Are You A Dork? Do You Want To Be?
According to the back page of the latest issue of New Horizons (the official magazine of the OPC) you can now purchase (wait for it)...Official OPC Golf Shirts, not polo shirts mind you, but Official OPC Golf Shirts. Now, not only will the OPC be as "diverse as a room full of white people" in both class and culture it'll also be homogenous in its clothing style too!
I have a feeling these shirts are going to be a HUGE hit in the Presbytery of Southern California, or as I like to call it, The Presbytery of "We-Traded-The-Gospel-For-A-Copy-Of-Rushdooney's-Institutes-Of-Biblical-Law-And-A-First-Edition-Of-Bahnsen's-Theonomy-In-Christian-Ethics"
In other news, the OPC's "Most Attractive Pastor" for the 4th year running, Reverend Robert Eckardt has written an article for the most recent issue of New Horizon's entitled "The Word Became Flesh". It's a good piece about being moved by the Incarnation. I think someone forgot to remind Pastor Bob that anything that "feels good" or caused any positive emotion, like he suggests the Incarnation should do, is, in light of our Puritan roots, somehow wrong. Our faith should be as bland as the food our English, presbyterian forefathers ate. This includes any "emotions" that one might be inclined to have in light of the realities of our faith.
Further, ex-Cornerstoner Ken "OPC Rising Star" Montgomery had a letter to the editor in said recent edition of New Horizon magazine. In it Ken makes a good assertion that contemporary Reformed theology often times reflects Van Til: Biblically rigorous but "unnecessarily difficult to access." I wish Ken had gone a step further in his analysis to point out that current Reformed theological discourse as proper children of its theological fathers, is often time in tone and method viciously uncharitable. Was Van Til like this in person? Of course not, but teachers are called to a slightly higher standard and I think he carries some responsibility for the legions of "transcendental argument" church splitters out there.
The real "weakness", as Ken put it, wasn't that Van Til was sometimes difficult to understand, but that he gave an unexamined and unqualified reductionist weapon to hundreds and even thousands of actual and potential ministers and elders who entered the church leadership ready to chop the head of anyone who disagreed with them by claiming they were irrational, subjective, un-Biblical, and therefore un-Christian.
And it's but a jot and a tiddle, but Ken failed to explain how his assertion that "communicating in language that is clear, distinctive, and understandable" is "part of our calling to 'speak the truth in love'". Its an interesting idea, and I could see how he might get there, it just seemed like an easy sermonesque capstone to his letter. And to play the devils advocate for a bit (well, only about half devil's advocate, since I actually think this to an extent) most folks I've met who preach the importance of clear, distinctive, and understandable language in discourse are usually actually asserting that their opponents aren't being clear, distinctive, or understandable. In other words: "they're wrong and I'm right."
Josiah Q. Roe | By Josiah Roe | 09:20 PM
Comments
Great post Josiah on all counts, except I respectfully disagree about one thing. Pastor Geoff Smith is way hot. I'm sorry, but we might just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Posted by: Phil at November 30, 2004 09:13 AM
Josiah - have you seen Frame's article on Machen's stepchildren? That, plus the opening chapter(s) in Frame's intellecutal biography of Van Til, puts into perspective why Van Tillians (but really, more generally, most of conservatie orthodox Reformed thought) are so harsh. Here's the article
http://www.christiancounterculture.com/40615/machen.html
I watched _Saved!_ last night and was reminded of some of what you're talking about when Mandy Moore throws a bible at Jena Malone and screeches, "I am full of Christ's love!" and Malone responds, "YOu idiot! This isn't a weapon!" Watching that movie, and then thinking about Frame's article, (and then of course thinking about one's own life) is illuminating.
Posted by: scott cunningham at November 30, 2004 09:39 AM
Hmm. Two posts in a row. I'm starting to notice a trend for the week. What's up?
Posted by: ryan at November 30, 2004 10:01 AM
Josiah,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my letter in New Horizons. You're right about my easy sermonette ending to the letter; I felt like the letter ran over the NH's usual limit, so had to slam on the brakes as it were to end the letter.
That said, I do think that 'speaking the truth in love' involves speaking with clarity. The Apostle Paul asks for prayer that he would 'proclaim the gospel clearly' in Col. 4:4, and I suspect it is because he has a true love for those who hear his preaching.
Of course, Calvinism in America has always suffered it seems from charges of being too abstruse and complex. Sometimes it's our fault, but sometimes it's the fault of those who don't want to think too hard...
Posted by: Ken at November 30, 2004 07:26 PM
Josiah, thank you for that refreshing (and hilarious) perspective, I heartily agree, with the exception that I must point out that the "blandness" of English food is a common misconception (ever had a good steak-and-kidney pie with a Guinness?).
Also, Ken, I appreciate your comments and the fact that I've now seen someone respond to what could be viewed as electronic criticism in a gracious and reasonable manner--there is hope for online forums!
Posted by: Currie at December 2, 2004 10:30 PM
Post a Comment About "Are You A Dork? Do You Want To Be?"
Email "Are You A Dork? Do You Want To Be?" to a friend!
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://chattablogs.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/16926
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Are You A Dork? Do You Want To Be?:
