covenant community just are those who have been named in baptism (Matthew 28:19). Both in the case of my personal naming and in my baptismal naming, testimonial evidence is sufficient for my "knowing" my own name (at least in an externalist sense); I don't need video evidence or to have been conscious during the namings for the namings to have had and continue to have significance. Not only are such pragmatic objections weak, they function to show how Presbyterian ecclesiology and sacramentology align with Presbyterian soteriology and anthropology. On further ways in which "-ologies of places and people at least tend to mirror one another," see here, here, here, and here. 

Finally, there is the objection that anyone who is baptized also should be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper. In this way, Baptists actually agree with those of the Federal Vision movement like James B. Jordan, the latter of whose arguments for paedocommunion I find more challenging than pragmatic, Baptistic arguments against infant baptism. Jordan's ecclesiology and sacramentology are connected to his understanding of biblical theology. Take the following, which I cannot recall if I found through Jordan himself:

It is well known that the words of the nineteenth Psalm (1-4), mainly on the strength of St. Paul's adaptation of them (Rom. x. 18), have constantly received a spiritual application. The Church is the firmament which shews the handywork of God; in which day transmits to day and night to night in unbroken succession to the end of time, and to all the world, the wondrous story of the glory and grace of God. (Richard Chenevix Trench, Sacred Latin Poetry, pg. 206, link)

Jordan also argues that this symbolism is biblical (link). One enters the firmament-church through baptism just as entrance into the holy place of the tabernacle required passing by the bronze sea and through the veil. Once in the holy place or firmament, there is, before the priest, bread and wine. Bread is food that enables work, whereas wine signifies rest. Bread is protological and wine is eschatological. Thus, an OT tabernacle priest could eat bread but could not drink wine or sit down, for his work was never finished. 

Jordan further argues that bread and wine throughout the Old Testament tends to stand for a contrast between priestly infancy and kingly maturity. The OT was a time during which the people of God could participate in priestly rites but not kingly rest in the throne room; hence, only the high priest entered the holy of holies, he did so only entered once per year, and even then, his work was never finished such that he could enjoy rest. 

For priests to have drank wine at this point in redemptive history would have implied an over-realized eschatology. An over-realized eschatology is an eschatology which counts as having already happened cosmological events which we ought to still anticipate, such as the return of Christ (thus, Jordan argues against hyper-preterism). 

Before Christ, we were collectively as children and required guardians and tutors (Galatians 3-4). Christ, having completed the groundwork for our salvation and eschatological telos, has enabled His priestly people to move forward in redemptive history as we follow the directive of our enthroned King and drink the wine (signifying His blood) that the priests of the OT could not. Each Lord's day, we can enjoy anticipation of consummated, kingly rest in Him, our perfect sacrifice and High Priest. 

Even if we do not agree with Jordan in all the particulars, there does seem to be something to all this. There is a sort of macroecclesiastic, corporate, redemptive-historical progression the church had to experience before members of the church could drink wine. The whole of that which is invisible to us - the elect, the invisible church - are progressively being individually and visibly gathered into one (WCF XXV.I). As this has been and still is being realized in history, there has also been covenantal progression which, in turn, mirrors the sorts of progressions seen, for instance, on the anthropological, physical, or biological level - i.e. children eat bread long before they drink wine. 

In this way, Presbyterians avoid an over-realized ecclesiology, an ecclesiology which counts as having already happened ecclesiological events which we ought to still anticipate. Whereas now, the visible church has been given new privileges in administering sacraments which were not able to be administered under the older administrations of the covenant of grace, there is still more ingathering, maturing, and progressing to do before the members of the visible church are co-extensive with the invisible church, at which point we will enjoy the privilege of feasting with Christ face to face (Matthew 26:29).

Allowing all this, however, I suggest Jordan misses mirrors at the microecclesiastic, individual, soteriological level. We've just spoken of how the visible body collectively progresses and some analogues to it. At the same time, the whole grows only as the individual members who comprise the whole themselves grow. There must be recognized an individual progression in sanctification toward glorification as individuals put to death the deeds of their bodies (Romans 8:13). 

Just as we want to avoid an over-realized eschatology and over-realized ecclesiology, so too we want to avoid an over-realized soteriology, a soteriology which counts as having already happened soteriological events which we ought to still anticipate - such as the complete eradication of the subjective presence of sin. Jordan recognizes this much and argues against perfectionism (link).

...we must hold that indwelling sin remains and cannot be eradicated until the resurrection. Only the penalty of sin has been removed, and no matter what one does, he cannot reach a sinless state of pure fellowship. Whether he perceives it or not, sin is always present. Confession is important, but it is not magical. Certainly God wants man to confess his sin, but not to manipulate or penetrate the secret will of God. To think that confession can accomplish such things implies perfectionism. 

Rather than take this observation and consider analogues which might be found on this level, however, he follows: 

Today, Chafer’s book has tremendous influence in evangelicalism. Campus Crusade for Christ has popularized what Chafer taught in its Holy Spirit booklet, calling it “spiritual breathing.” Many other groups show the effect of this book in their emphasis on introspection. If confession of sin is emphasized apart from the objective worship of the people of God, it is individualized and internalized. Historically, the Christian Church has practiced objective and corporate confession of sin. It helps to prevent that kind of subjective introspection. It should not be overlooked, however, that Chafer’s theology is essentially Anabaptistic and has extended Anabaptist thought. It separates the objective from the subject in the same way Platonic thought did, and is in the final analysis an internalized subjective theology. 

Any retreat into the inner, personal, and subjective world of man takes him away from God’s righteous objective law. Even the scripture memory of the Pharisees and the Antonians obscured the Scripture itself because it was performed in the context of bad theology and practice. A subjective emphasis carries one away from objectivity. Once this happens, man begins to see his sin in terms of himself. As a result his sin disappears because of his own self deception. In other words, he thinks he is perfect, when he may in fact be in deep sin. Putting it another way, break the mirror and the shame disappears. The knowledge of sin comes via the law. All of the perfectionistic movements of history have rejected both a knowledge of the law and the knowledge of sin.

This is strange. Jordan seems to understand that progression is not merely a corporate phenomenon but a subjective, individual one as well, yet he seems to refuse to admit that dimension has a place in one's doctrine of worship. 

For example, Jordan understands that an over-realized physiology is a physiology which counts as having already happened physiological events which we ought to still anticipate, such as unrealistic physical expectations of those whose bodies have not yet sufficiently developed. As such, Jordan argues that youths should not play football:

...we have to agree with the opinion of physicians that football is unhealthy for young men. The Bible tells us, as does medical science, that our physical frames are not fully set and mature until we are around thirty years old. Up until that time, severe physical stress can do considerable damage to our young, developing bones and cartilege. Thus, God said that the Levites had to be between thirty and fifty years old in order to carry the heavy golden furniture of the Tabernacle (Numbers 4; this is also symbolic, since a man should be at least thirty years old before taking church office upon his shoulders.) Physicians complain that football is too risky for high school and college age youth. Many Christian schools have taken this advice seriously, and have turned to other, less dangerous sports. (link).

Likewise, can we not acknowledge subjective, relevant distinctions in worshippers? In fact, mustn't we acknowledge such distinctions in, say, considering who is qualified to function as an elder? I think Jordan conflates macroecclesial and microecclesial levels, leading him to an over-realized sacramentology, a sacramentology which counts as having already happened sacramental events which some ought to still anticipate - such as setting unrealistic spiritual expectations on ones who have not yet sufficiently developed to examine himself and discern the body (1 Corinthians 11:28-29). Jordan's understanding of this passage flattens it to such an extent that the subjectively diverse experiences mentioned in verse 30 become unintelligible.

When Jordan argues for paedocommunion, I think he misses that a progressive dimension exists in sacramentology just as in most other -ologies. He treats as what is now available to the visible covenant community - due to redemptive-historical progression - as being available to each member of the said community. In short, a fallacy of division.

Much more could be said regarding arguments against paedocommunion (or, for that matter, arguments for infant baptism). Here, I've only tried to organize some thoughts I haven't seen discussed much elsewhere. For those interested, I recommend this book and this series, the first video of which provides further biblical-theological reasons against paedocommunion.

Gordon Clark: Poetry by Clark (PCA Archives)

For some time, I have been meaning to transcribe poetry written by Gordon Clark early in his life. Many of these appear original, although there are some indications here and there of poems Clark may have been copying from another author. Those more familiar with poetry or are willing to do research on this may verify or refute this hypothesis.

I've left typos unedited. In some cases, the writing is quite difficult to decipher, so I'm not entirely positive that everything that follows is correct. Those who are interested can compare what follows to the original photos linked above. 

After transcribing the pages, I ran the pages with foreign languages (pgs. 1, 27, 20, 40, and 41) through google translate and came up with the following:

Pg. 1 translation:

The bigger the rose, the bigger the thorn

The smaller the girls, the greater the anger

Let the flowers stand still 

And the bush 

Others who pass by 

Rejoice too

Pg. 27 translation: 

Life is vain 

A little love 

A little rain 

And good morning 

Life is good 

A little hope 

A little rain 

And good evening

Pg. 30

He brings peace 

Peace is gentle 

Longing, you, 

And what quenches it

Pg. 40

I, the Lord your husband, am a zealous God

Pg. 41

V. G I am certain in my dying day 

That death will not kill me 

He no longer makes me an heir 

From the blessed Canaan 

Another life follows this; 

My Jesus Christ: I am certain. 

____ 

Y. I am certain, so it shall be said 

Until faith becomes shame; 

Nothing shall tear me from Jesus 

I am his sheep, he is my shelter. 

For eternity no tear flies here, 

The motto remains: I am certain. 

Benj. Schmold 1737 

I am certain in my faith 

Which embodies me in Christ. 

Who can rob me of this little thing 

Which his blood prescribes for me under death? 

No precious word confirms this. 

Therefore, my faith says: I am certain. 

____ 

I am certain in my love 

That only Jesus lives and moves. 

That when I practice faith, 

Jesus lives in my heart. 

His body is my paradise. 

He loves me: I am certain. 

___ 

I am certain in my life that 

Jesus' grace is with me, 

Which helps me lift all my joys; 

When my heart clings to His 

Then I regard no obstacle. 

God cares for me: I am certain.

Finally, on page 30, a poem by Clark ends with some dashed lines. Given the rhyming scheme, number of dashes, and spaces between certain dashes, I think they were meant to be left "unspoken" and for the intended reader (Clark's wife, Ruth) to fill in. See the brackets for my interpretation, and see later in this post (or page 30 in the above link) for the original:

Calm Commandments
Gift to heaven sentiment
Sweetheart Ruthie, true
Simple, plainly
But not vainly
Darling [I love you]

Here follows the transcription of the pages:

1918-1920, 1927. Poetry by Clark. 

Je grosser die Rose je grosser der Dorn
Je Kleiner die Madchen je grosser der Zorn

Original has an old word e Madchen

Lasset die Blumen stefin
Und den Strauch
Andere, die voruber gehn
Freuen sich auch

} in the wooded hills


Found in Algebra[?] of William Clark
Dated 1873. Signed
O Phiddle Styx

The distance may sever
Thine image from me
My spirit will ever
Cling fondly to thee;
In absence twill hover
Round pleasures of yore
And sigh to liver over
Those memories once more
- O phiddle Styx


Awake again!, where cannon boom
And all is blood and gore,
Tis there that MEN give up their lives
For King or Emperor.
I listen to a soldier hum
He hums a grand old tune;
And as new words flashthru my mind
I fall into a swoon.

It's a long way back to Kentucky
It's 'a long way to go,
It's a long way back to ~Kentucky
Where the sweetest grasses grow.
Good-bye my old Kentucky
Farewell blue grass too
For it's much too far to old Kentucky
So blue grass----------adieu

1918

A HORSE!

A horse, that's all, and wounded,
Ashell has split my side,
Others are lying near me
and here we must abide.
Oh, for just one drink of water
And oh, to be back home,
If only this war were over
I never more would roam.

These tho'ts came crowding to my brain
Till one tho't stood supreme,
And falling asleep on the banks of the Marne
I dreamt this wonderful dream.

'A colt.I stood with my mother,
A colt, once more, and free
I went skipping around the pasture,
No one could happier be
I nibbled at the sweet young grass
I frisked about and played
Oh, how I love that pasture
I wish 1 there had stayed.


IF YOU'RE NOT A SOLDIER!!

Breathes there a man with soul so dead
That never to himself hath said:-
"The boys are beating Kaiser Bill
While I am sitting safe and still
Why not get up and battle too
And do the best a man can do?
Does not my heart within me burn
When tward Berlin their face turn?
Can I not help this struggle on?
Why, I've been sleeping far too long
I cannot fight, alas, it's true
So really now, what can I do?
I know! I'll pour my pockets out
And with my gold the foe I'll rout;
And I'll do my bit for ages beyond
By buying a government
LIBERTY BOND!”
1918


A SOLDIER'S AID

In God's Acre far from fighting
Thy dead body now reposes
With a wooden cross above thee
While the daylight softly closes.
Thou art heelless of the sorrows
And the strife of bitter factions
Of the storms of human passion
Of our armies ani their actions.

When the moil of day is ended
And the sun-god sinks to setting,
When the strife of war is over
With its taking and its getting;
Then to thee my thoughts returning
Making trench-like e'en more sadd'nig
But it helps me in the struggle
Ever near this noise so madd'ning.

In these hours so dark with sorrow
When great multitudes are weeping
Aid me ever in this struggle,
Thou, who art so lowly sleeping

1918


THE END OF A PERFECT DAY.
(translated in 1919)

Quani tu finis un parfait jour
Et reate seul pensivement
Tantque le soleil couche, toujours
La paix est ton sentiment.
Tu pense a c’'qu'l'fin d'un parfait jour
Veut dire aux coeurs fatigues
Et tu veux que le fin d'un parfait jour
Survive par toute l'annee.


WAR!

Grass green gas, screeching screaming shells
Mud, full of trenches, what a Hell of hells
Nearly drowned in rain,suffocating mud
There, falls another man with an unheard thud.
Crucified Canadiens, Frenchmen torture too
Belgians with their eyes gouged out
Who says this is not, true!!

PEACE?

No longer do the shells harass
The youthful swain and country lass
Their homes are nearly built again
No longer are they drenched in rain.
Gas-green grass once more in found
Nearly covering' all the ground.
Peaceful home again exist
Safe from the Boches iron fist.
But, they're still across the Rhine
Watching!Waiting!to cross the line
To kill your father and maltreat you
Oh remember!
SOUVENEZ-VOUS!

1919


LIFE!

Tell! what is the use of living
Life's nothing but drudgery and gloom
It's all just giving and getting
To vanish away at your doom
It's trouble and sorrow and grief
Then to that is added some more
It's a good thing life's only brief
And then all our sorrow is o’er

1919


GERMAN ADVANCE.

Clod was the wind that arrived from the north
Dark was the ruin on which the child lay,
Lips from which words would be once spoken forth,
Once, and then closed till the great judgernent day.
Opened her eyes half and then did she speak
“Parents are dead and so here now I lie,
Huns killed my father because I was I meek weak
No one is near me so now let me die”
Happy and gay were the people of France
Working their farms in the warm August sun
When the news came on the savage advance
Made by the still more detestible hun,
Innocent children, aged women and men
Only dared stay at the risk of their life
Horrldly, beastly they came from their den
Plunging the world into long bitter strife
Then came the soldiers, true Frenchman of zeal
Belgians and English on victory bent
Anxious to suffer all woe and no weal
Conquer the Germans and they’d be content.
The Belgians did well but the English did better
The Frenchmen excelled till the Yankees arrived,
Commands were obeyed up to the last letter
And yet it still seemed as if the huns thrived.
Back of the lines was a girl nearly starved
Only a child who escaped from the hun
Shivering,suffering all unobserved none.
Father and brothers and relatives
Intense more and more her suffering grew
Till past all her suffering she laid alone
Offering a prayer to the world, said adieu
No one but God heard except the hard stone. 1919



LA TOMBE DIT A LA ROSE V. Hugo

The grave, said to the rose:-
The tears with which the morn arose
What doest, thou,lovely flower?"
The rose said the the groave:-
"What doest thou with the brave
Whom you in your jaws devour?"

The rose said;- "O solemn grave
With the tears the daybreak grave,
Golden perfume,as sweet can be.”
The grave said:- "O sad flower
With the souls that come each hour,
Angels of eternity."

Translated at C.S.S. in 1919



CLASS POEM.
Northeast High School
June 1920

Today we're gathered here to celebrate
With saddened joy, and to commemorate
Our passing from this school, in which these years,
Four long ones past, we've spent, and naught endears
It more to us than this our death, our birth,
The two combined on this one day of mirth.
Our death because no more we'll wander thru
These halls of laughter bursting forth anew
At every turn; qur birth because demise
Is but the threshold to the ecxtacies
Of after-life, and preparation here
Must joined be with full fruition there
And this, our graduation, is that link
Which joins the two, and sure no one could shrink
To take the step which leads him o'er the brink.

The retrospect is pleasant now, the time
We've spent has well been spent and quite sublime
The pleasures we've enjoyed. We now look back
And happily the happenings , no lack
Of fun, relate. No Philtres needed here
To make to us our old Northeast more dear.
But later on, will those same happenings seem
As fine? The joy we'll then derive, supreme
Will be; as in a journey with small stones
Beneath the foot our heart makes many groans
Because those stones are sharp, but at the end,
When we look back, invisibly they blend,
Into the path, and only points are seen
Where leafy trees, their shadows on the green
Bestow, on which we rested when the sun
Blazing hot with fury. Just so later on
Twill be, when we look back, and think, we'll see
The happier spots, the brighter days, and we
Will never view the dark obscurity.

From time to time a visit we will pay
And once again enjoy in this dear, gay,
Old place the fellowship of friend with friend.
And in mosaic of the neatest blend
Our memory will piece together all
The pleasant scenes, and we will then recall
Today, and how we now enjoy the pun
These class day wits will make upon each one
Of us. We’ll linger in our thoughts on how
We sat beneath each prof whose Zeus-like brow
Enlightened us, and how he thought us bright
When we might study on th’ eventful night
Before the last exam, and how we wrote
In briefest time the verse on which they dote,
The profs, I mean for literary taste
Has been with us a desolated waste.
Nor in the study of our mother tongue
Alone, do we deserve to be unsung
But still, to us a few good points belong.

These four years past, we've traveled long and far
From deepest ocean bed to farthest star.
We’ve learned why most things work, we’re ready now
To join the busy world and show them how
To run things in a better way. Maybe,
The several future presidents you see
Here, will make politics so fair that all
The nation will be pleased and people shall
Contented be for once. These physicists
New laws discover, these economists,
Forever settle all disputes between
Imperial capital, and labor keen
About its injured self. We've studied them
And know their ins and outs, the stratagem
That's needed to produce results. No more?
We've ranged in realms of Rome and Greece, galore
The heros we have met. Aeneas good
We've followed thru has wanderings, the blood
Of men have we seen spilt before the gates
Of Troy. We've watched the swelling tide of hates
O’erwhelm and drown them all in one vast mass
Of straining struggling limbs, on that morass
OfTeucre's shore. There’s Bryseis substitute,
For Helen, there's Ulysses, man astute
He was; and all th'Olympian tribe of gods
Together with a host of demi gods.
But what care we? The dreaded end is past.
We stand for graduation here, at last
And no one can our finished purpose blast.

It is with saddened joy we celebrate
This passing' from our school; we graduate
To know that when we do return, the one
To whom our hearts are bound in love, has gone.
With bands of loving kindness has he bound
His heart to us; and sharp will be the wound
Resulting from the severence of these ties,
O honoured one, most humble, yet most wise.
Just as the Fates would cut the cord of life
And end for mortal man his mundane strife,
So will it seem with us, for we have long
Been guided by his steady hand; among
The treacherous rocks of school-boy days, has he
Our pilot been, and very skilfully
Has guided us through out the times of storm.
Just as the wise Clothanthus , seeing' harm
In hidden reefs, has rightly led his ship
In skilful manner that he might outstrip
The rest and win that race of old, just so
Have we been led; our ship, it may careen
A bit when he , who up till now has been
Our helmsman true, has vanished from the scene.

The forests vanish, and the mountain too,
The seas dry up and e'en the earth must go;
A block of granite crumbles slow away,
The sun no more will give the light of day;
The stars and all their systems disappear,
There's naught that does not change from year to year;
Ourselves must shortly pass by too, and give
Our place to others, naught can e'er survive;
BUT, when a name, is carved deep upon
The hearts of men, the memory lingers on.


LA SOURCE

Quite near a lake, there starts a source
Between two stones, a ·corner in;
With joy the water shapes its course
As is at last the sea to win.

It murmurs soft: "Oh what a joy
Beneath the earth it all was night
And. Here I taste without alloy
The grass so green in bright sunlight.

The myosotis in flowers of blue
Weretelling me: Forget-me-not:
And dragon flies as here they flew
Would brush me by in their gavot.

At my side birds drink their fill.
Who knows? Perhaps a turn or two
And I can turn a massive mill,
A river to the mystic blue.

I may embellish with my foam
A great stone bridge or granite pier
Or carry steamers to and from
On the ocean's vasty mere.”

Thus prattles on the little stream,
A hundred projects, like an elf,
Boasting joyous in its dream.
Its wave cannot contain itself.

But its cradle is its tomb,
The future giant dies quite small,
Hardly born, it meets its doom
In the lake which drinks it all.

Trans. fr.
Th. Guatier.
1920.


A THOUGHT!

The charming night
Of soft moonlight
So clear, so bright
Steals away my soul.
Oh, that I might
At such a height
By truth and right
Attain that perfect goal.

The night I see
Brings back to me
A memory
Of when I asked a boon.
Its purity
Is right lovely
I wish to be
Like that clear pure moon.

You, for my mate
Did hesitate
And sealed my fate
That lovely night of June

Tis now too late
To imitate
The moon so great
Or sing its tender tune.
1920

BALLADE.

He asked: "Does work or leisure make the man?"
To answer I will do the best I can.
The man who works from morn to night at things
Whose interest lie in but the cash it brings
To him, is not the one who by his work
Is lead into the place where honors lurk.
I think that he belongs to labor's clan,
Altho, it all depends upon the man.
But let us try a nobler type of life
The one who,bothered not with money's strife
Rejects the tasks of smaller consequence
Attains a philosophic excellence
Takes cognizance of osophies and isms
Invented by all men in divers schisms.
There is but work, no leisure for that dan
Altho, it all depends upon the man.
There is between these different types, a one
Who works at work and of times plays at fun
Of all the men there are, most numerous,
The happy medium, not frivolous.
Nor yet too sapient for their own good.
These are who make a happy brotherhood.
To arbitrary state, tis a trapan
Because it all depends upon the man.

L’ENVOI

Philosophers, when you this puzzle try
To find an answer, work until you die
I've answered it, it is the best one can,
Tis this:- "It all depends upon the man.”

1920


LIMERICKS.

A Ford is a notable thing
It starts to go with a bing
It can run over nails
And puppy dog tails
And still look fit for a king.

* * * * *

The lim'rick is poor kind of verse
Perhaps, maybe, it needs a nurse,
If I say what I think
You all would turn pink
For it ought to be put in a hearse.

* * * * *

English is pretty good stuff
We all like it, rather enough,
But this sort of dope
Takes from us all hope
Of getting away with the bluff.

1920


To You

Sometimes I have a sudden dread
That I might never see you more
And the thing remain unsaid
Which I've not told before.

It is a fearful sort of thing
That suddenly o'ertakes me
And gives to me a biting sting
I wish it would forsake me;
But now I have the chance this time
To tell it collectaneous
In this littly jingling' rhyme,
A piece extemoraneous.

It's simply this:- I love the shore
I, love the virgin forest too

But things like those I love the more
Because I first loved you.

1920


RAIN
(As viewed by a young boy)

Pitter patter, spitter spatter
The rain comes tumbling down
It's fin and good for country folk
But it's no darn good in town.

The streets get wet, you can't spin tops
And you can't shoot marbles too,
Because the dirt is soft and moist
And the pot hole full of goo.

Try to think of a game of nibs
Being played on a rainy day
Your shooter best like all the rest
Ernbedded in a ton of clay.

Or if you can imagine plaese
A game, of' hide and go,
Secure in a place, best chance to reach base
And you slip in a puddle, oh woe!

And when it rains. it rains alway
There's never any end
It rains all night, it rains all day
On that you may depend.

Pitter patter, spitter spatter,
The rain still tumbles down
It may be good for country folk
But it’s no darn good in town.

1920


Dec. 31 1920.

Tis finished, 1920's past and gone,
Its work is over and its labor done,
Or else, not done. Its hopes and. fears, its joys
And tears will be forgotten soon, the boys
Of yester-year will be the men to-day
The men of yester-year will pass away.
And so the endless cycle runs, the world
Holds nothing new except the old unfurl’d
Before our eyes, tis we who are the new.
And tis for us to learn the old, review
The past in present time, not to know much
And then to pass away like others such.
But oh! you 1921; - you’re here
If you smile fair, or if you are austere
We have to battle on, but soon, at last,
Safe in our Father's home, the harbor past
We'll be; the start of still another year.

1920


My Love ----

T'were vain to feign
There's no impression,
For you impress.
The song is wrong
Without confession
And I confess
---My love.

1920


MOONLIGHT.

Moonbeams splashing in the water
Play a pleasant melody,
Soft'ning lights and darkning shadows
Bringing thoughts of love to me.
Many people pass that water,
Many people see these beams,
But the thoughts that they are thinking
Differ widely from my dreams.
Some are pious, some are prudent,
Others lacking sense of shame,
Some are dreary, some are weary,
But the moonlight is the same.

1920


Every Heart’s Song.

From afar in the dim distant twilight
Come the strains of an organ’s grand sound
As it peals forth a wonderful message
To the world who stands list'ning around.
Its calm melody quiets our troubles
Its sweet dream is the theme of our lay,
And its echo remains in our memory
Passing strong, from day unto day.

It's the tune that is always beside us
From the time that our eyes first see light,
And remains with us, dominant
Till eyes close at our voyage night.

Oh thou great and harmonious echo
Which reverberates oft thru the soul
Like the joy of Miltiades’ victory;
Of Phidippides gaining his goal;
Thou art balm to the man who is mortal, above;
Thou art balm that is sent from
In far countries thy name may be different
But the name which we use--- it is "Love.”

1921


Vision of Virtue.

It is night, and the darkness around me
Is oppressively blind, and I grope
For a place which is safe to repose in
And to wait for the morning’s first hope.
As I wait in that sullen black blindness
There's a spark on th'horizon, I see
A small light which is glowing, advancing
Hesitatingly, slowly, to me.
Th'indistinguishable and vague outline
Is approaching· my couch more and more
And as it draws nearer, its glimmer
Makes me want to fall down and adore.

The small spark, the vague outline grows larger
Till at last it permits me to guess
It’s a true and material object
With a singular heavenliness.

As the figure comes closer and closer:
It dispels the blind darkness from me
And before me in gorgeous apparel
Is standing-- I cry--It is She!
But my rapture’s too great for my sleeping,
For the vision has passed and is gone
And to me there is left but the memory
As I wake in the light of the dawn.

1921


Fu vie est vaine
Un peu d’amour
Un peu De Raine
Et peirs Bonjour

Ka vie est bieve
Un feu D’espoir
Un fun de rene
Et peirs Bonsoir

Geo. M


When daytime ends and daylight fades
When night comes on and dark pervades
Interests pales, some things grow dear
But love a bright flame burns still more clear

Though blackness grip the present hour
And sorrow make the world seem dour
That conversation flame dispels all gloom
And makes a desert life the bloom


Galilean, Thou has conquered
Thus the vanquished pagan cries
Galilean, Thou hast conquered
Woeful wail, as, lost, he dies.
Loathing hate, remorse abhorrence
As the cross is lifted high
Galilean Thou has conquered
This the shriek that rends the sky.

O the bitter hate and carnage
Gnashing teeth and fearful wail
For the King of Kings has conquered
And the cross of Christ prevails.

Not in hate; in love resounding
Let this e’er our triumph be
Galilean Thou has conquered
Thou hast conquered even me.


Calm Commandments
Gift to heaven sentiment
Sweetheart Ruthie, true
Simple, plainly
But not vainly
Darling - ---- ---

Heidelberg July 1927

Inspired by
Der bust die Ruh
Der Friede mild
Die Gehnsucht, du,
Und was sie stillt


For life is not all pleasure
And love as well brings pain
But who would shrink from life’s problems
When a union of souls is the gain?
The world is saved by sorrow
Through weakness each grows strong
Beneath the world’s chaos is order
Overruling life’s noise there’s song.
Then bear your burdens as blessings
And carry your cross with a smile
For God is faithful and never
Sends other than common trial } I Cor 10:13
To each other we pledge our devotion
To each other we’ll ever be true
And if you will always love me, dear
I always shall live just for you.

After the Shoemakers Ball

There was no moon in the heaven
No star could be seen in the sky
No flowers made the air fragrant
No stream went rippling by.
Not trees, but an office building
Darkened the street are-lights
Yet you made it the place of places
And your smile the night of nights
Your kisses had never been sweeter
Your arms ne’er drew me so near
You transformed the old porch into heaven
And changed darkness to brilliance clear
For we saw far into the future
Where our lives are so entwined
Yet sadness and joy were mingled
And pain with love combined


Yet sorrow with joy was mingled
And pain and love confined
As we looked far into the future
Where our lives are so entwined.
Life is not eternal pleasure
And love as well brings pain
But who would shrink from life’s problems
When eternal worth is the gain?
The world is saved by sorrow
Through weakness each grows strong.
In chaos rule an order
And guiding the noise, a song.
Face the life’s burdens with courage
Support your cross with your faith
None other but common trials
Oppress you – not even death.

After the Shoemakers Ball

There was no moon in the heaven
No star could be seen in the sky
No flowers made the air fragrant
No stream went rippling by.
Not trees, but an office building
Darkened the street are-lights
Yet you made it the place of places
And your smile the night of nights
Your kisses had never been sweeter
Your arms ne’er drew me so near
You transformed the old porch into heaven
And changed darkness to brilliance clear


For life is not all pleasure
And love as well brings pain
But who would shrink from life’s problems.
When a union of souls is the gain?
The world is saved by sorrow
Through weakness each grows strong
Because the world’s chaos is order
Overruling life’s noise there’s a son
Then bear your burdens as blessings
And carry your cross with a smile
For God is faithful and never
Sends other than a common trial
To each other we’ll pledge our devotion
To each other we’ll ever be true
And if you will always love me, dear,
I always shall live just for you.

After the Shoemakers Ball

There was no moon in the heaven
No star could be seen in the sky
No flowers made the air fragrant
No stream went rippling by.
Not trees, but an office building
Darkened the street are-lights
Yet you made it the place of places
And your smile the night of nights
Your kisses had never been sweeter
Your arms ne’er drew me so near
You transformed the old porch into heaven
And changed darkness to brilliance clear
Yet sadness with joy was mingled
And pain and love combined
As we saw far into the future
Where our lives are so entwined


When daytime ends

Time can’t cause Lethe and distance can’t sever
Tho that may be for month, that shall not be forever
In the month of September there’s coming a day
I’ll return to your side and there I shall stay
And there I shall stay and stay one, one aye.

The hour is arriving, the ship soon departs
In leaving leaves achings in two tender hearts
Because they are one in love coinciding
Together in exstacy always abiding.
And Time and cause Lethe.


No one, Ruth, so dear as you
None so true a lover
None loves me and I love none
Except my Ruth and we are one
Because we love each other.
G. H. C.


Sprinkle me with kisses if you want my love to grow
And when I want to kiss you don’t you dare to tell me No
Kiss me in the morning and in the afternoon
And profusely in the evening underneath a hidden moon
Wrap your arms around me and say you love me so, of
Sprinkle me with kisses if you want my love to grow.

Sprinkle me with kisses if you want my love to grow
Get the garden hose our and don’t act to blame slow.
Sprinkle sprinkle sprinkle until I’m soaking wet
Let me take you on my lap and teach you how to pet.
I’ll kiss you in a thousand ways that others do not know
Sprinkle me with kisses if you want my love to grow.


To each other we pledge our allegiance
To each other we’ll ever be true
And if you will always love me dear
I always shall live for just you.


Madonna, Christ child, angels, many;
Paintings from the greatest masters;
Flowers in colorful abundance;
Make old cities wondrous fair.
Statue of the Winged Victory,
Laocoon and Venus too,
Mona Lisa; yet still grander
Raphael’s Sistine wonders rare.
Yet far from home, they’re passing lonely
Perfume wasting on the air,
Because, for me, their charm, their meaning.
Lies in you, sweet Ruthie fair.


Beyond the Ideal World there shines
The source of Truth and Beauty
It makes things known and real
It puts the “one” in Duty
But Pluto could not speak the Good
Nor understanding the true
Because, the reason is quite clear
He never had met you.
You are my Idea of the Good
My Beautiful My Truth
You are the object of my love
My sweet dear darling Ruth


I the Lord am a jealous God,
Ich der Her dein Gatt, bin ein eifreiger God
God is active??


V. G Ich bin gewiB in meinen Sterben
DaB mich dertod nicht toten Kanan’
Er macht nirch mer zu einen Erban
Von dem begluckten Kanaan
Ein ander Leben folgt auf dies;
Mein Jesus Christ: ich bin gewiB.
____

Y. Ich bin gewiB, so sall es heiBen
Bis aus dem Glauben Schanen wird;
Es sall mich nichts von Jesu reiBen
Ich bin sein Schaf, er ist mein Hut.
In Ewigkeit flogt hier Ken RiB,
Die Losung bleibt: ich bin gewiB.

Benj. Schmold 1737

Ich bin gewiB in meinem Glauben
Der mich in Christum ern verleibt.
Wer Kann mir dieses Klein od raube
Das mir sain Blut under Tod versahreibt?
Gein teures Wort bekraftigt dies
Drum sagt mein Glaub: Ich bin gewiB
____

Ich bin gewbB in meiner Liebe
Die nur bin Jesum lebt und webt.
daB, wenn ich mich in Glauben ube
main Jesus in dem Herzen lebt.
Sein Leiben is mein Paradies.
Er liebet mich: Ich bin gewiB.
___

Ich bin gewiB in meinem Leben
daB Jesus Gnode bei mir ist,
die hilft mir allen Jasnmar heben;
wenn sich mein Herz an seines schlieft
So achte ich Kein Hindernis
Gott sorgt fur mich: ich bin gewiB


Madonna, Christ child, angels, many
Paintings from the greatest masters,
Flowers in colorful abundance
Make old cities wondrous fair.
Statue of the Winged Victory
Laocoon and Venus too
Mona Lisa; yet still grander
Raphael’s Sistine wonder rare.
Yet far from home, they’re passing lonely
Perfume wasting on the air,
Because for me, their charm, their meaning
Lies in you, sweet Ruthie fair.


You may walk the streets of Paris from Pigalle to Halie,
From the Star where lies the soldier to the Porte of St. Denys,
In cafes of every nature from the humblest to the Dome
Are the boys and girls of Paris who can’t make love at home.
There’s no scene you see more often than of what I’m writing now
And if you will watch them closely, you will certainly learn how
Their gestures and their loving put a sweetness in the air
For no matter where in Paris you will find the lovers there.
They walk with arms around their waists and hold each other’s hands
They whisper low, they give the look which love well understands.
They stop at every corner before they cross the street,
And ere they run the danger their loving lips must meet.
But before I sip such sweetness, before I rest content,
I must recross the ocean to the place from which I went.
For I’ve searched the streets of Paris for the one I did not see
The only darling Ruthie-girl, who is meant alone for me.
It is hard to stay here waiting, though it’s but three weeks or four.
They will pass, but far more slowly than the whole three months before.
Oh the joy, the bliss, the rapture, when my sweetheart’s face I see
For there’s no one on earth dearer than my Ruthie is to me.

- - -

And the waiting will be over when I reach the other shore
Then let nothing come to harm us, neither separate nor sever,
And we’ll live together, sorrow never, love forever
And as time goes always onward we shall love forevermore.

Pairs. Sept 2 1927


“It is not good that man should be alone.”
Thru many thousand years this word still stands, 

And ever shall rest firm, till man no more
Can give the sign of clasping friendly hands.
It is not good for man to live alone;
To sail across the ocean to strange lands
Where foreign tongues are spoken, no friends near
Will teach what human nature still demands.
At home as well, man should not live alone;
Why, home means friends, it can’t be made by one;
Without a loving wife to share in all
Why have a house, you might as well have none.
And in this sense the proverb first was said
All Eden’s, grandeur, without Eve, was dead.
The purple of the dark lilies, lighted by
The roses red was ugly, lonely, vain
The garden’s still and quiet was but pain,
The throbbing life of nature cold as stone
Because a man was living there, alone!
God grant that always someone stays by me.
I’m human and a human sweetheart’s love
Who faithful is thru all the trials of life
Is nearest here to that which is above
God grant me then a sympathetic wife.
Then when life’s sun is sinking and the night
Engulfs me in its dark uncharted sea,
When human help is helpless and I’m gone,
Oh Lord, it is not good to be alone
Be Thou my Friend throughout Eternity

Paris Sept 3. 1927
8:30-9:00 AM.

The Role of the Church in Christian Education

I've been thinking about how American education improvement is possible. As I've been reading more about my denomination's history (OPC), I keep coming back to the same issue: what is the role of the church in Christian education?

This is a difficult question. Different stations in life require different standards of education. Of course, to grow in grace and knowledge, all people need some education. The layman will need education sufficient to understand the word of God when it is preached to him or her. A pastor will need much more education than this: he needs to know the needs of his flock to pray for them, he needs to know how to meet certain of those needs, he needs to know how to administer the sacraments, he needs to know what to preach and how preach it, he needs to know how to discipline his flock, and so on. 

Let's take a specific case: a young man who wants to become a pastor. From whom should he receive the sort of education mentioned above? Typically, he goes to seminary. Now, in Doug Douma's The Presbyterian Philosopher, a footnote to chapter 6 reads as follows:

That it was Clark’s opinion that a seminary should be under the authority of a church, not an independent institution, is confirmed by a recollection of Genevieve Long, widow of Clark’s friend Howard Long.—Email to the author from Ellen Schulze, daughter of Genevieve Long

Why does it matter whether seminaries can be legitimately independent institutions? Consider the history of American Presbyterianism. In Gary North's Crossed Fingers, he notes:

The ideology of academic freedom rests on a lie: the idea that the professor's pursuit of truth is sovereign, irrespective of the intent of those who finance this pursuit. This lie is undergirded by another lie: that truth exists independently of the hierarchical authority associated with biblical covenantalism. That is to say, there is supposedly some self-existing, religiously neutral, universal system or methodology of truth that exists apart from the self-revelation of God in the Bible. Academic freedom rests, in short, on the myth of religious neutrality... 

The problem with a seminary is that it trains candidates for the preaching ministry. A seminary screens access to ordination. It can be outside the ecclesiastical chain of command, yet its authority to accept men as students and to graduate only some of them makes it functionally part of the system. In Presbyterianism, the seminary becomes the most important part, for its professors possess great though informal authority, and its graduates inherit denominational authority over time. 

No Presbyterian seminary was ever under extensive ecclesiastical authority, not even Princeton, which was the most subordinate of all the seminaries. The reunion of 1869 did lead to the establishment of veto power over new faculty appointments by the General Assembly. The denomination had only until the next General Assembly meeting to veto any professorial appointment. After that meeting ended, the professor was safe for the remainder of his academic career, even if subsequently de-frocked. By continuing to extend the positive sanction of institutional acceptability to Union Seminary after its secession in 1892, the denomination transferred its inheritance to the mortal enemies of both Calvinism and the Westminster Confession. This transfer was completed in 1936.

North writes more about this topic than I intend to reproduce here. For that reason, his book is much more thoughtful and engaging than, say, Fighting the Good Fight, by OPC historians John Muether and Darryl Hart. This is not to say the latter book is without value.

To observant readers, Muether and Hart beg the same questions as North raises without explicitly asking (let alone answering) them. In describing how Machen's formation of an Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions - pushback against the increasingly liberal PCUSA Board of Foreign Missions in the 1930s - was not unanimously approved amongst conservatives, Muether and Hart insightfully analogize the situation to Machen's formation of Westminster Theological Seminary:

A more troubling concern for Machen and the supporters of the board was the division the board provoked within the conservative cause. Many conservatives within the church, especially some members of Westminster Seminary’s faculty and administration, equally opposed to modernism, argued that the Independent Board was too antagonistic and that it did not serve the best interests of the cause of orthodoxy. Sadly, some of these allies deserted the cause over disagreement on strategy. The irony was that these supporters had gone along with the founding of Westminster, an independent Presbyterian institution. From Machen’s perspective, organizing the Independent Board was no different from establishing Westminster Seminary. Emergency situations required unusual tactics.

...while uncomfortable with the board’s independence, Machen believed the dire situation in the church required an emergency measure. According to Robert Churchill, the Independent Board was never intended to be permanent. It would be dissolved if and when the official board reformed. The Independent Board was a temporary effort to address the desperate state of missions in the church. Moreover, the centralization and bureaucratization of many of the Presbyterian Church’s ministries, missions being only one example, severely restricted efforts to reform denominational agencies by removing them from the more immediate supervision of church courts. (link)

Muether and Hart later discuss how the question of the Independent Board of Foreign Missions was resolved:

Even though the independence of the board from ecclesiastical oversight suggested that the conservative missions agency condoned non-Presbyterian forms of church government, the board’s constitution stated that it would support only those missionaries who vowed to conduct and establish missions based on the Westminster Confession and “the fundamental principles of Presbyterian Church government.” The board’s independence at its founding in 1933, then, was merely a temporary measure to protest the desperate state of the mainline denomination’s missions enterprise. In other words, despite its independence, the board was committed to establishing and conducting Presbyterian, not independent, missions.

Conspicuous in its absence, however, Muether and Hart never return to discuss the permanence of the independency of seminaries... although this too is a question that has been discussed in OPC history. The OPC's Committee on Theological Education - elected by the 11th general assembly - wrote:

The commission given by God to His church requires the conduct on the part of the church of certain forms of theological education. There are, however, strict limits to the scope of the theological education that may properly be undertaken by the church. These limits do not allow for the inclusion in the programme of theological education undertaken by the church of such a curriculum of theological studies as is necessary to equip men for a competent discharge of the Gospel ministry. Since the church must not exceed the terms of its commission and must limit itself to those activities which Holy Scripture establishes as the proper function of the church, it is the judgment of the Committee that it would be a usurpation of authority and a violation of the order which Christ has instituted in His church for the church to undertake the conduct of the comprehensive theological education which is ordinarily and properly undertaken by theological seminaries or by theological faculties in universities...

A church thus certainly may conduct theological education for the training of its ministry. The question now arises whether, in the present historical situation of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the church must conduct theological education. Successive general assemblies have judged that Westminster Theological Seminary is providing adequate theological education in accordance with the standards of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church. This committee believes that the judgment of the successive assemblies in this matter is sound, and that Westminster is providing the necessary theological education for prospective ministers of our church. The committee believes that it is thus not necessary for The Orthodox Presbyterian Church to establish a seminary of its own. 

As a layman in the OPC - a denomination I love - this utterly baffles me! I am open to persuasion on this subject, but seminaries and universities didn't even exist for the first millennium following Christ's ascension (see below). Who trained prospective ministers during that time? Do the "terms" of the commission of the church not include discipleship, or would the above committee have argued that one who suggests discipleship ought to include educating prospective ministers would be somehow suggesting a "usurpation of authority," "a violation of the order which Christ has instituted in His church"? 

As an aside, the committee who wrote this (and the below conclusion) was comprised of five men, all of whom were either founding faculty members of WTS or former WTS students (one of whom further went on to become the executive secretary for WTS). Is it not a conflict of interest for people so invested in WTS to be asked to investigate whether WTS is providing "the necessary theological education for prospective ministers of our church," let alone whether the OPC ought to "establish a seminary of its own"? 

In a ReformedForum podcast on The Role of the Seminary in Today's World, Al Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, said the following:

A theological seminary bears a stewardship that is absolutely unprecedented. There’s no New Testament seminary. There’s not a seminary found in the New Testament. What you do have is someone - in particular, the example of the apostle Paul - who is teaching Timothy, helping to correct Apollos, being a part of working out the theological formation of those churches and of its teaching office. And the seminary better be that writ large.

Peter Lillback, President of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, observed:

As goes the pulpit, so goes the church. As goes the church, so goes the pulpit. As goes the seminary, so goes the pulpit. What's whispered in the seminary will be preached in the pulpit.

Strong language. Mohler follows:

I look at the wall of every doctor I go to visit. I want lots of good framed certificates from places I recognize. If I’m going to place my life in your hand, I want medical schools that sound legit: Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, they sound great. But why is it when people think about what’s even more important – which is the care of souls – all of a sudden they think someone can do with something less than the best? I want students who know they’re going to be holding the care of souls in their hands, and thus they need the highest standard of education. I don’t want anyone who’s looking for less than that.

How about students who are looking for more than that? How about students who are looking for schools which want to be held accountable before God’s people for the education they provide precisely because that education is supposed to be designed to be the best means by which students learn to care for souls?

To be clear, I have considered going to seminary, and in the right season of life, I might. I'm all for the idea that Christians take the riches of the world and reappropriate them for Christ. It is often the case that secularists make advancements before God's people do, only for God's people to plunder them. That secular universities preceded seminaries does not mean we should commit a genetic fallacy about the potential good of a seminary. At the same time, reappropriation entails reconsideration of the ways in which the goods can and should be put to use. That includes to whom a seminary and faculty is accountable.

I do not pretend to have answers to every question which could be raised on this point. However, I would not think that the education of prospective fathers within a denomination should be outsourced to those who are not accountable to the hierarchical structure of the denomination. Fathers are responsible for the instruction of their children (Ephesians 6), children who may grow up to themselves be fathers. As in earthly matters, so too, one would think, in heavenly matters. After all, God taught Adam so that Adam could teach his family.

In drawing that analogy, I'm not suggesting that all education must be performed by direct instruction from a father (see below). One might take that as reason to suppose that an independent seminary can perform the work of educating prospective ministers just as a teacher can perform the work of educating one's child. 

However, if I'm not personally teaching my son something, I am nevertheless responsible for who teaches him, how they teach him, and what they teach to him. If I learned nothing else from North's book, I learned the importance of negative sanctions. If someone is teaching my son badly or wrongly, it is my responsibility to rectify the problem, and I have legitimate authority to do so. That might involve correcting the teacher directly, bypassing the teacher's authority (assuming there is someone over him), or removing my son from the charge of the teacher. If I do nothing, I will have failed my son and myself. North describes the consequence of [a failure to impose] sanctions in terms of inheritance. If one is not careful, plunder can work the other way around: Satan looks to plunder our Christian progeny, after all.

Now, what negative sanctions can a denomination currently impose on an independent seminary? A denomination could, through a committee (say), follow the father-son-teacher illustration in the preceding paragraph to a certain extent. In a case that a seminarian exposes a teacher teaching badly or wrongly, a committee could confront a teacher directly. They could also bypass the teacher by speaking to his authorities, i.e. the administration of the seminary. 

But in case neither of those options cause change, what negative sanctions can a denomination really impose? If the seminary is independent, the denomination cannot remove the teacher. Economic sanctions seem to be the one and only remaining option: a denomination might rule out or minimize ordaining those from a seminary whose teachers and teaching don't align with the standards of the denomination.

In one sense, this sanction threatens prospective candidates. That threat might deter prospective candidates from attending said independent seminary... conversely, it might drive prospective candidates into ministering for other denominations. Separately, the sanction also threatens the seminary. But in the case of a relatively smaller denomination such as the OPC, economic sanctions are less likely to make an impact on the policies of an independent seminary.

For economic sanctions to become an effective threat against an independent seminary, a smaller denomination would have to first expand. This leads to an irony: a smaller denomination which prioritizes power through economic sanctions is driven to grow its church to an extent its voice can only be ignored with difficulty. In turn, this renders the denomination more susceptible to the temptation of artificial growth through confessional drift or compromise, the very thing to be avoided. 

In fact, there is already an inherent tension for a denomination to even believe that an independent seminary upon which it relies for pulpit supply is primarily driven by economics. There is less reason to suppose that such a seminary would in the first place remain motivated to confessional stability (as opposed to lucre) while the denomination attempts to grow its own economic leverage.

Under this scenario, then, should the idea of economic sanctions be abandoned? Perhaps the needle can be threaded, but predicating the success of relations between church and seminaries on economics appears challenging. If a denomination or an independent seminary upon which a denomination relies buy that "money talks," prospective ministers are somewhere being taught a bad object lesson. 

Granted, economic considerations cannot be entirely avoided. If an overemphasis on economic considerations might make difficult the relationship between smaller denominations and independent seminaries, one should not underemphasize economic considerations for smaller denominations who might desire the responsibility of overseeing an ecclesiastically accountable seminary but would have difficulty funding one. There are obvious complexities, especially in initial coordination. 

Short of the formation of a denominational seminary - which, by the way, needn't imply that a denomination should always rule out consideration of candidates from independent seminaries - I think the OPC has been wise to invest in MTIOPC (link). I pray MTIOPC continues to bear fruit and might even be a stepping stone.

For those interested in more context to and qualifications of the foregoing thoughts, I recommend James S. Gidley's essay "Faith and Learning in the Presbyterian Ministry" in Confident of Better Things for an even-handed treatment of "whether it is time to develop a new system of ministerial education, and if so, what form it should take" (pg. 265). Gidley is also right to conclude that 1) "neither the educational process nor the educational institution produces ministers" as well as that 2) "institutional arrangements for attaining the end of sound preparation for the gospel ministry are secondary to the preparation itself." While the focus of this post thus far has been on "institutional arrangements," I do agree with Gidley.

Broadening now the scope of the topic, is the education of members and, particularly, covenant children any business of the church? Unlike the prospective ministers, this initial question is less about whether the church is (or is not) responsible for providing the education itself. That becomes relevant only if this initial question should be answered affirmatively. 

If it were to be answered affirmatively, we would have to push the following logic: if the education of covenant children is some business of the church, suppose parents or guardians were negligent in the education of their children. Would it be an overstep for a session to address that? If the negligence persists, would it be an overstep for a session to view it as a disciplinary issue?

While uncomfortable, these are questions that require careful consideration. It might be easier to set them aside altogether. However, a shepherd is responsible for the well-being of his sheep. Can one's education be divorced from one's well-being? 

Allowing this, there is certainly room for freedom when discussing the concrete form in which one's education takes shape. What constitutes "negligence" could be a slippery slope, and I would not argue that the general assembly, presbyteries, or location congregations must be the educators of covenant children for all subject matters. 

Even so, are there lessons to be learned from controversies involving parachurch organizations (e.g. Peniel conferences)? Should the Committee for Christian Education restrict itself to "Sunday school" matters? Does not the OPC have a history of understanding that Christian education requires Christian educators who consciously work from and within a confessional, Christian worldview? 

While the who and how of Christian education should be a matter of liberty, then, it is prudent to consider means by which such education might be made more accessible. How to fund specific types of Christian education is a separate (albeit important) question. Enrolling one's child in a Christian school is a good option - as I was blessed to have attended a Christian school from elementary through high school, I can attest to its benefits - but infeasible for many (cost, scarcity, etc.). 

Homeschooling is another option. Even this, though, isn't workable for all families. As a public school teacher at a Title I school, I'm all too aware of difficulties in terms of childcare. Further, I specialize in teaching just one area of math. I can recall being a new teacher struggling to keep my head above water: I've had to learn how to manage behavior and time, master content, effectively communicate that content, check for understanding, etc. It's one thing for me to do that given my background and that it's for a specific math course (and with peer assistance). I can easily understand how home-schooling can be overwhelming for parents when kids, ages, and subjects are multiplied - not to mention the parental priority of providing basic means of living. That is, for some, public schooling is unavoidable.

The question, then, turns to whether and how a church can help. Analogous to the function of MTIOPC, I know of some local churches who offer supplemental, cohort education. For congregations that can realistically do it, this is a valuable, small scale possibility.

On a larger scale, the OPC has thousands of members. NAPARC has hundreds of thousands. Might it not be possible to form an online network that offers educational options suited to various needs, are freely accessible to all members, and has oversight? Under this scenario, members would actually be modeling what I argue seminaries should be doing. Options could range from weekly tutoring hours to asynchronous lesson videos, each contextualized within a Christian framework.

Is this hopelessly ideal? Undeniably, we live in an individualistic culture, one which approves of the path of least responsibility. But I think there is a place for an online platform with a specific vision to prospective members who are already linked in a concrete way, even if the members don't know each other personally (e.g. if they are members of the same denomination, NAPARC, etc.). 

Even if a petition for oversight was rejected, the idea itself could be implemented. In that case, though, it might require word of mouth to gain traction. I find it theoretically attractive, if practically knotty.