Does This Post Even Need Text?

The Roman Church Started Right

I believe that the Roman Church started in the right place and that, contrary to some overly strong and frightened Protestant opinions, many of the Roman leaders through the middle-ages and into the Reformation were saved. Now that doesn't mean that I think all of them were saved and that I think the Pope was a good guy. For the most part, He wasn't a good and godly guy at all and the Church (yes I capitalized that for a reason) fell into decay under his leadership and HAD to be reformed.

Now that's a statement that is going to make people mad, especially those of us who are so Protestant that the name "Roman Church" makes hackles raise and shouts of "dirty Ecumenical!" begin ringing throughout the land as happens when any Protestant dares to sympathize. Now hang on just a minute and bear with me because I'm not the only one in on this opinion. In fact I'm in good company with none other than John Calvin!

In a chapter titled, "The Condition of the Ancient Church, and the Kind of Government in Use Before the Papacy" Calvin notes some interesting figures in Church history who usually take a little more flack than they should saying things which I don't know if we all realize they said. He also notes that the ancient Church's primary goal between Paul the Apostle and around Gregory the Great was the preaching of the gospel and the distribution of money to and care for the poor.

For instance you have Gregory the Great (Pope 589-604) saying such wonderful things as,

"A bishop dies if no sound is heard from him; for he calls upon himself the wrath of the hidden Judge, if he goes without the sound of preaching."

Indeed, Gregory knew that the Church was in trouble around his time because he also says that,

"When Paul testifies that he is clean of the blood of all [Acts 20:26], by this statement we are convicted, we are constrained, we are shown guilty - we who are called bishops, we who (besides possessing our own evils) add also the deaths of others. For we kill many as we, lukewarm and silent, see going to their death each day."

Do you know what amazes me so much about that statement? Gregory was not just some fat pope "drinking wine out of a bowl and sitting on lush cushions" and totally ignoring the needs of the people both spiritually and physically. Gregory KNEW there was a problem and last I checked KNOWING the problem is a major part of the battle. The Church had forgotten what it meant to be the Church in spiritual and physical testimony and he knew it. Calvin, of all people, in immediate confirmation of these statements says,

"He calls himself and others 'silent,' for they were less constant in their work than they should have been. Since he spares not even those who half fulfilled their office, what do you think he would have done if anyone had ceased entirely? Therefore, it was a principle of a long standing in the church that the primary duties of the bishop were to feed his people with the Word of God, or to build up the church publicly or privately with sound doctrine."

Even Calvin realizes it. The Church was doing what is supposed to be doing and was, in fact, the Church prior to the Reformation. Ford Lewis Battles, English translator of Calvin's "Institutes" says it obviously,

"Note that Calvin views the age of Gregory as between the ancient purity of the church and its medieval decay."

Some people are far too quick to dismiss anything that happened between Constantine and Luther as "Just the Roman Catholics," and figures that none of them were saved or had anything to contribute. In my humble historical understanding this seems a terrible and completely illiterate historical naivete. We should be very careful not to just dump everything that happened in the years prior to the Reformation as useless in our understanding of the Church as she is.

Not that there weren't problems, but what age of the Church hasn't had problems? I think if you consider it closely we are in much the same position as they were with corrupt and overly dominant leaders who are in it for money or fame. But what people fail to understand is that there were holy God fearing people (the Albert Mohlers and Paul Washers of today) who understood these problems and spoke against them. Calvin again,

"And so this song is often sung there to bishops and deacons, that they should remember that they are not handling their own goods but those appointed for the need of the poor; and if in bad faith they suppress or waste them, they shall be guilty of blood. Accordingly, they are admonished to distribute these goods to whom they are owed, with the greatest awe and reverence, as if in God's presence, without partiality. Hence arise those grave protestations in Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine and other bishops like them, by which they affirm their uprightness among the people."

What did these guys who called the Church out to holiness say?

"Cyril, when famine seized the province of Jerusalem and the distress could not otherwise be relieved, sold vessels and vestments, and spent the money on poor relief. Similarly, Acacius, Bishop of Amida, when a great multitude of Persians was well nigh dying from famine, calling together his clergy, delivered this famous speech: 'Our God needs neither plates nor cups, for he neither eats nor drinks." Then he melted the vessels to obtain both food and the price of ransom for the pitiable folk. . .Experius, bishop of Toulouse in his day. . .carried the Lord's body in a wicker basket and his blood in a glass vessel, but suffered no poor man to hunger."

Wow. It would be amazing if we had more leaders whose belief and strong and wonderful doctrine actually led them to the place where these guys lived who, supposedly, ruined the Church! You're not even ready for the next bit. Calvin nails iy by saying,

"What I just now said about Acacius, Ambrose states about himself, for the Arians reproached him for having broken the sacred vessels to ransom prisoners, he used this wonderful excuse, "He who sent out the apostles without gold also gathered churches without gold. The church has gold not to keep but to pay out, and to relieve distress. What need to keep what helps not? Or are we ignorant of how much gold and silver the Assyrians carted off from the Temple of the Lord [II Kings 18:15-19]? Would it not be better for the priest to melt it to sustain the poor, if other aid is lacking, than for a sacrilegious enemy to bear it away? Will not the Lord say, 'Why you allowed so many needy to die of hunger? Surely you had gold with which to minister sustenance. Why were so many prisoners carried off and not ransomed? Why were so many killed by the enemy? It were better for you to preserve the vessels men than of metals.' To these you cannot give reply, for what would you say? 'I was afraid lest the temple of God lack ornament.' He would reply: 'The sacraments do not require gold, nor do those things please with gold that are not bought with gold. The ornament of the sacraments is the ransom of prisoners.'"

Why on earth do we just skip out on stuff like this? We shortchange ourselves historically if we ignore the greats of the past with stupid phrases like, "Augustine wasn't saved."

The ancient church and, believe it or not, some of the Roman church got some things right friends; let's not be too quick to dismiss them. I had always had a hunch that this was the case but it didn't really click until I read some of this stuff. Calvin one last time, "To sum up, what the same man [Ambrose] said in another place we see to be very true: 'Whatever, then, the church had was for the support of the needy.' Likewise: 'The bishop had nothing that did not belong to the poor.'"

I do not excuse the tragedies of the Roman church. I do not excuse the corruption of the papacy. I do not deny that justification is by faith alone and that one is not saved without being justified before the totally holy and totally righteous God. I do, however, think that we should stop committing the Protestant naivete, and it is driven by fear really, of ignoring what was said between the fourth and sixteenth centuries.

This would be very unwise and I caution you against it. Go read Bernard, or Francis of Assisi, or Gregory the Great, or Ambrose, or Augustine, or Chrysostom, or Anselm, or any of the other numerous wonderful Christians in the medieval ages and I think you will find far more of the gospel than you realize.

Loving our wonderful holy God with you brethren (and sistren!),

R.D. Thompson

In order to preach to pop culture you need to know pop culture

Driscoll does it all the time. How involved should we be?

The Best Lead Line Ever

Do you have a favorite lead line? You know, the opening line that simply forces you to keep reading? Mine is from "The God Who is There"

"The present chasm between the generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the concept of truth."

You Must Go See This

CLICK HERE FOR DYING WORTHY VIDEO!

Go. Now. Watch. Die laughing.

Secular Music

To tell you the truth, I cannot stomach some of the reasons people come up with for watching raunchy and disgusting TV shows and movies. "But it's FUNNY," they say (The Office, That 70's Show, Friends when it was popular, Family Guy, The Simpsons). "I just like it," they say (House, and other overly dramatic and stupid shows of the like). These are the least thought out excuses I have ever heard, even though the last one is not necessarily wrong as you will soon see.

I take a purely Schafferian view of art movies and most of the well thought secular music of today. There is something, particularly about music, that holds the finger to the pulse of the culture at large. Not artists who are only in it for money (like Britney Spears...blech) but artists who ditch labels so they can make their music, movies, and art the way they want to how they want to. These people are making an incredible value statement, and dare I say a worldview statement, simply by making their music independently. These people, generally, have something to say and love music because music is wonderful and if we would prefer not to remain ignorant to just what the young people dying for truth believe today we would be wise to introduce ourselves to it.

Not only that but some art, especially good art, is to be enjoyed simply because it is good art and then critiqued and only then possibly rejected. Just listen to Schaeffer,

"A work of art has a value in itself. For some, this principle may seem too obvious to mention, but for many Christians it is unthinkable. And yet, if we miss this point, we miss the very essence of art. Art is not something we merely analyze or value for its intellectual content. It is something to be enjoyed. The Bible says that the art work in the tabernacle and the temple was for beauty. . .As a Christian we know why a work of art has value. Why? First, because a work of art is a work of creativity , and creativity has value because God is the creator. . .Second, an art work has value as a creation because man is made in the image of God, and therefore man can not only love and think and feel emotion, but also has the capacity to create."

And further,

"Many modern artists, it seems to me, have forgotten the value that art has in itself. Much modern art is far too intellectual to be great art. . .[they] seem not to see the distinction between man and non-man, and it is a part of the lostness of modern man that they no longer see value in the work of art as a work of art. I am afriad, however, that as evangelicals we have largely made the same mistake. Too often we think that a work of art has value only if we reduce it to a tract. This too is to view art solely as a message for the intellect."

To tell you the honest truth I listen to a lot more secular music than your average fundamentalist Christian attending a Plymouth Brethren Assembly. I won't go near movies or TV (I have willingly only watched Ratatouille, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Luther and one episode of The Office because I was on an airplane in the last three years) but I listen to greats of our day (of course by greats I may mean totally obscure independent artists who sound great) every day. Like who? To name only a few Postal Service, Jack Johnson, Bob Dylan, Dave Brubeck, Norah Jones, Her Space Holiday, Andy Hunter, Juno Reactor, George Winston, Kaki King, Trentmoeller, Telepopmusik, DJ Shadow, and many others. I am not in poor company either. Would you believe Mark Dever listens to and quote, "loves" Jack Johnson? Or that Josh Harris and his brothers do the same?

Mind you, we need to be very, very careful how we put this into practice. Schaeffer again,

"Not every creation is good art. Nor is all that man makes good either, intellectually or morally. So while creativity is a good thing in itself, it does not mean that everything that comes out of man's creativity is good. For while man was made in the image of God, he is fallen. Furthermore, since men have various gifts and talents, everyone cannot create everything equally well. However, the main point is that creativity is a good thing as such."

I think it is wise that we move past our ugly fundamentalist roots in this area and listen to the man who could give that caution but who also actively listened to Jefferson Airplane and The Beatles (and ENJOYED it), the man who considered himself largely a separatist but who watched the art films of his day and perused and understood (and ENJOYED) the work of Salvador Dali (who was the most messed up of the surrealists), the man who ached for the lostness of these souls and longed with every ounce of his being to bring them into the fold of God which in no small way required his interaction with them and enjoyment of them.

Secular artists are not speaking into a vacuum and are not speaking for no reason. Much of their art is of a far greater and superior quality to most Christian art and they are asking far deeper questions than most Christians are asking which is proved almost every day when I listen to Christian music or look at sappy Christian "art" or read some of the awful modern Christian writing that passes for fiction. I believe we ought to very carefully, cautiously, and discerningly be engaging in secular music and art 1) because a whole lot of it is fantastic in and of itself and 2) because we do a disservice to the people we preach to by alienating ourselves from them in this way.

Not that you won't get the gospel across if you don't, but it is a whole lot more helpful, and even introduces new evangelism inroads, if you understand this cultural pulse.

Loving our wonderful Christ who died "on our behalf" with you brethren,

R.D. Thompson

October Photos

Only 3 Bullets

Let the reader be warned, stupid hunting stories are about to commence so read forward only if that sort of thing interests you.

I finally shot an elk and I finally shot an animal in less than 15 bullets.

Storytime:

When I was 13 I shot my first deer. I got a little excited and ran up to the edge of a gully and saw deer on the other side about 900 yards away. After opening fire (at 900 yards) on any animal that I saw in my scope (otherwise known as flock shooting) I had expended 6 bullets and, as far as I could tell, had not actually hit anything. We ran down the canyon to where the animals had run and they were all waiting nicely to see what we were and why we were chasing them (deer are stupid doncha know?) so I opened fire again (at about 200 yards this time) and expended 6 more bullets...without visibly hitting anything. So the deer got the point that time and all we saw was a rather large grey streak (the whole herd) vanish away over a ridge some 2000 yards away. I didn't try to shoot that time. We went up on the hillside to look down and see if I had hit anything for some bizarre reason and, voila, I had...7 times...in various random places. I will never know how I hit the same animal 7 times when I was flock shooting but hey, I was 13, and it was amazin.

Sadly...the stories of my quick trigger finger don't end there. Like the time I did the exact same thing the next year and somehow managed to get a deer shooting wildly at 1000 yards, uphill, across a canyon. Or the time I gut shot a 5 point buck at 50 yards and then subsequently missed every shot I tried to make up as it ran away (missed at 100, then 150, then 200, then 250, then it vanished into the trees.) Or the time I aimed 8 feet over the back of an elk because I thought it was 800 yards away when it was really only about 100. Or the time I did finally shoot an antelope in 15+ bullets as it ran away from me.

So...I actually killed my animal in 3 bullets this time...and 1 of them wasn't necessary.

I was tracking through the woods at a place I knew there were elk way up in a huge mess of trees, fallen trees, and undergrowth. You really couldn't see more than 200 yards at best in that mess so I wasn't more hopeful than sneaking up on their beds (I had done it before in this specific place...unsuccessfully of course after I made an errant shot that hit nothing but trees.) I had left my dad and brother about 15 minutes earlier on the road when I heard gunshots ring out just over the hill from me...right where dad and brother were...dang. But then the herd that they had shot at ran over the hill...right at me. Unfortunately, the animals had my wind so before I could see anything more than the lead bull (7 points of gorgeousness that I couldn't shoot) charge through the tree 20 yards away from me they had scattered into 2 herds and run away from me. But that wasn't the end by any means. Dad and brother had taken a number of animals out of the herd so this herd was in confusion looking for its lost members. That meant it was a great time for me to make a calf call. THAT confused them. Was I the missing calf or was I a dangerous hunter? The cows of the herd proceeded to check out my credentials by repeatedly calling me to the herd and the bulls furiously bugled back and forth to try and get the herd reunited. No animals would walk to me though. That meant I had to go find them...in thick undergrowth...with a top visibility of 200 yards at best and a low visibility of about 10 yards at worst. Elk are smart, they know (somehow) to stay just out of sight ahead of you and make calls back at you as they try and figure out what you are. I had the wind this time and moved slowly towards them. However, every time I would set to shoot one of the blasted things they would prance another 50 yards away out of sight. This happened about 10 times when a calf made the unfortunate mistake of standing in a gap in the trees about 200 yards away from me. Now, this had happened 6 times in the proceeding nonsense but I could never see a head. Number one rule while hunting in undergrowth: if you can't see a head, don't shoot it. The DOW doesn't accept stories about how you accidentally shot a 7 point bull in the forest when you meant to shoot a cow because you couldn't see the head. Anyway, this elk had made the unfortunate mistake of NOT prancing away just as I got set to shoot. I took my deep sniper breath and calmly (for the first time in my life) squeezed the trigger. After the shot rang out...the animal didn't move...it just looked at me. I took another shot and didn't see the animal in my scope anymore. Something similar had happened last time I was in these woods so I cautiously walked up the hill in case it was standing there looking at me still. I figured that, as usual, I had entirely missed the beast and it had run away and I would expend ANOTHER 12 bullets before I would actually kill anything. As I walked up and looked around I spotted it. I almost couldn't believe it...it was laying down, looking at me, obviously wounded. Well it was still alive so I had to finishe the job, which I did, and then stood in utter disbelief. I had actually harvested my animal in 3 bullets and when I had quatered the animal I found out that 1 of the shots wasn't necessary as I had hit the first time in the front quarter and the second time in the back quarter.

My hunting friends (dad, brother, and grandpa) couldn't believe it. Their jaws dropped. Their standard fun making for my trigger happy days are ended.

I had a good weekend :) This was also the first time I praised the Lord for providing meat for me and my family. That note was always missing in past trips.

soli deo gloria (even in the simple things like hunting!),

R.D. Thompson

Humorous: How To Win A Debate

• Argue about the meaning of words, conjunctions, prepositions, and so on in minute detail (This is sometimes necessary in good debate but usually just turns into sophism.)
• Shout
• Bang the table
• Tell the audience, "Clearly, obviously, without a doubt, plainly the other team is wrong."
• Appeal to the audience's intelligence. Like, "While correct in many things the other team is intellectually short-sighted in blah, blah, blah..." This convinces the audience to take your side because who wants to be intellectually short-sighted?
• Appeal to the original languages (this is useful only if A] you have a debate about the Bible and B] your opponents don't KNOW the original languages.)
• Never, EVER, ask your opponents or the audience an open ended question unless you know they will blunder. It just lets them talk more than you. That's bad when you're on a schedule. You should be doing all the talking.
• ALWAYS jump on open ended questions that the opposing teams ask you and try to give as long an answer as possible. This means you're talking more and they're talking less.
• Use obscene amounts of Scripture without referencing the context or even reading the verses.
• Use a sandbag argument that doesn't really matter and appeals to the emotions that way when your opponents waste 10 minutes talking about your sandbag argument they use up all their time on useless arguments, not your real argument.
  
• Claim that you won the debate in the final rebuttal (this is why having final rebuttal pays off for me almost every time.) If you leave them with the words, "Because the other team has failed to address point A and point B of in our arguments they have proved their view incoherent and have failed to convincingly win this debate. On the other hand, our position blah, blah, blah..." This is helpful because it also appeals to intelligence.
• Do none of these so that the audience can recognize that you are doing them, otherwise they'll see the through the ruse and sympathize with the other team. MODERATION! KNOW WHEN TO BACK OFF AND WHEN TO GO FOR THE THROAT!
• Never, EVER try to argue like this with your wife.

These are how you win debates when you're assigned to argue a side you don't agree with. Being intimately acquainted with both sides is a must, but rhetoric always helps! Don't ever argue like this for something you believe in, people WILL see the ruse.

Too bad so many of us argue like this all the time for stuff that really matters,

R.D. Thompson

A Day At Swiss Valley