This is from an old Sunday school offering envelope:
It is a sad mistake to stay away from church even for a season. Many a Christian has lost his faith by starting to skip church services only occasionally. Loss of faith seldom comes from a blowout. It is usually from a slow leak.
“not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together [in worship], as is the manner of some…” Hebrews 10:25
This case of denying a teacher’s First Amendment rights is worth following for anyone who considers the Bible to be God’s Word. A public school is attempting to discipline a well-liked, award-winning teacher for expressing personal views that contradict the politically-correct understanding of gay marriage. He did not express these views during school hours, nor even at school or in a school-related forum. He expressed them on Facebook, which regularly asks me the question, “What’s on your mind?” Whose mind? My mind. An answer to that question, on a social forum like Facebook, without any connection to the school, seems to be just what the speech section of the First Amendment was meant to protect. Those who argue otherwise are showing totalitarian, statist tendencies as well as rank intolerance for diverse points of view.
Now, if the school were not an arm of the government, but a private school instead, then the teacher would be subject to the terms of his employment contract. The Bill of Rights, including the protection of free speech, is not meant to limit the behavior of private citizens or employers. It’s meant to limit the behavior of government, in order to protect the innate rights of individuals.
It’s ultimately the mother and father’s responsibility to teach their children, but the civil government has undertaken this responsibility (among many others) because of its interest in future generations. Unfortunately, the civil government is in no position to teach all that children need to learn. In the United States, government is also prohibited by the First Amendment from teaching that a particular religion is truth. That’s a good thing as far as law, order and justice are concerned, but it means that government education is necessarily inadequate. Most people don’t understand this inadequacy, though, concluding that religious instruction is inessential to a complete education. This conclusion could not be more wrong.
This case illustrates another shortcoming of public education. Though it is supposed to reflect the mores of society in general without favoring one tradition over another, the inevitable compromise will not only impoverish the education program, but also blur the basis on which teachers may be disciplined. Opportunistic idealogues will leap into the breach in an effort to impose their own views upon society through the influence of government. That’s what’s being attempted in this case, leaving the destruction of this individual’s First Amendment right and his teaching career as collateral damage.
The solution for Christians is to establish and support our own schools. We can use a curriculum in harmony with God’s Word, and we will be free to run the schools in accord with the principles of our faith. If our statist neighbors succeed in destroying the protections of the First Amendment, our schools would have to close. In that case, Christian education would have to proceed in the home, and maybe even behind closed doors. (It’s happened before, under other statist regimes.) But for now, the best solution is to support our own Christian schools.
You may have noticed the lack of postings here on The Plucked Chicken in the last several weeks. My online writing time has been dedicated to posting a series of excerpts from Telling the Next Generation, a new paperback released this year on the past and present vision for Christian education in the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Those excerpts have been going up on the church blog instead of here, because they are of special interest to the members of the congregations I serve. However, they are also of general interest to a wider audience, so readers of The Plucked Chicken may wish to mosey over to Confession and Life and see some of these excerpts.
Otherwise, most of my spare time is spent this summer and fall in preparing our house for the arrival of twins, expected in December. Meanwhile, I’m trying to prepare as much October-through-December parish work as I can, anticipating a lack of opportunity to fulfill this aspect of my vocation as other demands take over.
There is much work yet to be done.
Do you know about the Schechter fiasco during the Great Depression? It’s a classic case of overreaching by the federal government, one of the things that the separation of powers is meant to minimize or even prevent. It also shows the kind of thing that Uncle Sam was doing at that time to “fix” the economy. Subsequent history shows how well that worked. So first, you may want to read a bit about the Schechters. I was introduced to them in Amity Schlaes’ book The Forgotten Man. You can read about the Schechters online. Wikipedia has an entry, but you can also find primary source material.
Okay, now to see shades of Schechter, see the recent news about the USDA vs. evil rabbit-raising hobbyists. Makes me glad there’s someone to protect us from such people. They probably have big pointy teeth.
But seriously, I’m glad that there are elected officials who care enough to keep the USDA in check. Who would have thought that the Food and Drug Administration would tyrannize American citizens that way? Defense department, maybe. DHS, CIA, FBI, or NSA, perhaps. But the USDA? Thank God for representation in Washington! May it always work so well.
Updated 5/25: s/FDA/USDA/g That’s what happens when writing a post when I should already be asleep. The difference only makes the point stronger! The Department of Agriculture? Wow.
We’ve been trying some new kinds of food at home. When I say “we,” I mean mainly myself and my eldest daughter. She’s going for Japanese foods, and I’ve been investigating grains and some legumes. (Sprouting is fun!) Today I picked up some amaranth seed/grain, and tried popping it. Apparently, it’s used as a gluten-free grain substitute, and also has the advantage of being high in iron. As you can see from the bag photo, it’s a small seed. But with a little experimentation, I was able to pop a few tablespoons of it in a pot on the stove. You can cook with the seed itself, for which most recipes I’ve seen so far you must grind it into flour. But you can also cook with the popped seed, or use it as a cereal. I think it’s pretty neat, kind of like digital watches. It takes a pretty hot pot, and once it’s hot enough, you need to throw the cover on it to keep the popping seeds from flying all over the stove. A “6” on our electric stove seemed about right. I didn’t use any oil or anything in the pot, but I did pick it up occasionally while the spoonfuls of seeds were popping, just to keep them moving around in there.
Up next: chia seeds!
The Madison Settlement, or Opgjoer (pronounced “up-your”), was a compromise reached in 1912 between the Norwegian Synod, the United Norwegian Lutheran Church, and the Hauge Synod. (1912 was the same year that Arizona became a state and the Titanic sank.) The doctrinal issue was election, or predestination. By then, this controversy had torn apart members of the Norwegian Synod and, to a lesser extent, its sister church bodies like the Wisconsin Synod and the Missouri Synod for many years. It had been one of the points of disagreement between the Norwegian Synod and the others involved in the Opgjoer.
The controversy had been so bitter within the Norwegian Synod that it had withdrawn from the Synodical Conference to lessen its ill effects. Yet during the intervening years, the Norwegian Synod had continued to recognize doctrinal fellowship with the Synodical Conference, and had been welcome participants in its conventions. But in 1912, under the leadership of its new President Stub, the Norwegian Synod was happy to reach a settlement with the other scandinavian-based synods on this doctrine, and submitted it to the Synodical Conference for review.
In the historical volume The Synodical Conference: Ecumenical Endeavor by Armin Schuetze, the response of the Synodical Conference to the Norwegian Synod is included in summary form. I think it shows a salutary discernment on the part of the Synodical Conference theologians. It also shows a certain pattern found in compromise documents, in which a doctrine is described as existing in multiple disparate forms. In Opgjoer, election is described according to two different points of view or senses, which are supposed to be equally valid and exist simultaneously. The problem described by the Synodical Conference was that only one of those points of view or senses was in harmony with the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions. The other one used expressions from the Bible and the Confessions, but was a doctrine arising from human reason or tradition.
This is from page 124 of the above named book:
“In order that the unity of faith existing among us may be preserved,” the Conference made three requests. The first was in reference to paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Madison Agreement. In these paragraphs the Union Committees of the Norwegian Synod and the United Church “accepted unanimously and without reservation” the two so-called “forms” of the doctrine of election. The First Form, set forth in Article XI of the Formula of Concord, held that election is “unto salvation,” or the “cause of faith.” The Second Form with reference to “Pontoppidan’s Truth unto Godliness,” a catechetical book widely used among the Scandinavians, spoke of election “in view of faith.” The Agreement stated, “Since it is well known that in presenting the doctrine of election two forms of doctrine have been used, both of which have won acceptance and recognition within the orthodox Lutheran Church; . . . We find that this [i.e., teaching one form or the other] should not be cause for schism within the Church.” The Synodical Conference asked the Synod “to eliminate from Theses 1-3 of the ‘Opgjoer’ the coordination of the so-called first and second form of doctrine, because only the first form represents the truth of the Scriptures and the Confessions.”
It would seem that this method of settling a controversy is flawed. I might add to the criticism of Opgjoer that the second sense or form of “election,” being a doctrine not really found in holy scripture, represents instead a certain human usage of the word. In this case, the human usage of the word “election” directly contradicts the divine usage of the word found in the Bible. In other cases of compromise, there may be merely human usages that do not contradict the divine usage, but are found to be compatible. While it is important (though sometimes difficult) to tell the difference, it is even more important that the Church confess only those articles of faith that are doctrines clearly taught in the Bible.
A while back we realized that we weren’t really watching television enough to warrant paying for Cable. These days, where we live, people with an old (15 years) CRT television set like us are pretty much dependent upon cable or satellite TV if we want any kind of variety from which to choose. So we ditched cable, deciding to choose what we watch via our Netflix subscription, which costs a lot less. Then came Netflix streamed movies on demand. In some ways, our household now watches more than before, only we choose what we want to watch, and there are no commercials. Well, somebody chooses what we watch.
I’ve always been a bit suspicious of media like TV, though admittedly more suspicious of newsy programs than drama. But then, drama, comedy, and other content all comes from somewhere too. That somewhere involves a worldview and an agenda. Today, I’m wondering just how much the worldview and agenda in family-oriented media contradict Christianity. Surely, there are contradictions, and most Christians realize this. But are we vigilant enough? Or do we too quickly become complacent? How many Christian households are well acquainted with Barney and Teletubbies, and what’s the worldview behind those innocent-looking stuffed aliens? How about Pokémon?
My suspicions here are similar to those of others, who may sound a bit shrill or even wacky. While I do appreciate concerns about moral corruption and insidious agendas to control the world, my deepest concern is about faith in Christ. Let those who want control of the world fight it out among themselves, as long as they leave me alone. Eventually, my family and I will no longer be in this world, and eventually, this world will be no more, while our true lives will be just beginning.
Through Pokémon (originally on videotape from a friend at church), my oldest daughter became interested in the Japanese comics called “Manga,” even finding some books of it in our local public library. I browsed one myself, finding the word “sadist,” which is not yet part of her vocabulary. They’re not checking those particular books out any more. It leaves me to wonder what anti-Christian agenda may lie hidden in the worldview promoted by Pokémon. “Aw, c’mon. Pokémon?” Well? If nobody ever asks, then we may never know. Stories are powerful.
All of this means we should be actively catechizing our families in the truth, and taking advantage of every opportunity to learn from God’s Word. That includes weekly church services, Sunday school, Bible studies, home devotions, and regular discussions to help us exercise good discernment. Some stories provide an excellent opportunity for these discussions. The biblical Christian worldview is certainly in the minority, and while opposing worldviews may not always be overtly hostile, they are nevertheless corrosive to faith, can destroy these short lives we have on earth, and may well lead Christians to lose our true, eternal life in Christ. With that, we should realize that there’s no escape from the influence of such things. We may be able selectively to reduce the influence (like with that Manga book), but we cannot eliminate it. This is the world we are living in.
Here’s a presentation of a certain philosophy that seems pretty compelling. I’d like to watch it again and digest it some more, but my initial thought is that it may contradict the biblical view of earthly government. I say may because, well, I’d like to watch it again to be sure I understand it. On the other hand, a philosophy like this may be in a different category than the moral strictures of holy writ. It may describe the way a government (for example) should operate, rather than the way it may operate. Is there room for such a distinction?
It would mean that this philosophy provides only part of a worldview, requiring other things, like religion, to inform morality. Of course, it would require Christianity to provide the Gospel, and that may indicate a serious weakness of this philosophy for the Christian: instead of being oriented around love for our neighbor as inspired by the Gospel, it’s oriented around individual liberty. Does that echo the Fall into sin, or does it echo the dignity of every human person as God’s creation? Maybe there’s something here for both the Old Adam and the New Man.
I’d appreciate your thoughts on this, or your reaction to the presentation. Note that this philosophy is not even nominally Christian, but I think it draws much from the Christian worldview.
In celebration of the proof that God has delivered us from the guilt of our sins, and from this place of sorrow and pain, I invite you to take a look at a little experiment I’ve begun on Blogger. It’s called Cross Ventilation. I’m not necessarily the only author there.
A Michtam of David.
Preserve me, O God, for in You I put my trust.
O my soul, you have said to the LORD,
“You are my Lord, My goodness is nothing apart from You.”
As for the saints who are on the earth,
“They are the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight.”
Their sorrows shall be multiplied who hasten after another god;
Their drink offerings of blood I will not offer,
Nor take up their names on my lips.
O LORD,You are the portion of my inheritance and my cup;
You maintain my lot.
The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places;
Yes, I have a good inheritance.
I will bless the LORD who has given me counsel;
My heart also instructs me in the night seasons.
I have set the LORD always before me;
Because He is at my right hand I shall not be moved.
Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices;
My flesh also will rest in hope.
For You will not leave my soul in Sheol,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
You will show me the path of life;
In Your presence is fullness of joy;
At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.
(New King James Version)