Imagine one of those old school wind up toys. You turn the handle which stores up energy inside the mechanism and when you let it go the toy zooms across the floor. Well, I kinda feel like one of those wind up toys right now. Caronport has been winding me up. I've spent four years in the college to get a BA in Theology, I am approaching five and a half years in the seminary to earn my MA in Systematic Theology, ever since my job ended at distance education I have been training in web development, and I believe some serious life training has been going on as my wife and I have weathered some significant challenges in our first two years of marriage. (She's totally awesome btw, so grateful to have her at my side.) So now I am starting to feel all wound up... I've been preparing and preparing and preparing for God knows what and sooner or later we'll hit the ground and off we'll go. That, or the spring will snap. Personally I'm hoping for the zoom across the floor.
Greg Out
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Positions on Human Origin
So there's been some news this week. News that Pope Francis has declared that the scientific theories of Evolution and the Big Bang are not only compatible with Catholic doctrine, but preferable for understanding the creation of the universe and the origin of humanity. Well that's interesting. I wish I could find the original recording of the Pope's words because I am sure the media has distorted them either by proof-texting or just making things up. In the meantime I guess counter-articles like this one will have to suffice.
http://time.com/3545844/pope-francis-evolution-creationism/
In any case, I thought it might be fun to very briefly outline the different types of positions concerning the creationism / evolution debate.
Dogmatic and Paranoid
The Bible needs to be interpreted literally in all respects. Everyone who says differently doesn't know the TRUTH! Science is a lie from the Devil and all scientists go to HELL! Anyone who doesn't believe in a literal six day creation and a young earth is also going to Hell!
Dogmatic
I believe in a literal six day creation and a young earth. I base my position on a literal reading of the Genesis creation account and read the years in the genealogies literally as well. There needs to be a literal creation because we need a literal first Adam in order to have a literal second Adam (Jesus). Science is wrong.
Creationist
The prevailing scientific theories concerning the origin and age of the earth misinterpret scientific data and ignore instances where the data doesn't line up with their theories. Carbon Dating methods are unreliable, fossil records do not prove evolution, and a world wide cataclysm... like a flood for instance, would make sense of the data even more so than an old earth + evolution.
Faith seeking Understanding
I acknowledge that my beliefs run counter to the current scientific model. I am open to discussing it though.
Gap Theorist
The world was created in six days but there is a gap in the creation story where Lucifer was cast from heaven. The missing time must fall into that gap. God then created this world out of the Luciferian world after he destroyed it in a flood similar to Noah's flood and that explains how science sees an old earth but the Bible reveals a young earth!
Origenistic Origins
The creation narratives in Genesis were never meant to be interpreted literally. The first 3 days don't have a sun or moon to mark them and chapter 2 has man and woman being made at a different time than chapter 1. What we need to understand is that God is the one who creates not his precise method of creating.
Intelligent Design
When we look at the scientific data as a whole it seems as though someone or something guided the process with a purpose in mind. Look at the harmony of how the ecosystems work on the earth, or how our human bodies work, or how the galaxy seems to be formed precisely just so that this planet can support life. Coincidence? I think not...
Catholic Position
God is not a magician who just pops everything into being. He uses the natural laws which he established to build and form the world and everything in it. Faith and Science are not enemies. Science requires the divine creator as a starting point and faith needs science to understand the physical elements of creation.
Genesis as Saga
God communicated the beginning of the earth in a way that the original audience of ancient Hebrews could understand it, as a creation narrative that mimicked other creation narratives of their neighbors. We shouldn't take the stories literally because historical criticism.
Agnostic
Don't know. Don't care.
Evolutionist
Science says that the earth is 6.5 billion years old and the universe started with a big bang. Here, take a look at these carbon dating / fossil tables / quantum physics.
Atheist
The data is clear. The earth is 6.5 billion years old. The universe started with a big bang. The Bible is WRONG! People who believe it are STUPID!
http://time.com/3545844/pope-francis-evolution-creationism/
In any case, I thought it might be fun to very briefly outline the different types of positions concerning the creationism / evolution debate.
Dogmatic and Paranoid
The Bible needs to be interpreted literally in all respects. Everyone who says differently doesn't know the TRUTH! Science is a lie from the Devil and all scientists go to HELL! Anyone who doesn't believe in a literal six day creation and a young earth is also going to Hell!
Dogmatic
I believe in a literal six day creation and a young earth. I base my position on a literal reading of the Genesis creation account and read the years in the genealogies literally as well. There needs to be a literal creation because we need a literal first Adam in order to have a literal second Adam (Jesus). Science is wrong.
Creationist
The prevailing scientific theories concerning the origin and age of the earth misinterpret scientific data and ignore instances where the data doesn't line up with their theories. Carbon Dating methods are unreliable, fossil records do not prove evolution, and a world wide cataclysm... like a flood for instance, would make sense of the data even more so than an old earth + evolution.
Faith seeking Understanding
I acknowledge that my beliefs run counter to the current scientific model. I am open to discussing it though.
Gap Theorist
The world was created in six days but there is a gap in the creation story where Lucifer was cast from heaven. The missing time must fall into that gap. God then created this world out of the Luciferian world after he destroyed it in a flood similar to Noah's flood and that explains how science sees an old earth but the Bible reveals a young earth!
Origenistic Origins
The creation narratives in Genesis were never meant to be interpreted literally. The first 3 days don't have a sun or moon to mark them and chapter 2 has man and woman being made at a different time than chapter 1. What we need to understand is that God is the one who creates not his precise method of creating.
Intelligent Design
When we look at the scientific data as a whole it seems as though someone or something guided the process with a purpose in mind. Look at the harmony of how the ecosystems work on the earth, or how our human bodies work, or how the galaxy seems to be formed precisely just so that this planet can support life. Coincidence? I think not...
Catholic Position
God is not a magician who just pops everything into being. He uses the natural laws which he established to build and form the world and everything in it. Faith and Science are not enemies. Science requires the divine creator as a starting point and faith needs science to understand the physical elements of creation.
Genesis as Saga
God communicated the beginning of the earth in a way that the original audience of ancient Hebrews could understand it, as a creation narrative that mimicked other creation narratives of their neighbors. We shouldn't take the stories literally because historical criticism.
Agnostic
Don't know. Don't care.
Evolutionist
Science says that the earth is 6.5 billion years old and the universe started with a big bang. Here, take a look at these carbon dating / fossil tables / quantum physics.
Atheist
The data is clear. The earth is 6.5 billion years old. The universe started with a big bang. The Bible is WRONG! People who believe it are STUPID!
Friday, October 3, 2014
The Death of Summer
It is cold today. The wind is has pulled most of the leaves off the trees, leaving brown and grey skeletal fingers where beauty and life used to be. The sun shines brightly, but holds no warmth, and shines less and less every day. The clouds are grey thick and mournful with no life to them. The birds have gone, the night sounds are gone, even the bugs are gone, all that remains is cold wind. Dead leaves blow across dying lawns and everybody braces for the long deep cold of winter.
Today I finish my job at Briercrest. The weather outside is a fitting parallel to my mind and heart. So many warm memories and yet none of them exist except inside my mind and heart. I open my eyes and I see that they are all gone and who will remember them if I can not? I kept a cheery disposition and encouraged and stayed encouraged until the last but now I feel a tremendous loss.
Clearing out my desk I found memories. The Distance Education pads I used to order by the dozen. We used to use them a lot. They were so useful and a rather ingenious marketing tool. Everyone used to use them, for everything. They were part of a different era. Now they are no more and the two pads hiding in my desk are the last ones. There was also business cards that predated me, Calvin probably printed them off and they reminded me of Charles, my first boss, and 9 years ago in 2004 when I first came to Briercrest. So many friends, so many memories, fellow students and co-workers, and Christians who I loved. Now gone, and I do not know where most of them are.
I erased the board today. A trivial task but oh so hard. I had drawn cavemen, a new one everyday when we found out that layoffs were going to happen, so that the department would have something to be encouraged by. There smiling faces and silly poses, now gone, except for the first one who peaks out from behind the 'away' section looking up with smiling expectation. They were precious in this time, and now they are gone. How long will my first and last little caveman exist?
Gone also are the old 4Imprint magazines from when I used to be their main contact. Gone are the raffle entries for free courses, the hand written inquiries about distance education, the accursed Moodle handbook (even this makes me sad), and every other work related keepsake I had held on to over the years. My work that I used to do is ending and soon I will also be gone from here.
I pause to consider what the future will hold for Briercrest and for Distance Education, but it is out of my hands and sorrow weighs me down. The way is clouded and the part of me that has remained ever hopeful and sees things through the eyes of faith is weary. There is something sacred about memories, the realization that I am so far removed from what made them hurts me. I will grieve and then I will move on, such is the way of things.
Time to face the long deep darkness of winter. It must come but only for a time. Winter must give way to summer, darkness to light, and grief to joy, Such is the reality for all of God's chosen.
Today I finish my job at Briercrest. The weather outside is a fitting parallel to my mind and heart. So many warm memories and yet none of them exist except inside my mind and heart. I open my eyes and I see that they are all gone and who will remember them if I can not? I kept a cheery disposition and encouraged and stayed encouraged until the last but now I feel a tremendous loss.
Clearing out my desk I found memories. The Distance Education pads I used to order by the dozen. We used to use them a lot. They were so useful and a rather ingenious marketing tool. Everyone used to use them, for everything. They were part of a different era. Now they are no more and the two pads hiding in my desk are the last ones. There was also business cards that predated me, Calvin probably printed them off and they reminded me of Charles, my first boss, and 9 years ago in 2004 when I first came to Briercrest. So many friends, so many memories, fellow students and co-workers, and Christians who I loved. Now gone, and I do not know where most of them are.
I erased the board today. A trivial task but oh so hard. I had drawn cavemen, a new one everyday when we found out that layoffs were going to happen, so that the department would have something to be encouraged by. There smiling faces and silly poses, now gone, except for the first one who peaks out from behind the 'away' section looking up with smiling expectation. They were precious in this time, and now they are gone. How long will my first and last little caveman exist?
Gone also are the old 4Imprint magazines from when I used to be their main contact. Gone are the raffle entries for free courses, the hand written inquiries about distance education, the accursed Moodle handbook (even this makes me sad), and every other work related keepsake I had held on to over the years. My work that I used to do is ending and soon I will also be gone from here.
I pause to consider what the future will hold for Briercrest and for Distance Education, but it is out of my hands and sorrow weighs me down. The way is clouded and the part of me that has remained ever hopeful and sees things through the eyes of faith is weary. There is something sacred about memories, the realization that I am so far removed from what made them hurts me. I will grieve and then I will move on, such is the way of things.
Time to face the long deep darkness of winter. It must come but only for a time. Winter must give way to summer, darkness to light, and grief to joy, Such is the reality for all of God's chosen.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Overall Historical Context of Thomas Watson (1617-1686)
So I am now on the fourth draft of my second thesis chapter; the Historical Context of Thomas Watson. I have to say it's a little frustrating to have to start over again but it is also good for me to do so. Reading, writing, reading, writing, reading, rewriting, rewriting some more, reading some more, and rewriting some more... this is how we build a thesis.
As my thesis supervisor keeps reminding me, I have to focus on my main research question: "What is the relationship between Thomas Watson's Doctrine of Repentance and the rest of his theology?" My theory is that it is central to Watson's theology and since so little has been written about the man or his theology this is a unique and innovative new perspective (even if it is blatantly obvious). In any case, I must use my research question to craft each chapter. So for this chapter I have to ask myself, "what historical events were going on that shaped or defined Thomas Watson? What historical events occurred that shaped or influenced his doctrine of repentance?"
After studying 17th century English history for the past month I think I can start to answer these questions.
I think the first major point of influence would have been his education at Emmanuel College, the bastion of Reformationist and Puritan teaching and thought. Emmanuel college was part of Cambridge University which had put forth such teachers as Tyndale, Cartwright, Browne, and many others. It was also the site that printed and published Puritan literature at risk to itself (illegal during the reign of Elizabeth I). There is also sorts of interesting points about Cambridge that aren't really relevant to my topic like how the university protested against the Act of Uniformity fifty years before Watson was even born or how fifty years even before that it was the sight of brave and excited reformation thinkers who met under cover of stealth to discuss the new radical writings of a certain German monk named Martin Luther. Needless to say Watson had already made up his mind to follow Christ and be a minister of the Gospel to have chosen an education at Cambridge. He followed in the footsteps of many of the boldest and most influential Puritans before him and I believe he embraced his theological education wholeheartedly. It is undoubtedly where he acquired his knowledge of the Patristics, Classics, Scholastics, and Reformers, which he quotes and alludes to in his writings. It may have also been where he developed his political views as a moderate Presbyterian. By 1642 he had earned a Masters degree at which point the English Civil War had begun.
I wrote last time about the political and religious intrigues of Watson's early life but I don't think they are terribly important in the grand scheme of my thesis. Watson would have grown up under James I and then Charles I, he would have experienced the tension of both the religious and political rights and liberties being conflated and opposed by the king's prerogative, but since he never speaks about it and his position was to attempt dialogue over and against rebellion I don't think this is important. It is interesting to note that Watson sided with Charles (as a good many Presbyterians did) but I don't think it is important to the sort of argument I want to make. No, during this time Watson was appointed vicar of a good sized church in London, St. Stephens, where he faithfully and with great effect, preached every Sunday. His sermons were personal, poignant, and pithy and he quickly became a popular orator and preacher. Upon the capture of Charles I he was called upon to preach to parliament concerning what they ought to do. The sermon he preached was 'very serious' and 'dire' wherein he warned them that nothing is secret in the eyes of almighty God and that they ought to consider very carefully how they should proceed. Given how poetic, memorable, and powerful his words are in writing I have no doubt that some at least were shaken by this sermon. Watson's sermon was not published however, the other minister's was, the one who preached about how the wicked (the King) deserve their just rewards.
What is important is that Watson suffered in prison for his political actions. After the execution of Charles I Watson became involved in a plot to bring Charles II to England. The plot was found out, the leader was tried and executed, and Watson among others, were thrown in prison where he remained until a good many preachers pleaded for his release a year later in 1652. This is important because it is one thing to speak about repentance and another to speak about repentance after having suffered. Suffering, pain, weeping, they are all themes that Watson is not afraid to speak about concerning repentance, and I believe that this event could have inspired those thoughts.
The next big point worth talking about is the 'Great Ejection' of 1662. Watson had been preaching at St. Stephens for 16 years, he had supported the king against other Puritans and nonconformists, he had suffered for the sake of the new king Charles II (crowned in 1660) but public sentiment had swung completely around against him. There was such a backlash against the Civil War at this time that parliament and the reinstated Anglican Church put into affect a series of harsh 'anti-sedition laws' against nonconformists, Puritans, Quakers, Independents, Catholics, and anyone else who refused to swear the oaths of the Anglican Church and submit to the new Book of Common Prayer. It became law in 1662 that all who refused to agree strongly with the now intolerant and militant Anglican regime were to be ejected from their pastorates and arrested if caught within 5 miles of a city or town or preaching to a group of persons larger than 4. Such strict and harsh ruling spelled ruin for Puritan ministers and yet they did not waver in their convictions and left their stations in a great exodus on St, Bartholomew's Day 1662. I do not know what specifically Watson did not agree with in the Anglican Church or the Book of Common Prayer. He doesn't talk about it. It could be suggested that he was doing what was typical for moderate Presbyterians, disagreeing out of principle not because there was anything wrong with Anglicanism per-se but disagreeing with the restrictiveness of the new rulings. A common position was that True Christianity could be expressed in a multitude of traditions, rites, ceremonies, and theological positions and it was unchristian to claim that this method and ONLY this method were acceptable, It would seem to line up with Watson's position of wanting to dialogue with the king instead of take up arms. But yes, more suffering. Suffering for the gospel at the hands of the people he had aligned himself with when it was politically unpopular to do so.
There was certainly plenty for individuals and even the nation to repent from at this point. Watson specifically addresses a few things. During the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell all of the censorship that was perviously in place was suddenly gone and England was flooded by new ideas as all who had previously been silenced took up a strong loud voice in the press. A proliferation of independent Protestant groups emerged each with there own ideas about worship, church structure, and sometimes even the nature of God Himself! Watson claims that these are all evil and should be repented of. We should not innovate new ways to worship God because God has already revealed how we ought to worship Him. Corporately the nation had turned its back on God, refusing to proceed in dialogue and reformation, now hardening back into superstition and rigid (arbitrary) structures in an effort to secure a unifying political stance in favor of the king they did so at the expense of aligning with the King of Kings! The nation and the king, which had sworn by the Solemn League and Covenant had publicly burned it. The persecution of the Godly was a sad state for any nation to be in, and this is what Watson experienced.
The rest of Watson's life didn't see anything specifically grand or important. Despite the strict laws in place against him Thomas Watson continued to preach and even set up a meeting hall in 1666 after the fires of London had burned many churches to the ground. In 1672 he was reinstated by the king's Act of Indulgence and set about preaching at Crosby Hall where he was joined by Stephen Charnock (1675-1680). In 1686 his health failed and he retired to Essex where he died suddenly while in his prayer room.
Many of his sermons were collected and posthumously published as A Body of Divinity which was used in teaching and catechumen for the next 200 years. Even today his Body of Practical Divinity, is a cherished and important piece of Puritan writing.
So there is an informal account of Watson's historical context. Now I just have to take these ideas and compile / refine them into my actual chapter.
Greg Out.
As my thesis supervisor keeps reminding me, I have to focus on my main research question: "What is the relationship between Thomas Watson's Doctrine of Repentance and the rest of his theology?" My theory is that it is central to Watson's theology and since so little has been written about the man or his theology this is a unique and innovative new perspective (even if it is blatantly obvious). In any case, I must use my research question to craft each chapter. So for this chapter I have to ask myself, "what historical events were going on that shaped or defined Thomas Watson? What historical events occurred that shaped or influenced his doctrine of repentance?"
After studying 17th century English history for the past month I think I can start to answer these questions.
I think the first major point of influence would have been his education at Emmanuel College, the bastion of Reformationist and Puritan teaching and thought. Emmanuel college was part of Cambridge University which had put forth such teachers as Tyndale, Cartwright, Browne, and many others. It was also the site that printed and published Puritan literature at risk to itself (illegal during the reign of Elizabeth I). There is also sorts of interesting points about Cambridge that aren't really relevant to my topic like how the university protested against the Act of Uniformity fifty years before Watson was even born or how fifty years even before that it was the sight of brave and excited reformation thinkers who met under cover of stealth to discuss the new radical writings of a certain German monk named Martin Luther. Needless to say Watson had already made up his mind to follow Christ and be a minister of the Gospel to have chosen an education at Cambridge. He followed in the footsteps of many of the boldest and most influential Puritans before him and I believe he embraced his theological education wholeheartedly. It is undoubtedly where he acquired his knowledge of the Patristics, Classics, Scholastics, and Reformers, which he quotes and alludes to in his writings. It may have also been where he developed his political views as a moderate Presbyterian. By 1642 he had earned a Masters degree at which point the English Civil War had begun.
I wrote last time about the political and religious intrigues of Watson's early life but I don't think they are terribly important in the grand scheme of my thesis. Watson would have grown up under James I and then Charles I, he would have experienced the tension of both the religious and political rights and liberties being conflated and opposed by the king's prerogative, but since he never speaks about it and his position was to attempt dialogue over and against rebellion I don't think this is important. It is interesting to note that Watson sided with Charles (as a good many Presbyterians did) but I don't think it is important to the sort of argument I want to make. No, during this time Watson was appointed vicar of a good sized church in London, St. Stephens, where he faithfully and with great effect, preached every Sunday. His sermons were personal, poignant, and pithy and he quickly became a popular orator and preacher. Upon the capture of Charles I he was called upon to preach to parliament concerning what they ought to do. The sermon he preached was 'very serious' and 'dire' wherein he warned them that nothing is secret in the eyes of almighty God and that they ought to consider very carefully how they should proceed. Given how poetic, memorable, and powerful his words are in writing I have no doubt that some at least were shaken by this sermon. Watson's sermon was not published however, the other minister's was, the one who preached about how the wicked (the King) deserve their just rewards.
What is important is that Watson suffered in prison for his political actions. After the execution of Charles I Watson became involved in a plot to bring Charles II to England. The plot was found out, the leader was tried and executed, and Watson among others, were thrown in prison where he remained until a good many preachers pleaded for his release a year later in 1652. This is important because it is one thing to speak about repentance and another to speak about repentance after having suffered. Suffering, pain, weeping, they are all themes that Watson is not afraid to speak about concerning repentance, and I believe that this event could have inspired those thoughts.
The next big point worth talking about is the 'Great Ejection' of 1662. Watson had been preaching at St. Stephens for 16 years, he had supported the king against other Puritans and nonconformists, he had suffered for the sake of the new king Charles II (crowned in 1660) but public sentiment had swung completely around against him. There was such a backlash against the Civil War at this time that parliament and the reinstated Anglican Church put into affect a series of harsh 'anti-sedition laws' against nonconformists, Puritans, Quakers, Independents, Catholics, and anyone else who refused to swear the oaths of the Anglican Church and submit to the new Book of Common Prayer. It became law in 1662 that all who refused to agree strongly with the now intolerant and militant Anglican regime were to be ejected from their pastorates and arrested if caught within 5 miles of a city or town or preaching to a group of persons larger than 4. Such strict and harsh ruling spelled ruin for Puritan ministers and yet they did not waver in their convictions and left their stations in a great exodus on St, Bartholomew's Day 1662. I do not know what specifically Watson did not agree with in the Anglican Church or the Book of Common Prayer. He doesn't talk about it. It could be suggested that he was doing what was typical for moderate Presbyterians, disagreeing out of principle not because there was anything wrong with Anglicanism per-se but disagreeing with the restrictiveness of the new rulings. A common position was that True Christianity could be expressed in a multitude of traditions, rites, ceremonies, and theological positions and it was unchristian to claim that this method and ONLY this method were acceptable, It would seem to line up with Watson's position of wanting to dialogue with the king instead of take up arms. But yes, more suffering. Suffering for the gospel at the hands of the people he had aligned himself with when it was politically unpopular to do so.
There was certainly plenty for individuals and even the nation to repent from at this point. Watson specifically addresses a few things. During the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell all of the censorship that was perviously in place was suddenly gone and England was flooded by new ideas as all who had previously been silenced took up a strong loud voice in the press. A proliferation of independent Protestant groups emerged each with there own ideas about worship, church structure, and sometimes even the nature of God Himself! Watson claims that these are all evil and should be repented of. We should not innovate new ways to worship God because God has already revealed how we ought to worship Him. Corporately the nation had turned its back on God, refusing to proceed in dialogue and reformation, now hardening back into superstition and rigid (arbitrary) structures in an effort to secure a unifying political stance in favor of the king they did so at the expense of aligning with the King of Kings! The nation and the king, which had sworn by the Solemn League and Covenant had publicly burned it. The persecution of the Godly was a sad state for any nation to be in, and this is what Watson experienced.
The rest of Watson's life didn't see anything specifically grand or important. Despite the strict laws in place against him Thomas Watson continued to preach and even set up a meeting hall in 1666 after the fires of London had burned many churches to the ground. In 1672 he was reinstated by the king's Act of Indulgence and set about preaching at Crosby Hall where he was joined by Stephen Charnock (1675-1680). In 1686 his health failed and he retired to Essex where he died suddenly while in his prayer room.
Many of his sermons were collected and posthumously published as A Body of Divinity which was used in teaching and catechumen for the next 200 years. Even today his Body of Practical Divinity, is a cherished and important piece of Puritan writing.
So there is an informal account of Watson's historical context. Now I just have to take these ideas and compile / refine them into my actual chapter.
Greg Out.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
The historical Context of Thomas Watson: The Early Years 1617-1625
Here is some 'getting ideas out of my head' stuff regarding the first piece of my thesis.
Thomas Watson was born in 1617-1619, a turbulent time in England. To understand his context I've been studying English history beginning with the first Puritans in the 1500's, through Elizabeth I's reign, to the reign of James I, Charles I, the English Civil War, and then Charles II. I'm only just beginning though so my focus is on James I who reigned from 1603 - 1625, the king who was running the nation at the time of Watson's birth.
The nation was in the midst of some serious religious tension. The Church of England had successfully established itself apart from the Church of Rome for some time now but the pressure exerted by the Catholics and radical Protestants was a constant strain for both religion and politics. The Puritans, radical as well as moderate, had become quite popular and powerful within the House of Commons and began to dominate the discussions at parliament. They had endured decades of repression under Elizabeth who forced them to comply with the rites and ceremonies of the established Church of England and silenced their dissenting voices in the Church, government, and eventually in the streets. The Puritans wished to reform the Church of England and do away with Popish garments, rites, and ceremonies and argued vehemently that they were superstitious in nature and had nothing to do with true religion. They argued also that the Church ought to be run as a Presbytery and that the Episcopal model of bishops, archbishops, lordbishops, and archdecons with the monarch as the head of the Church was unbiblical and should therefore be completely done away with. I will at this time remind the reader that nearly every facet of medieval life was greatly affected by the Church and that what the Puritans were pushing towards would have great consequences for every facet of life for everyone in England. For suggesting such ideas, and attempting to implement them, they were cast out of their pastorate positions, thrown in prison, and some of them executed for writing seditious literature and for treason.
By the reign of King James I the Puritans were sick and tired of being attacked for refusing to play along with the stagnant religion of the age and they had enough support to begin digging their feet in and stand their ground. Every time the king called parliament (which he needed to do to make taxes to fund his needs) they made things difficult for him and requested (demanded really) that a commission investigate the many religious grievances done to the godly and that the Church of England by reformed. The king's response was to dissolve parliament and sternly warn them to not meddle in the affairs of the king. You can imagine how well that went over. The next time the king called parliament the Puritans had only grown bolder and more insistent, passing bills and laws to try and limit the king and provide learned and godly [puritan] ministers in every region of England. The king had to dissolve parliament again, this time without gaining the funds he required and he resolved not to call parliament again.
The Puritans meanwhile were secretly setting up Presbyteries across England in secret, within the Episcopal system. They also began to discuss when it might be permissible in God's eyes to take up arms against your king. The fire of revolution was beginning to spark. Then some kindling was added, some issues that were quick to create small flames. Prince Charles was set to marry the Spanish Princess Anna Maria, a dedicated Catholic. Rumors began to circulate which became a moral panic among the Protestants; the king was supporting the Catholics and Armenian heretics and had become one himself! The conspiracy theory was strong and difficult to combat within the minds of the English people. Those who supported the king in his tyranny were Arminians and Anglo-Catholics. Those who resisted the king and petitioned for the rights of the people were Puritans. The lines were being drawn for a civil war.
An interesting point in all this is that King James I seems to be represented very differently in history depending on who you read. To your average Puritan he was a tyrant. To an extreme nonconformist Puritan he was an incompetent, evil-hearted, hypocritical, dumb, evil, stupid, stupid, very stupid, dumb dumb head spawn of Satan stupid. [I might be exaggerating a little... but they really had nothing good to say about him]. To a moderate Protestant King James I was a godsend, a wise and theologically astute ruler who lead England through a tough bout with the Catholic Church amidst a difficult political climate at home. Even though the perception of him is widely varied one thing is for certain, King James had a very high opinion of his authority both within politics and the Church and he had a very hard time with the idea that he had to listen and work with other human authorities.
And now my ideas have run out.
Hope that was intersting
Greg Out
Thomas Watson was born in 1617-1619, a turbulent time in England. To understand his context I've been studying English history beginning with the first Puritans in the 1500's, through Elizabeth I's reign, to the reign of James I, Charles I, the English Civil War, and then Charles II. I'm only just beginning though so my focus is on James I who reigned from 1603 - 1625, the king who was running the nation at the time of Watson's birth.
The nation was in the midst of some serious religious tension. The Church of England had successfully established itself apart from the Church of Rome for some time now but the pressure exerted by the Catholics and radical Protestants was a constant strain for both religion and politics. The Puritans, radical as well as moderate, had become quite popular and powerful within the House of Commons and began to dominate the discussions at parliament. They had endured decades of repression under Elizabeth who forced them to comply with the rites and ceremonies of the established Church of England and silenced their dissenting voices in the Church, government, and eventually in the streets. The Puritans wished to reform the Church of England and do away with Popish garments, rites, and ceremonies and argued vehemently that they were superstitious in nature and had nothing to do with true religion. They argued also that the Church ought to be run as a Presbytery and that the Episcopal model of bishops, archbishops, lordbishops, and archdecons with the monarch as the head of the Church was unbiblical and should therefore be completely done away with. I will at this time remind the reader that nearly every facet of medieval life was greatly affected by the Church and that what the Puritans were pushing towards would have great consequences for every facet of life for everyone in England. For suggesting such ideas, and attempting to implement them, they were cast out of their pastorate positions, thrown in prison, and some of them executed for writing seditious literature and for treason.
By the reign of King James I the Puritans were sick and tired of being attacked for refusing to play along with the stagnant religion of the age and they had enough support to begin digging their feet in and stand their ground. Every time the king called parliament (which he needed to do to make taxes to fund his needs) they made things difficult for him and requested (demanded really) that a commission investigate the many religious grievances done to the godly and that the Church of England by reformed. The king's response was to dissolve parliament and sternly warn them to not meddle in the affairs of the king. You can imagine how well that went over. The next time the king called parliament the Puritans had only grown bolder and more insistent, passing bills and laws to try and limit the king and provide learned and godly [puritan] ministers in every region of England. The king had to dissolve parliament again, this time without gaining the funds he required and he resolved not to call parliament again.
The Puritans meanwhile were secretly setting up Presbyteries across England in secret, within the Episcopal system. They also began to discuss when it might be permissible in God's eyes to take up arms against your king. The fire of revolution was beginning to spark. Then some kindling was added, some issues that were quick to create small flames. Prince Charles was set to marry the Spanish Princess Anna Maria, a dedicated Catholic. Rumors began to circulate which became a moral panic among the Protestants; the king was supporting the Catholics and Armenian heretics and had become one himself! The conspiracy theory was strong and difficult to combat within the minds of the English people. Those who supported the king in his tyranny were Arminians and Anglo-Catholics. Those who resisted the king and petitioned for the rights of the people were Puritans. The lines were being drawn for a civil war.
An interesting point in all this is that King James I seems to be represented very differently in history depending on who you read. To your average Puritan he was a tyrant. To an extreme nonconformist Puritan he was an incompetent, evil-hearted, hypocritical, dumb, evil, stupid, stupid, very stupid, dumb dumb head spawn of Satan stupid. [I might be exaggerating a little... but they really had nothing good to say about him]. To a moderate Protestant King James I was a godsend, a wise and theologically astute ruler who lead England through a tough bout with the Catholic Church amidst a difficult political climate at home. Even though the perception of him is widely varied one thing is for certain, King James had a very high opinion of his authority both within politics and the Church and he had a very hard time with the idea that he had to listen and work with other human authorities.
And now my ideas have run out.
Hope that was intersting
Greg Out
What is Systematic Theology?
So I'm currently writing a thesis about Thomas Watson for my Master's in Systematic Theology. Cool. People ask what it's about and I start reciting the thoughts in my head and summing up my research about Thomas Watson, Repentance, The Puritans, the English Civil War, the Act of Uniformity, the list goes on and on. I generally have a good idea of what I am writing about and why. My friends and family support me, think my topic is really interesting, and have a hard time explaining what exactly systematic theology is. So for anyone who reads this blog and cares to know, here is my account of what I'm getting a degree in.
Systematic Theology has two components. Theology: the study of God (from a Christian perspective); and Systematic: presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles.
Systematic Theology looks at the entirety of Scripture, doctrines, history, science, and philosophy and tries to make sense of them. The goal is to make all the pieces cohere one to another within a system or method of thought that can be applied broadly as well as particularly.
This is a little different than the other theology degrees offered through Briercrest Seminary. A degree in Theological Studies: New Testament focuses on understanding the New Testament specifically the authors, genres, messages, history and how it applies to today. Same can be said for the Theological Studies: Old Testament degree. Systematic Theology by comparison doesn't focus in on any particular point and is extremely big picture. It's theological philosophy.
So practically speaking what is Systematic Theology? Systematic Theology is a broad and deep knowledge God's working in the world and how we ought to live in light of it. It's understanding how the big abstract ideas in Christianity relate to each other and being able to explain and apply these things in real life. An example would be being able to understand and explain how the Doctrine of the Trinity relates to both the Old and New Testaments, is essential to the Christian faith, and manifests itself within the experience of Christian believers throughout history around the world. It's being able to explain the 'Predestination / Freewill' tension within Scripture in a coherent manner beyond the common Calvinist / Arminian stereotypes. It's being able to explain how God created everything and yet nothing created God.
In it's most basic form I suppose a simple definition would be: understanding the how and why for everything to do with the Christian belief.
Training in Systematic Theology is (hopefully) a humbling experience that will encourage the student to seek and be guided by wisdom. A good systematic theologian is able to identify and look past cultural bias, rigid thinking, and unfruitful debate.
So there it is, a hastily put together definition of what I've dedicated the five years to.
Greg Out
Training in Systematic Theology is (hopefully) a humbling experience that will encourage the student to seek and be guided by wisdom. A good systematic theologian is able to identify and look past cultural bias, rigid thinking, and unfruitful debate.
So there it is, a hastily put together definition of what I've dedicated the five years to.
Greg Out
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Putting together a Master's Thesis 1(?)
So I am trying to grapple with how to put together my Master's Thesis. I have 5 chapters with fairly straightforward structure but I am not sure where to start. It's like trying to fit a whole bagel in my mouth except the bagel is the size of ten bags of bagels... or is that beagles? ... Bugles?
Anyway, I thought I would start with reading through Watson's Doctrine of Repentance and take notes like usual. I read through it, took some notes, and then also read through his Jerusalem's Glory. This book wasn't nearly as straight forward as the other but still useful because it dealt with corporate repentance which he only covers briefly in Doctrine. Alright, off to a reasonable start I suppose. Now to re-read Doctrine and turn my notes into pros for use in chapter 4, defining Watson's doctrine of repentance. This is quite a job in itself and as I began I found something that makes it easier and harder at the same time.
Two years ago I had written a paper on this topic and this is when I was first encouraged to pursue it as a thesis. Well, I found the paper, the pros, and the notes for all my research that I had done two years ago. About 40 pages worth of literature typed by me two years ago. This obviously makes taking study notes on Doctrine easier... since it's already done. How does it make it harder? Well, I don't remember how thorough I was when I made these notes and I think my perspective may have changed since then. Deep inside I feel like I have to start all over again just in case I missed something the first time. At the same time I am very NOT motivated to do that because I already did it. So I am at a loss for what to do now since the work I set out to do is already done but may need to be redone.
Right now I think I will just relax though. I don't get the chance to relax all that often and with only four more days left for visiting my in-laws I think being present with them should be a priority. That, and I am tired. I have been tired for two years I am just starting to feel not tired again. My thesis adviser told me to take a break before beginning if I needed, and I think I do need it.
When I get back though I have a few things that I need to do ASAP. I need to find the Doctrine of Repentance Paper that I submitted and got marked up by my supervisor two years ago. I need to take a look at other Master theses that follow a pattern of research similar to my own to create a mental template to build mine off of. Once I do both of those things I should have a meeting with my supervisor. Then I will have a clearer understanding of how to go about stuffing ten beagles in my mouth.
Greg Out
Anyway, I thought I would start with reading through Watson's Doctrine of Repentance and take notes like usual. I read through it, took some notes, and then also read through his Jerusalem's Glory. This book wasn't nearly as straight forward as the other but still useful because it dealt with corporate repentance which he only covers briefly in Doctrine. Alright, off to a reasonable start I suppose. Now to re-read Doctrine and turn my notes into pros for use in chapter 4, defining Watson's doctrine of repentance. This is quite a job in itself and as I began I found something that makes it easier and harder at the same time.
Two years ago I had written a paper on this topic and this is when I was first encouraged to pursue it as a thesis. Well, I found the paper, the pros, and the notes for all my research that I had done two years ago. About 40 pages worth of literature typed by me two years ago. This obviously makes taking study notes on Doctrine easier... since it's already done. How does it make it harder? Well, I don't remember how thorough I was when I made these notes and I think my perspective may have changed since then. Deep inside I feel like I have to start all over again just in case I missed something the first time. At the same time I am very NOT motivated to do that because I already did it. So I am at a loss for what to do now since the work I set out to do is already done but may need to be redone.
Right now I think I will just relax though. I don't get the chance to relax all that often and with only four more days left for visiting my in-laws I think being present with them should be a priority. That, and I am tired. I have been tired for two years I am just starting to feel not tired again. My thesis adviser told me to take a break before beginning if I needed, and I think I do need it.
When I get back though I have a few things that I need to do ASAP. I need to find the Doctrine of Repentance Paper that I submitted and got marked up by my supervisor two years ago. I need to take a look at other Master theses that follow a pattern of research similar to my own to create a mental template to build mine off of. Once I do both of those things I should have a meeting with my supervisor. Then I will have a clearer understanding of how to go about stuffing ten beagles in my mouth.
Greg Out
Monday, August 4, 2014
Who I want to be
I didn't think I would ever want to be a pastor. Overworked, underpaid, slandered, abused by Church goers, elders, friends, and strangers. And yet hear I am, taking a pastoral stance on a lot of things these days. When I encounter someone I disagree with I don't care about winning an argument, I want to understand them, I want to know why they think the way they do. Everyone comes with a story and that story defines them and speaks louder than cold logic. It is better to listen than to speak. It is better to pick your battles and try to keep the peace. It is better to be gentle than confrontational. The truth should be spoken in love, the welfare of others should come before proving yourself right. Once I thought I wanted to outwit and put the enemies of Christ to shame, now I see them as hurting people and I think I begin to understand why it is God who judges and why it is inappropriate for me to condemn anyone. What do I know about a stranger's past or the inner thoughts of another? My hope is to offer anyone who comes to me a listening ear, the best of good will, a helping hand, and through the will of the Father and the action of the Holy Spirit, Christ himself.
I still want to teach and use logic but it needs to be used appropriately, tempered with grace. I have to face it, God has given me a pastoral heart. Within a year I will have graduated from seminary with a Master of Arts in Systematic Theology. I can put two and two together, I will probably be involved in ministry. And why not? Preaching is similar to teaching except you are teaching specifically from the Scriptures. I think I would like that. I believe it was Karl Barth who said that unless you are going to preaching to Gospel you have have learned nothing about theology.
And then there is the topic of my thesis. Thomas Watson and his doctrine of repentance. The more I read about him the more I admire him. According to the editor's notes in his Glory of Jerusalem: a vision of what the Church should be, Watson was not considered especially brilliant by his contemporaries. He was a studious man who deeply cared for others and made his living by preaching the Gospel, bringing the ivory tower of philosophical and theological thought down to the vulgar and common everyday life. He was not a clever innovator or an outstanding theologian, he was a faithful witness of Christ and a good steward of what God had given him. If I could learn from him and become what he was in his day, I think I would be most happy. I don't consider myself especially brilliant, but I do care for others and wish to see them come into the fullness of Christ. Some might consider me studious. When I read about Watson I do not consider myself so. He graduated with a Masters, the same sort of Masters that I will be graduating with. He graduated with a thorough understanding of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin in addition to a thorough knowledge of Classical literature, the Patristics, the Scholastics, and the Reformers. I will be graduating with a minimally functional understanding of Greek and Hebrew and a general overview of the Patristics and a loose map of a host of theological concepts. I will need to continue my studies privately if I am to ever catch up to him. Then again, a Master's degree in the 17th century could have been about the equivalent of 3 doctorates today. Will have to look into that at some point.
In any case, I find in Watson a vision of the sort of man I want to be. A pastoral teacher who uses the academic training he received to encourage, instruct, exhort, challenge, and lead God's sheep, his precious Church. The sort of man who multiplies what his master entrusts him with who will one day be able to say, "you gave me these talents, look I have put them to good use and multiplied them in your name!"
I still want to teach and use logic but it needs to be used appropriately, tempered with grace. I have to face it, God has given me a pastoral heart. Within a year I will have graduated from seminary with a Master of Arts in Systematic Theology. I can put two and two together, I will probably be involved in ministry. And why not? Preaching is similar to teaching except you are teaching specifically from the Scriptures. I think I would like that. I believe it was Karl Barth who said that unless you are going to preaching to Gospel you have have learned nothing about theology.
And then there is the topic of my thesis. Thomas Watson and his doctrine of repentance. The more I read about him the more I admire him. According to the editor's notes in his Glory of Jerusalem: a vision of what the Church should be, Watson was not considered especially brilliant by his contemporaries. He was a studious man who deeply cared for others and made his living by preaching the Gospel, bringing the ivory tower of philosophical and theological thought down to the vulgar and common everyday life. He was not a clever innovator or an outstanding theologian, he was a faithful witness of Christ and a good steward of what God had given him. If I could learn from him and become what he was in his day, I think I would be most happy. I don't consider myself especially brilliant, but I do care for others and wish to see them come into the fullness of Christ. Some might consider me studious. When I read about Watson I do not consider myself so. He graduated with a Masters, the same sort of Masters that I will be graduating with. He graduated with a thorough understanding of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin in addition to a thorough knowledge of Classical literature, the Patristics, the Scholastics, and the Reformers. I will be graduating with a minimally functional understanding of Greek and Hebrew and a general overview of the Patristics and a loose map of a host of theological concepts. I will need to continue my studies privately if I am to ever catch up to him. Then again, a Master's degree in the 17th century could have been about the equivalent of 3 doctorates today. Will have to look into that at some point.
In any case, I find in Watson a vision of the sort of man I want to be. A pastoral teacher who uses the academic training he received to encourage, instruct, exhort, challenge, and lead God's sheep, his precious Church. The sort of man who multiplies what his master entrusts him with who will one day be able to say, "you gave me these talents, look I have put them to good use and multiplied them in your name!"
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Who I do not want to be
I have been confronted with two visions. One is who I thought I wanted to be and realize now that I do not and the other is the one I didn't want to be which I realize now that I do. If you find that sentence a little confusing then you are probably close to the same frame of mind that I find myself in.
Once upon a time I thought I wanted to be a rational teacher and a debater who could put atheists, liberal talk show hosts, politicians and other perceived enemies of God to shame with heavenly inspired logic and a rapier whit. Then I spent four years at Briercrest and got a BA in Theology and an additional five years working on a MA in Systematic Theology. Halfway through my education I learned that the world wasn't as black and white as I thought it was and I was not as smart as I thought I was. Life went on and I continued my studies and that dream vanished from my mind until I saw someone else living it... and I didn't like what I saw.
Defeating people with logic alone is disgusting. The friend I saw doing this definitely won the argument but the argument was stupid and definitely not worth crushing the other. He boasted about his triumphs, mocking the woman he had baited and trolled, quoting her private messages to him for others to laugh at. She pleaded that he respect her privacy and act as a Christian brother but he mocked her pleas, quoting them for his friends to show how stupid and ridiculous she was being. I was shocked. Horrified. I was struck numb, my soul cringed inside me. What had he accomplished? Is a conversation about Gluten really worth baiting and spitting upon your fellow image bearer of God? More than that, fellow heir of whom you share the bond of Christ?
No, there is a better way. I tried to explain it but he became defensive and tried continued on with his logical correctness. This is not who I want to be.
Then there is Thomas Watson, the puritan I have started writing about. I didn't think I would ever want to be a pastor. Overworked, underpaid, slandered, abused by Church goers, elders, friends, and strangers. And yet hear I am, taking a pastoral stance on a lot of things these days. More on that tomorrow after I have slept.
Once upon a time I thought I wanted to be a rational teacher and a debater who could put atheists, liberal talk show hosts, politicians and other perceived enemies of God to shame with heavenly inspired logic and a rapier whit. Then I spent four years at Briercrest and got a BA in Theology and an additional five years working on a MA in Systematic Theology. Halfway through my education I learned that the world wasn't as black and white as I thought it was and I was not as smart as I thought I was. Life went on and I continued my studies and that dream vanished from my mind until I saw someone else living it... and I didn't like what I saw.
Defeating people with logic alone is disgusting. The friend I saw doing this definitely won the argument but the argument was stupid and definitely not worth crushing the other. He boasted about his triumphs, mocking the woman he had baited and trolled, quoting her private messages to him for others to laugh at. She pleaded that he respect her privacy and act as a Christian brother but he mocked her pleas, quoting them for his friends to show how stupid and ridiculous she was being. I was shocked. Horrified. I was struck numb, my soul cringed inside me. What had he accomplished? Is a conversation about Gluten really worth baiting and spitting upon your fellow image bearer of God? More than that, fellow heir of whom you share the bond of Christ?
No, there is a better way. I tried to explain it but he became defensive and tried continued on with his logical correctness. This is not who I want to be.
Then there is Thomas Watson, the puritan I have started writing about. I didn't think I would ever want to be a pastor. Overworked, underpaid, slandered, abused by Church goers, elders, friends, and strangers. And yet hear I am, taking a pastoral stance on a lot of things these days. More on that tomorrow after I have slept.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
"Armageddon" or "Hill of Megiddo"?
Part of my job is to occasionally search for online versions of videos that have only ever been offered through the library as hard copy DVDs. Today was one of those days where I was asked to find just such a video. Well, in my search I found something that put a few things into perspective. The video is available for your viewing if you so desire to view it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5cV4o1KmyI
In this video the study leader discusses the meaning of Armageddon. He takes a different approach than what is common in our culture. There are no tanks or dragons or black helicopters or locust-scorpion monsters that breathe sulfur, or nuclear missiles. It is not an event ("Armageddon is coming,") and it's significance is not the end of the world. What is it then? It's a place.
The Hebrew phrase that we derive this word from is 'har' (hill) and 'Megiddon' (of Megiddo). "Hill of Megiddo," also known as "Tel Megiddo," now an archaeological dig site in northern Israel. Why is this place associated with the end of the world? Well historically the ancient city of Megiddo stood over the only viable trade route between Mesopotamia and Egypt. All of the trade of the ancient near east would funnel through a canyon that was controlled by Megiddo. Whoever controlled Megiddo controlled the world by proxy. The field of Megiddo was therefore the site of constant war and bloodshed as different kingdoms tried to control the trade route by taking the city. Canaan, Israel, Judah, Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, everyone who was anyone wanted to lay claim to the city that controlled the world and a great many battles were fought in what we now call "Armageddon."
According to the study leader this is what John had in mind. A battle for control of the world between the people of God and the people of the devil. There are many Megiddos now. He calls New York a Megiddo for its economic power. He calls Hollywood a Megiddo for its moral and cultural influence. He calls the abortion debate as well as the institute of marriage a Megiddo. I might add the public educational system to the list and I'm sure you could think of a few too. Anywhere and anytime when control over the world is exerted it is a battleground for the hearts and minds of the world and Christians need to participate in those battles.
It is a good analogy I think, and a more profitable way to understand 'Armageddon' than to go on about end time predictions. "No one knows when the end will come, no man, no angel, not even the Son, only the Father" (Mat 11:27; Mark 13:32). No, this is far more practical, useful, theologically sound, and takes into account genre and authorial intent where a fundamentalist biblicism does not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5cV4o1KmyI
In this video the study leader discusses the meaning of Armageddon. He takes a different approach than what is common in our culture. There are no tanks or dragons or black helicopters or locust-scorpion monsters that breathe sulfur, or nuclear missiles. It is not an event ("Armageddon is coming,") and it's significance is not the end of the world. What is it then? It's a place.
The Hebrew phrase that we derive this word from is 'har' (hill) and 'Megiddon' (of Megiddo). "Hill of Megiddo," also known as "Tel Megiddo," now an archaeological dig site in northern Israel. Why is this place associated with the end of the world? Well historically the ancient city of Megiddo stood over the only viable trade route between Mesopotamia and Egypt. All of the trade of the ancient near east would funnel through a canyon that was controlled by Megiddo. Whoever controlled Megiddo controlled the world by proxy. The field of Megiddo was therefore the site of constant war and bloodshed as different kingdoms tried to control the trade route by taking the city. Canaan, Israel, Judah, Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, everyone who was anyone wanted to lay claim to the city that controlled the world and a great many battles were fought in what we now call "Armageddon."
According to the study leader this is what John had in mind. A battle for control of the world between the people of God and the people of the devil. There are many Megiddos now. He calls New York a Megiddo for its economic power. He calls Hollywood a Megiddo for its moral and cultural influence. He calls the abortion debate as well as the institute of marriage a Megiddo. I might add the public educational system to the list and I'm sure you could think of a few too. Anywhere and anytime when control over the world is exerted it is a battleground for the hearts and minds of the world and Christians need to participate in those battles.
It is a good analogy I think, and a more profitable way to understand 'Armageddon' than to go on about end time predictions. "No one knows when the end will come, no man, no angel, not even the Son, only the Father" (Mat 11:27; Mark 13:32). No, this is far more practical, useful, theologically sound, and takes into account genre and authorial intent where a fundamentalist biblicism does not.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Thomas Watson on Repentance
One of the biggest lessons in my Research and Design Methodology course was to read and write, read and write, and read and write. There is no such thing as reading and then writing a paper. You need to write as you read. Writing is part of your research. Even if you don't know what to write about you must always write. Ideas are abstract and intangible in the mind but gain substance and coherence when put to pen. This post then is my writing about Thomas Watson's doctrine of repentance. It is research for my thesis.
Watson held an immense amount of importance for repentance. The first and last lines of his book The Doctrine of Repentance are about how it is impossible for the Christian to get to heaven without it. Repentance is a grace given to you be God, it is not something that you conjure up on your own. It seems that in Watson's theology God allows you to repent and in repenting God relents from his judgement against you both now and in the life to come... unless you cease repenting in which case, woe to you for you are worse off than ever you were before. Repentance is a continual act, more like a lifestyle than an event. And Watson is very clear on this point, you can not repent apart from the enabling of the Holy Spirit. The act is spiritual just as much as it is practical. Apart from God's enabling you only have counterfeit repentance, which either a false turning away from sin or a turning away from sin for some other benefit than the Kingdom.
In his book, Watson outlines what is required for repentance.
First is the sight of sin. You can not repent of what you are ignorant of. You require a proper knowledge of sin in order to address it.
Second is the sorrow for sin. Once sin has been brought to light it should cause you to grieve. Many see their sins and are not grieved, some take pride in their sins, but the truly penitent will grieve for their sins. This point is the cause of much ink spilled. Sorrow for sin is of extreme importance to Watson for several reasons. Sorrow drives out sin, sorrow makes us long for Christ, sorrow is a cleansing agent, it is a powerful restorative force that causes the penitent to brook no bounds in making right what was spoiled. Those who are truly sorrowful will seek repentance by any means necessary. Watson continually refers to 'tears of repentance' as the salty river by which we swim to heaven, and how tears on God's bottle are precious and remembered.
Third is the confession of sin. This confession confesses all sin, going into particular details, and is a self accusation of sorts. You are beating Satan to accuse yourself so that when he has his chance to accuse you have already taken responsibility for your sins and Christ himself will acquit you. Watson goes into detail about how this is a natural part of repentance, how it gives vent to the sorrowful soul, how it gives glory to God, how it purges out sin, and makes way for pardon.
Fourth is the shame of sin. It is not enough to be sorrowful and confess, you must also be able to blush at your sins. It is an accepting of the guilt for the full magnitude of sin. Watson goes into detail about how our sins are worse than the devil's who was never given a chance or a savior, how our sins shame Christ, make us naked, causes us to act like beasts, and so on. This is where a lot of our stereotypical Puritan ideas seem to flourish as he describes how to be properly ashamed of ourselves.
Fifth is the hatred of sin. If we have the first four then the fifth should follow naturally. We should loathe sin. It is a mortal enemy. Just as the patriot can not have peace with the terrorist so too can the penitent find no peace with his sins. He hates them and seeks to destroy them. Would that he could he would murder them by any means necessary. He looks at his sins in comparison to the paradise of God and is filled with holy furor.
Finally there is the turning from sin, and what a turning it is. It is not a half turning or a turning for a time, it is a full breaking off of sin and casting it into the fires of mount Doom. I often find myself thinking of Lord of the Rings as I read Watson. The two are definitely related. Yes, a full turning but not just away from sin but a full turning away from sin and towards God. It is a full turning with all your heart mind and strength.
What might seem strange to us is that it seems like Watson actually believes that you can stop sinning. I'm not sure if he actually believes this or if he only uses the idea rhetorically to continually remind his hearers that repentance is ongoing and to check themselves carefully.
He is not shy about using scare tactics to convince his hearers to repent. God's judgment rests on the unrepentant and we should do everything we can to avert it by repentance. If we are too slow or if we plan on making a deathbed confession Watson explains in detail as to why this is a bad idea. There are numerous hazards to consider. What if, after hardening your own heart, God confirms its hardened state and no longer extends to you the grace required to repent? Or what if you say "I will repent tomorrow," only to find that God requires your life that night! Suppose you live to a ripe old age who is to say whether you will maintain your senses or your mind? Supposing you keep your senses and mind, will you be in any condition to undergo true repentance for a lifetime of sin in your old age?
We ought to repent now not just to avert the dangers of unrepentance but also to enjoy the rewards of repentance. The penitent enjoy a clear conscience, fellowship with God, joy, peace, and blessing. Watson lists dozens of reasons to convince us to repent.
The amount that he is willing to work out specifically how every piece of his doctrine can be applied practically is both astounding and sometimes a little frustrating. It takes him a long to explain all twenty four reasons that ought to persuade us to speedy repentance, going into detail, weaving in Scripture, and adding homily to make the idea stick. Some of these sorts of practical outworkings are quite close together, so much so that you would initially think that they were the same thing until he he specifically explained each to you and how they are slightly different.
For all his talk about the utmost imperative importance of repentance he also issues a caution that the reader not think too highly of it. Repentance does not save you, Jesus saves you, and it is not a sacrament as the Papists believe.
He finishes his book off with six means of repentance which, once again, seems to be very similar to the elements of repentance and the reasons for repentance. Perhaps my post-modern mind is just impatient and thinks that it can fill in the details for itself.
The first means of repentance is serious consideration. What should we consider? Watson lists twenty points about how serious sin is along with points about God's mercies, afflictions, and how much we will have to answer for if we do not repent.
The second means of repentance is to prudent comparison between the horrible state of the unrepentant and the blessed state of the repentant.
The third means of repentance is a settled determination to leave sin.
The fourth means of repentance is earnest prayer.
The fifth means of repentance is seeking out truer discoveries of God.
The sixth means of repentance is to labor for faith.
That's a summary of repentance and that's all I can write for now.
Greg Out.
Watson held an immense amount of importance for repentance. The first and last lines of his book The Doctrine of Repentance are about how it is impossible for the Christian to get to heaven without it. Repentance is a grace given to you be God, it is not something that you conjure up on your own. It seems that in Watson's theology God allows you to repent and in repenting God relents from his judgement against you both now and in the life to come... unless you cease repenting in which case, woe to you for you are worse off than ever you were before. Repentance is a continual act, more like a lifestyle than an event. And Watson is very clear on this point, you can not repent apart from the enabling of the Holy Spirit. The act is spiritual just as much as it is practical. Apart from God's enabling you only have counterfeit repentance, which either a false turning away from sin or a turning away from sin for some other benefit than the Kingdom.
In his book, Watson outlines what is required for repentance.
First is the sight of sin. You can not repent of what you are ignorant of. You require a proper knowledge of sin in order to address it.
Second is the sorrow for sin. Once sin has been brought to light it should cause you to grieve. Many see their sins and are not grieved, some take pride in their sins, but the truly penitent will grieve for their sins. This point is the cause of much ink spilled. Sorrow for sin is of extreme importance to Watson for several reasons. Sorrow drives out sin, sorrow makes us long for Christ, sorrow is a cleansing agent, it is a powerful restorative force that causes the penitent to brook no bounds in making right what was spoiled. Those who are truly sorrowful will seek repentance by any means necessary. Watson continually refers to 'tears of repentance' as the salty river by which we swim to heaven, and how tears on God's bottle are precious and remembered.
Third is the confession of sin. This confession confesses all sin, going into particular details, and is a self accusation of sorts. You are beating Satan to accuse yourself so that when he has his chance to accuse you have already taken responsibility for your sins and Christ himself will acquit you. Watson goes into detail about how this is a natural part of repentance, how it gives vent to the sorrowful soul, how it gives glory to God, how it purges out sin, and makes way for pardon.
Fourth is the shame of sin. It is not enough to be sorrowful and confess, you must also be able to blush at your sins. It is an accepting of the guilt for the full magnitude of sin. Watson goes into detail about how our sins are worse than the devil's who was never given a chance or a savior, how our sins shame Christ, make us naked, causes us to act like beasts, and so on. This is where a lot of our stereotypical Puritan ideas seem to flourish as he describes how to be properly ashamed of ourselves.
Fifth is the hatred of sin. If we have the first four then the fifth should follow naturally. We should loathe sin. It is a mortal enemy. Just as the patriot can not have peace with the terrorist so too can the penitent find no peace with his sins. He hates them and seeks to destroy them. Would that he could he would murder them by any means necessary. He looks at his sins in comparison to the paradise of God and is filled with holy furor.
Finally there is the turning from sin, and what a turning it is. It is not a half turning or a turning for a time, it is a full breaking off of sin and casting it into the fires of mount Doom. I often find myself thinking of Lord of the Rings as I read Watson. The two are definitely related. Yes, a full turning but not just away from sin but a full turning away from sin and towards God. It is a full turning with all your heart mind and strength.
What might seem strange to us is that it seems like Watson actually believes that you can stop sinning. I'm not sure if he actually believes this or if he only uses the idea rhetorically to continually remind his hearers that repentance is ongoing and to check themselves carefully.
He is not shy about using scare tactics to convince his hearers to repent. God's judgment rests on the unrepentant and we should do everything we can to avert it by repentance. If we are too slow or if we plan on making a deathbed confession Watson explains in detail as to why this is a bad idea. There are numerous hazards to consider. What if, after hardening your own heart, God confirms its hardened state and no longer extends to you the grace required to repent? Or what if you say "I will repent tomorrow," only to find that God requires your life that night! Suppose you live to a ripe old age who is to say whether you will maintain your senses or your mind? Supposing you keep your senses and mind, will you be in any condition to undergo true repentance for a lifetime of sin in your old age?
We ought to repent now not just to avert the dangers of unrepentance but also to enjoy the rewards of repentance. The penitent enjoy a clear conscience, fellowship with God, joy, peace, and blessing. Watson lists dozens of reasons to convince us to repent.
The amount that he is willing to work out specifically how every piece of his doctrine can be applied practically is both astounding and sometimes a little frustrating. It takes him a long to explain all twenty four reasons that ought to persuade us to speedy repentance, going into detail, weaving in Scripture, and adding homily to make the idea stick. Some of these sorts of practical outworkings are quite close together, so much so that you would initially think that they were the same thing until he he specifically explained each to you and how they are slightly different.
For all his talk about the utmost imperative importance of repentance he also issues a caution that the reader not think too highly of it. Repentance does not save you, Jesus saves you, and it is not a sacrament as the Papists believe.
He finishes his book off with six means of repentance which, once again, seems to be very similar to the elements of repentance and the reasons for repentance. Perhaps my post-modern mind is just impatient and thinks that it can fill in the details for itself.
The first means of repentance is serious consideration. What should we consider? Watson lists twenty points about how serious sin is along with points about God's mercies, afflictions, and how much we will have to answer for if we do not repent.
The second means of repentance is to prudent comparison between the horrible state of the unrepentant and the blessed state of the repentant.
The third means of repentance is a settled determination to leave sin.
The fourth means of repentance is earnest prayer.
The fifth means of repentance is seeking out truer discoveries of God.
The sixth means of repentance is to labor for faith.
That's a summary of repentance and that's all I can write for now.
Greg Out.
Friday, July 11, 2014
New Chapter
I have not written in this blog for a while. It used to be
that I thought I had something worth typing every couple of days or weeks. This
hasn’t happened in a while. I have made plenty of drafts of things that I had
wanted to post, they just became too long and rambly or my inspiration to write
just kind of winked out before I could finish.
It’s been a long two years. We’ve had collapsed health, a
difficult pregnancy, schooling collapse, life goals collapse, friendships
collapse, our house has tried to kill us about three times, and there was a
whole year where going to Church was literally impossible. This has been the
hardest time of my life and it’s taken a toll on me. Yet in the midst of all
that I am happily married with a healthy one year old son and I’m almost done
my Master’s degree. The wacky rollercoaster of my still new family life has
calmed down a little bit.
I think I’ve reached a new stage of life. When I started
this blog I was still a college student, even though I was taking a seminary
degree. Now I’m not sure what I am, but I know that I am not and never will be
a college student again. A lot of the things that I thought were important I
now see in a different light and a lot of how I used to live seems like a
strange fairy tale. I can’t believe that I used to stay up until 2:00 AM
because I was bored. I can’t believe that I was ever bored at all actually. I’ve
had so many responsibilities and so little time and so little sleep that I’m at
the point where I get jittery and nervous if I’m not doing something
constructive for too long. I can’t believe how inherently selfish I was. I
guess kids will bring that to light. I also can’t believe some of the things I
wrote in this blog or at least how some of it was written. Looks like I’ve
grown a little since then.
I don’t think this is the end of gwollf. It’s served me well
as a personal space for writing and rambling and journaling a bit. It is the
end of a stage of life though. Right now it feels like I’m still in an in between
stage. Almost but not quite finished a Master’s degree, waiting to start a
teaching career, and still figuring out the dynamics of family life.
Maybe now that my final paper is handed in I will have some
time for personal writing and reflection… at least until I begin my thesis.
Greg Out.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
The Value of reading the Church Fathers
I am working on the pre-course material for my last Master's course at Briercrest Seminary, and as per my custom, I am getting my ideas out and posting them on this blog so that family and friends can have a general idea of what I am studying and I can sort my mind out in order to write the paper.
So I just finished reading a pile of literature from the 1st - 4th centuries written by the early Christians who inherited the Christian Church from the original apostles. So folks like Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Irenaeus (disciples of the apostle John) along with Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine. All of these men (and many more) were the early thinkers and leaders of Christianity. The question I have to answer in five pages is "what is the value of reading them?"
Where to begin?
There is incredible value in reading the Church Fathers, especially if you ever plan on teaching or preaching. These guys knew there stuff. They lived and breathed Scripture. Faith for them wasn't a quasi-mystical spiritual experience, it was a way of life. These guys built the foundation from which all of Christianity built on; from the Roman Catholics, to the Eastern Orthodox, to the Evangelicals and Pentacostals and every 'independent' Christian group that can still be considered Christian. Making sense of the Scriptures and Christian teaching begins with them.
You know how we Evangelicals have our magazines and speakers and self-help books that are designed to be culturally relevant and full of helpful pithy things... well whatever helpfulness can be gleaned from such things probably comes from something that is better explained and more deeply considered by the Church Fathers. Even though they lived centuries ago in a different culture and a different language a lot of the material that they wrote about concerns issues and problems that have (and will always be) difficult to sort out. Things like how Jesus is God and man while still speaking to his Father in heaven who is also God, Church politics, the reality of Hell, the problem of evil and suffering, arguments against every type of false teaching, and a thorough understanding of God's plan of salvation for all people.
These people grappled with the teachings of the Apostles and the Scriptures and dedicated their lives to sorting out these sorts of issues as they presented themselves. They sometimes did not agree with each other and some of their teachings were later rejected as the body of Christian theology grew over the centuries, but the rigor they applied and the incredible faith they lived out can only be ignored to our peril. Many of these men wrote and taught during times when to be known as a 'Christian' meant that you could be arrested and sent to Rome to be killed by wild animals in the Colosseum or burned at the stake.
Taken together, these writings are an accurate testament to the history of the early Church. In a world where the saturation of mass media and Postmodern thought have made a culture where any claim of truth is just as valid as the next it is important to know your own religious history so that you can say with confidence and authority that, contrary to "The Da Vinci Code", the early Church did not decide to make Jesus a god in the 4th century for political reasons. Indeed, the generation of believers that succeeded the Apostles wrote about and understood Jesus as God incarnate in the flesh, forgeries not withstanding.
They are also useful for use in apologetics. Every modern group that says that they are Christian and yet follow a false teaching (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Science to name three such groups) is thoroughly refuted and exposed by the Church Fathers who encountered every type of heresy and stood vigilant against them. The methods employed are both theological arguments based on Scripture and philosophical arguments based on logic and reason written masters of both disciplines. Any modern day argument for the existence of God, the deity of Christ, or the place of Christianity within society will undoubtedly be based on something that these people already said some sixteen hundred years earlier. Why start with derivative literary works when you could begin with the source?
There is also value in seeing how the early Church Fathers used reason to grapple with the teachings of the Apostles and the Scriptures. There is a wideness and deepness in our tradition that is rich and divergent; I found it an eye opening experience. The pastoral care and saturation of Scripture found in Clement's writings were spiritual but also practical. Justin Martyr's account of the Jesus Movement in Rome was logical and philosophical. Origen's exhortations to Martyrdom and prayer were dripping with the Word of God even though his understanding of the deity of Christ was influenced too much by Platonic Philosophy. Athanasius was harsh and unyielding when he wrote about the heretics. Gregory of Nazianzus was a master orator, philosophy, theologian who's words entertaining and so full of truth and things that go over my head that they make me feel like an ignorant freshman all over again. Prudentius' early poems and stories brought Christianity into the arts by exhorting the ancient virtues but in relation to Christ and vindicating the martyrs. John of Damascus' defense for the use of holy images and locations... Forget John Piper or John Macarhur or any other author that conservative evangelicals rally around; you need to understand the Patristic Fathers first.
I also find that after reading such a variety of authors and styles, all of which were instrumental in founding the Church, you begin to see things with a wider lens and an appreciation for differences. Jesus said that his body, the Church, was made of many members and this is definitely true of these folk. Clement was a caring pastor and savvy church politician but he also needed the philosophical insights of Origen who in turn needed the theological hindsight of Cyril who needed the pugnacity of Athanasius, and on and on it went. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I appreciate different traditions now more than I did before.
Well, I've been writing for about an hour now and I think I've run out of ideas. I'll start this paper soon and that will be one more thing out of the way. Tally-ho!
So I just finished reading a pile of literature from the 1st - 4th centuries written by the early Christians who inherited the Christian Church from the original apostles. So folks like Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Irenaeus (disciples of the apostle John) along with Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine. All of these men (and many more) were the early thinkers and leaders of Christianity. The question I have to answer in five pages is "what is the value of reading them?"
Where to begin?
There is incredible value in reading the Church Fathers, especially if you ever plan on teaching or preaching. These guys knew there stuff. They lived and breathed Scripture. Faith for them wasn't a quasi-mystical spiritual experience, it was a way of life. These guys built the foundation from which all of Christianity built on; from the Roman Catholics, to the Eastern Orthodox, to the Evangelicals and Pentacostals and every 'independent' Christian group that can still be considered Christian. Making sense of the Scriptures and Christian teaching begins with them.
You know how we Evangelicals have our magazines and speakers and self-help books that are designed to be culturally relevant and full of helpful pithy things... well whatever helpfulness can be gleaned from such things probably comes from something that is better explained and more deeply considered by the Church Fathers. Even though they lived centuries ago in a different culture and a different language a lot of the material that they wrote about concerns issues and problems that have (and will always be) difficult to sort out. Things like how Jesus is God and man while still speaking to his Father in heaven who is also God, Church politics, the reality of Hell, the problem of evil and suffering, arguments against every type of false teaching, and a thorough understanding of God's plan of salvation for all people.
These people grappled with the teachings of the Apostles and the Scriptures and dedicated their lives to sorting out these sorts of issues as they presented themselves. They sometimes did not agree with each other and some of their teachings were later rejected as the body of Christian theology grew over the centuries, but the rigor they applied and the incredible faith they lived out can only be ignored to our peril. Many of these men wrote and taught during times when to be known as a 'Christian' meant that you could be arrested and sent to Rome to be killed by wild animals in the Colosseum or burned at the stake.
Taken together, these writings are an accurate testament to the history of the early Church. In a world where the saturation of mass media and Postmodern thought have made a culture where any claim of truth is just as valid as the next it is important to know your own religious history so that you can say with confidence and authority that, contrary to "The Da Vinci Code", the early Church did not decide to make Jesus a god in the 4th century for political reasons. Indeed, the generation of believers that succeeded the Apostles wrote about and understood Jesus as God incarnate in the flesh, forgeries not withstanding.
They are also useful for use in apologetics. Every modern group that says that they are Christian and yet follow a false teaching (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Science to name three such groups) is thoroughly refuted and exposed by the Church Fathers who encountered every type of heresy and stood vigilant against them. The methods employed are both theological arguments based on Scripture and philosophical arguments based on logic and reason written masters of both disciplines. Any modern day argument for the existence of God, the deity of Christ, or the place of Christianity within society will undoubtedly be based on something that these people already said some sixteen hundred years earlier. Why start with derivative literary works when you could begin with the source?
There is also value in seeing how the early Church Fathers used reason to grapple with the teachings of the Apostles and the Scriptures. There is a wideness and deepness in our tradition that is rich and divergent; I found it an eye opening experience. The pastoral care and saturation of Scripture found in Clement's writings were spiritual but also practical. Justin Martyr's account of the Jesus Movement in Rome was logical and philosophical. Origen's exhortations to Martyrdom and prayer were dripping with the Word of God even though his understanding of the deity of Christ was influenced too much by Platonic Philosophy. Athanasius was harsh and unyielding when he wrote about the heretics. Gregory of Nazianzus was a master orator, philosophy, theologian who's words entertaining and so full of truth and things that go over my head that they make me feel like an ignorant freshman all over again. Prudentius' early poems and stories brought Christianity into the arts by exhorting the ancient virtues but in relation to Christ and vindicating the martyrs. John of Damascus' defense for the use of holy images and locations... Forget John Piper or John Macarhur or any other author that conservative evangelicals rally around; you need to understand the Patristic Fathers first.
I also find that after reading such a variety of authors and styles, all of which were instrumental in founding the Church, you begin to see things with a wider lens and an appreciation for differences. Jesus said that his body, the Church, was made of many members and this is definitely true of these folk. Clement was a caring pastor and savvy church politician but he also needed the philosophical insights of Origen who in turn needed the theological hindsight of Cyril who needed the pugnacity of Athanasius, and on and on it went. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I appreciate different traditions now more than I did before.
Well, I've been writing for about an hour now and I think I've run out of ideas. I'll start this paper soon and that will be one more thing out of the way. Tally-ho!
Friday, February 14, 2014
Destroyer of History
My job today was cleaning out the old files from our Distance Education Media server. I had no idea deleting old files could make me so sad. There were a lot of useless documents. Word docs and spreadsheets full of data that is long since out dated. There were podcasts and videos made in 2007, two years before I was even working here. I made backups for those, just in case. I doubt they will ever be used though. Then there were the pictures. They say a picture is worth a thousand words and right now I understand the sentiment. Pictures...
There was an old staff picture back before I joined Distance Ed. My old boss was there, one of the instructors who I remembered in my college and then seminary courses, the admin assistant who I ended up replacing. It was... haunting. It was old data though and served no purpose so I deleted it.
Then there were the advertisements. Old advertisements for courses we don't offer any more. It took me back to my first year here since the people on the front of those advertisements were friends I made in 2004 as a bright eyed determined freshman right out of high school. I miss those people. It also took me back to when I first started working for Distance Ed, with Charles showing me the ropes and seeing these pictures then, thinking how they took me back to when I was a bright eyed determined freshman right out of high school... It was a better sweet double remembering. But these were old data and served no purpose so I deleted them...
Then there were the unfinished projects. Calvin worked hard on these. He was a gifted artist and web designer. So many graphics and preparatory work for projects that never saw the light of day. They were ahead of there time. They envisioned what we are doing now ten years ago when it was not possible. What thought and work went into these things? What hope did Charles and Calvin have for them? But these were old data and served no purpose so I deleted them...
The mix of memory and emotion is difficult to describe.
The sun was always shining back then. I have no memory of winter, every day was summer and full of good things.
I remember the opening scene of the Phantom of the Opera, an auction sale for a small toy monkey with a pair of symbols. As the now aged protagonist holds it with a look of pain and curiosity the Phantom's voice echoes in his head.
Memories from long ago, magical.
Now banished by my hand.
I step outside my office and the hallway seems darker than before.
May the ghosts of my past lie in peace.
There was an old staff picture back before I joined Distance Ed. My old boss was there, one of the instructors who I remembered in my college and then seminary courses, the admin assistant who I ended up replacing. It was... haunting. It was old data though and served no purpose so I deleted it.
Then there were the advertisements. Old advertisements for courses we don't offer any more. It took me back to my first year here since the people on the front of those advertisements were friends I made in 2004 as a bright eyed determined freshman right out of high school. I miss those people. It also took me back to when I first started working for Distance Ed, with Charles showing me the ropes and seeing these pictures then, thinking how they took me back to when I was a bright eyed determined freshman right out of high school... It was a better sweet double remembering. But these were old data and served no purpose so I deleted them...
Then there were the unfinished projects. Calvin worked hard on these. He was a gifted artist and web designer. So many graphics and preparatory work for projects that never saw the light of day. They were ahead of there time. They envisioned what we are doing now ten years ago when it was not possible. What thought and work went into these things? What hope did Charles and Calvin have for them? But these were old data and served no purpose so I deleted them...
The mix of memory and emotion is difficult to describe.
The sun was always shining back then. I have no memory of winter, every day was summer and full of good things.
I remember the opening scene of the Phantom of the Opera, an auction sale for a small toy monkey with a pair of symbols. As the now aged protagonist holds it with a look of pain and curiosity the Phantom's voice echoes in his head.
"A collectors piece indeed,
exactly as she said...
will you still play when all the rest of us are dead?"
Memories from long ago, magical.
Now banished by my hand.
I step outside my office and the hallway seems darker than before.
May the ghosts of my past lie in peace.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Initial Thoughts on Thomas Watson
Thomas Watson, a forgotten theologian that I am writing a thesis on. He was pretty awesome. He wrote lots of sermons and books. He was the very best type of Puritan, living in the grace and fullness of life provided by Christ and encouraging everyone he met concerning the pure and eternal life of God. He was well loved by his congregation at St. Stevens in London, England. He was an advocate for Charles I and he actually opposed Oliver Cromwell, which is very strange for a Puritan. He refused to follow the Act of Uniformity (as in he did not use the 'Common Book of Prayer') and was expelled from his pastorate from whence he went to preach in the barns and fields and private halls across England. His numerous writings have been cherished for their simplicity, usefulness, depth, and poetry, many are still being published to this day. And nobody has ever taken time to write about him in any detail.
It's rather amazing actually. A theologian with a significant body of writing prized for its academic rigor, spiritual richness, and accessibility to the common man and nobody knows anything about him. We're not even sure as to the dates of his birth and death! I've started reading through his writings and I'm getting to the half way point. I have been amazed at how well he lays things out, I suppose the theological taste of it would be like drinking a dark rich roast of coffee brewed from fresh coffee beans off the plant (if I drank coffee). It is surprising to find such good and applicable material to today's spiritual climate in books from the 1600's. Sometimes the taste is a little bitter though, he's not exactly tactful when addressing the state of non-Christians or backsliding Christians.
I think there is a lot that today's Evangelical Church can learn from Watson. The relentless focus on growing in grace and faith, the heavy focus on repentance and godly sorrow, and stunning maturity and richness of his sermons could be a great help for us today.
I am unsure how to tackle this problem though. More later as I continue to think through it.
It's rather amazing actually. A theologian with a significant body of writing prized for its academic rigor, spiritual richness, and accessibility to the common man and nobody knows anything about him. We're not even sure as to the dates of his birth and death! I've started reading through his writings and I'm getting to the half way point. I have been amazed at how well he lays things out, I suppose the theological taste of it would be like drinking a dark rich roast of coffee brewed from fresh coffee beans off the plant (if I drank coffee). It is surprising to find such good and applicable material to today's spiritual climate in books from the 1600's. Sometimes the taste is a little bitter though, he's not exactly tactful when addressing the state of non-Christians or backsliding Christians.
I think there is a lot that today's Evangelical Church can learn from Watson. The relentless focus on growing in grace and faith, the heavy focus on repentance and godly sorrow, and stunning maturity and richness of his sermons could be a great help for us today.
I am unsure how to tackle this problem though. More later as I continue to think through it.