Volume 12, Issue 3: Meander
Been having a good time lately in G.K. Chesterton’s poems. Here’s a hot one, entitled "Comparisons."
If I set the sun beside the moon,
And if I set the land beside the sea,
And if I set the town beside the country,
And if I set the man beside the woman,
I suppose some fool would talk about one being better.
A man whose head is made out of butter shouldn’t become a baker.
Jacob is one of those characters in the Bible who has unfortunately gotten a bad rap. Represented variously as a skunk, liar, and mama’s boy, his behavior is roundly condemned until the point of his purported conversion very late in life. A problem for such pietistic exegesis is Gen. 25:27. The AV tells us there that Jacob was a plain man, dwelling among the tents. The word rendered plain is tawm, which means perfect or complete. Jacob was a complete man, minding the family business with care and diligence, while Esau was out four-wheeling and drinking beer in the woods.
The tone of our small magazine continues to draw attention in some quarters, queries from others, and yawns in most. But for the sake of those keeping track of such things, just a comment. What we do is deliberate, and we are seeking to model it on the biblical pattern. Jesus didn’t spend a lot of time attacking hookers and druggies, but rather well-respected and serpentine theologians. The pattern of the Bible is clear—religious fatheads should always be in the crosshairs. And you know who you are—Morris—from Casper. Yeah, you.
The election cycle is over, but the American public continues to stare at the screen, stupified. Gush or Bore? What to do?
Westminster Presbyterian Church in Vancouver, WA, is set to re-release Jim Bordwine’s demolition job on evangelical feminism. The title is The Pauline Doctrine of Male Headship. When they do get the book out again, get a copy. Before then, ask yourself how a gentleman and a scholar would undertake to mangle spurious feminist arguments, and this will give you some idea. But get the book anyway.
We are thinking of sponsoring an exciting conference on the Y2K threat, registration half off.
Here’s a question for our strict regulativist brethren. What possible justification can we make, on strict regulativist principles, for Samuel’s practice of offering up sacrifices? He was a Levite, but not a priest. Isn’t obedience better than sacrifice?
Many Christians still do not have a grasp of how the arguments of homo activists work. "Culture war" debates cannot be settled apart from the question of final authority. Since most religious conservatives grant the premise of a final humanistic authority in the secular, public realm, they then seek in vain to argue against the conclusions which they later decide they do not like. This dooms them to perpetual failure. They are doomed to this failure because the argument is valid. If the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is not the God of the public square, then it is perfectly legitimate to listen to the homo constituency who wants to gain the civil right to molest little boys there. And to think otherwise, or to publish words like homo, is a thought crime.
I know the book is advertised elsewhere in this issue, and I know it is not the best form to be too cozy in the business of book-blurbing, and so on. In fact, the arguments for restraint are so compelling that a Canon book would have to be really, really good to get me to plug it here, right? That said, you gotta read Peter Leithart’s latest book, A House for My Name, a great overview of the Old Testament.
Try not to be like the fellow who was two hours getting his shirt on, and then he didn’t do it right.