Morecraft’s Great Delight

“I gave a couple messages on Racism a few years ago — condemning Racism as blasphemous and all kinds of terrible things. And I got this letter, and this letter was, I guess, 15-20 pages long. This guy had spent a great amount of time and effort writing me this letter rebuking me and it wasn’t … I mean it was intellectual, it wasn’t nice, it wasn’t sweet, it was very nasty and uh I read the 1st paragraph and I saw where it was going and I threw it in the trash. I took great delight that this guy had spent hours writing this letter and I read one paragraph. He wanted me to respond and I’m here to tell you today he wasn’t worth it.”

Rev. Joe Morecraft
Recent Sunday Sermon

1.) I’m glad Rev. Morecraft is against Racism. Once the definition of Racism is agreed upon every Christian minister should be opposed to Racism.

2.) He says that the person who wrote this letter is not worth answering and then proceeds to answer him in this anonymous type fashion.

3.) If he didn’t read the letter, save the first paragraph, as he insists, then how could he possibly know it was “Intellectual?”

4.) Likewise, if he didn’t read the letter, save the the first paragraph, as he insists, how could he know it wasn’t nice and was “nasty?”

That must have been some kind of opening paragraph.

5.) I know of one person who sent Rev. Morecraft a 5 page open letter that was substantive, intellectual and engaging. I guess that was a different letter than this 15-20 page letter. Rev. Morecraft didn’t answer that one either … unless he’s confused the two letters and is answering it here.

What Do These Three Men Have In Common?

This from the book, “New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered.” — pg. 154

“Suppose that it were legal in our country for a man to marry his sister. If this were the case, and a man who attended your church wanted to marry his sister, would your church perform the wedding?”

Answer

“We need to get our initial shivers and our “yuck, ick, disgusting” first reactions out of the way. . . . In the New Covenant Scriptures no mention is made of the impropriety of marrying one’s sister. Although the practice is illegal in many countries, which makes it sinful for Christians living in those countries to do (Romans 13:1), it seems that if you and your sister are both believers and you live in a country that deems marriage between siblings to be a lawful practice, then your marriage would be holy in God’s sight.”

Rev. Steve Lehrer
Pastor — Lighthouse Baptist Church in Sussex, Wisconsin
Educated @ Westminster Seminary — California

——————————————————

1.) If one insists that the Mosaic covenant was a “covenant of works,” in a way, per the Republication theory, all kinds of bizarre stuff is bound to follow.

2.) Rev. Lehrer has made the State to be “God walking on the Earth,” since the state in his scheme is that agency which defines what is and is not sin.

3.) I also have shivers and a “yuck, ick, disgusting” reaction to Bestiality. Must I get over that also since the New Covenant Scriptures make no mention of bedding your favorite Heifer?

Now, I freely admit that New Covenant Theology might be sightly different than full blown R2K, HOWEVER, some of the R2K chaps who were educated at the same Institution that Lehrer was have said some similar things.

Here are two examples,

“Not being a theonomist or theocrat, I do not believe it is the state’s role to enforce religion or Christian morality. So allowing something legally is not the same as endorsing it morally. I don’t want the state punishing people for practicing homosexuality. Other Christians disagree. Fine. That’s allowed. That is the distinction. Another example – beastiality (sic) is a grotesque sin and obviously if a professing member engages in it he is subject to church discipline. But as one who leans libertarian in my politics, I would see problems with the state trying to enforce it; not wanting the state involved at all in such personal practices; I’m content to let the Lord judge it when he returns. A fellow church member might advocate for beastiality (sic) laws. Neither would be in sin whatever the side of the debate. Now if the lines are blurry in these disctinctions,(sic) that is always true in pastoral ministry dealing with real people in real cases in this fallen world.”

Rev. Todd Bordow — Reformed Minister
R2K Practitioner
Educated at Westminster West — California

“Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.”

“The challenge there is that two Christians who hold the same beliefs about marriage as Christians may appeal to neighbor-love to support or to oppose legalization of same-sex marriage.”

Dr. Mike Horton — Reformed Theologian
R2K Practitioner
Professor at Westminster West — California

How long until people begin to realize that Westminster West –California is a serious problem?

Marxinov on Culture … McAtee on Marxinov

“The more Christianity gains ground, and the more Christians become with their religion, the less cultural differences we will see in the world. In the final day of history, every place on the planet will have the same covenantal views of God, man, law, judgment, and future, and therefore every place on the earth will have the same cultural practices informed by the Christian faith.

In short: people choose their religion, their religion determines their culture. When the world as a whole accepts the Christian religion, the world will be one culture.”

– Bojidar Marxinov

1.) Throughout History the European Protestants formed distinct Protestant cultures. The Swiss Protestants were different from the English Protestants who were different from the German Protestants, who were different from the Dutch Protestants. Is Marxinov telling us that some or all of them were in sin and that postmillennialism requires us to eliminate the differences between Bavinck and Warfield — between Kuyper and Hodge?

2.) Also we need to ask, why is it, given the few cultures that have been considered Christian, by any reasonable estimation, have not all been the same throughout history? If all Christian culture will look the same why didn’t the Christian culture of Charlemagne look the same as the Christian culture of Calvin’s Geneva or why didn’t Calvin’s Geneva look like Puritan New England? Was it because one or all of them were in deep sin?

3.) Marxinov has not taken into considerations the likelihood that Theonomists in one Christian country will come to a different understandings of how the law of God applies in different settings and situations. The reality of this almost certainty has the explanatory power to demonstrate why there might remain legal – jurisprudent differences between two nations in the Postmillennial Kingdom fully flowered.

4.) Marxinov has lost the Many in his search for the One. His God (and so his view of culture) is the view of the Unitarian. Marxinov, channelling U2 actually does believe that all colors will bleed into one. Marxinov has embraced unity and no diversity now remains. Rushdoony pointedly warned against this.

5.) Marxinov’s vision runs face flat into the wall of God’s Word where we find the Nations as Nations still existing in the New Jerusalem. In Revelation 5:9, 7:9 and in 22:2 we do not find the presence of an amalgamated whole in the New Jerusalem, but rather the distinctions of the Nations remain. Marxinov has lost the understanding that Grace restores nature and has exchanged it for the understanding that Grace destroys nature and replaces it.

6.) Marxinov’s vision is the same vision of Saruman who started off with the best of intentions in resisting Mordor but who, because of his desire to save the world, became as evil as Sauron in trying to save the world. Marxinov in seeking to save the world from Marx is actually in competition with Marx seeking to out Marx … Marx.

What a wonderful coincidence that Bojidar’s last name is Marxinov.

Sundry Thoughts On Trinity

INTRODUCTION

Trinity Sunday — Church Calendar

Skeptics abound regarding the idea of Trinity desiring a perfect understanding before believing but they forget or never knew the Augustinian dictum that we believe in order to understand and not we understand in order to believe. We are not shy to say that we do not fully understand the depth of the idea of God as Trinity. Ask yourself if any God would be worth worshiping that you or any human could perfectly circumscribe with our human understanding? Would God be God if the human mind could comprehend Him perfectly?

But, while we admit that man cannot comprehensively understand God, we do not suggest that God can not be rightly apprehended or understood with the measure of grace we have been given consistent with God’s Revelation in Scripture. We can be knowing God and so go from knowing unto greater knowing but we will never exhaustively know God since the finite cannot contain the infinite. As such we can know that God is one in three and three in one due to the Revelation of Scripture, and as we grow in the faith we can have ever fuller understanding of what that means but, as mortals, we will never comprehend the essence or mind of God.

SCRIPTURAL TEXT TEACHING THE REALITY OF THE TRINITY

(a) Deut.6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: Eph.4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Isa.44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Isa.45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 1 Cor.8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 1 Cor.8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

(b) Isa.61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, Gen.1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Gen.1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Ps.33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Isa.48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Ps.110:1 <> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Matt.3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: Matt.3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matt.28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Isa.6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Isa.6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 2 Cor.13:13 All the saints salute you. Gal.4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Eph.2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Tit.3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Tit.3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

The Scripture thus clearly teaches that there is unity and plurality in the being of God.

TRINITY IN CHURCH HISTORY

The doctrine of the Trinity reached a swelling point in the fourth century, when Arius claimed that Christ was created by God the Father, and was not co-eternal with him. Eventually, the Council of Nicea was convened to address Arius’ claims. Led in part by St. Athanasius, who suffered terrible persecution for his advocacy for the Deity of Christ, found Arius’ claims heretical and formulated the Nicene Creed to discredit and correct them. For the next 100 years, Church Fathers would defend the doctrine of the Trinity from Arian challenges that still existed. Yet, by about the end of the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity took on, more or less, the form that we have today.

Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made….

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

Athansian Creed

Athenasian Creed declares in part,

‘but this is the catholic faith, that we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor diving the substance, for the person of the Father is one, of the Son, another, of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is one, and the glory equal, the majesty equal, such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Ghost is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Ghost is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal beings but one eternal being. As also there are not three uncreated beings nor three infinite beings, but one uncreated and one infinite being.’

IMPORTANCE OF TRINITY

In this point I am going to try and convince you how important the Church through the ages viewed the doctrine of the Trinity.

Rushdoony, gives us a quote that encapsulates the view of the Church throughout History on the importance of the Trinity.

QUOTE

“The doctrine of the Trinity is that basic foundation for all of faith, for the whole universe…

“The Trinity is the cornerstone of our faith. No faith can survive its denial. No church can live long apart from this doctrine. And no church, no matter how much it preaches other important and necessary doctrines, will long prosper. That Church may blossom for a while, but it will fade if it, under stresses,neglects the doctrine of the Trinity. And churches that lose this faith do not reproduce themselves. A second generation Unitarian, according to the Unitarians themselves, is a great rarity. They are rarely to be found.” ENDQUOTE

That this doctrine was considered essential can be seen in all the ink that has been spilled over the centuries in order to defend it.

Against Praxeas by Tertullian (160-220) In this letter, Tertullian demonstrates through the use of Scripture that the Son and the Father are “distinct” but not “separate.”

Nicene Creed (325) The result of the First Council of Nicene, the Nicene Creed states that the Son is of “one substance” with the Father, and not of a “similar” substance of the Father.

Defense of the Nicene Definition by St. Athanasius (297-373) In this work, St. Athanasius provides an account of the Arians at the Council of Nicene* and defends the Nicene Creed from criticism of it being ‘unbiblical.’

The Third Theological Oration. On the Son. by St. Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390) In this oration, St. Gregory of Nazianzus defends the traditional, Nicene understanding of the Trinity, claiming that the persons of the Trinity are “numerically distinct” without a “severance of essence.”

Dogmatic Treatises by St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-394) Although much controversy focused on the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity also posits the Holy Spirit as divine. In this treatise, St. Gregory of Nyssa defends the divinity of the Holy Spirit through Scripture.

Homilies on the Gospel of St. John by St. John Chrysostom (347-407) In a homily on John 1, St. John Chrysostom argues that Scripture clearly teaches that God the Father and Christ are distinct, but not of a compound substance.

On the Holy Trinity by St. Augustine (354-430) St. Augustine devoted an entire book to the topic of the Trinity. Among other things, he argues that the Trinity can be seen in Scripture, responds to objections to the Trinity, and demonstrates the equality of the Godhead.

The Trinity is One God Not Three Gods by St. Boethius (480-525) Using general philosophical principles, St. Boethius demonstrates that God is unified in substance, but differs in number of persons.*

Monologium by St. Anselm (1033-1109) St. Anselm seems to suggest that we lack any fitting language for describing the Trinity as “three,” because terms like “person” or “substance” seem to only apply to things of plurality, of which God is not.

Treatise on the Most Holy Trinity by St. Aquinas (1225-1274) In a long treatise on the Trinity, St. Aquinas addresses many features of the Trinity including: the Divine relations, the procession of the Trinity, and the relationship of the members of the Trinity to God’s essence.

Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin (1509-1564) Using both Scripture and philosophy, Calvin argues for the traditional understanding of the Trinity as “three persons in one God.”

Brief Declaration and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity by John Owen (1616-1683) Using both Scripture and reason, John Owen defends the doctrine of the Trinity against “Socinianism”—the view that Christ did not pre-exist before being a man.

Systematic Theology, vol. 1 by Charles Hodge (1797-1878) In a rigorous fashion, Hodge examines the Scriptural evidence for the Trinity, the Nicene Creed, and philosophical formulations of the doctrine.

During the Reformation The Council of Geneva — the city where Calvin was the First among equals in terms of the Pastorate there, thought the doctrine of the Trinity so important that the Council handed down and implemented a death sentence upon a notorious heretic named Servetus who was actively seeking to overthrow the doctrine of the Trinity. This death sentence had already been pronounced in absentia by many of the countries of Europe, both Roman Catholic and Protestant.

These communities understood that if the doctrine of the Trinity was given up the whole basis of their civil social order would be overthrown. The death penalty for Servetus was done as a protection for the whole community.

The Church understood that reality was integrated. They understood that if one went from a Trinitarian to a Unitarian understanding of God the consequence would be that everything would change. This idea of a integrated reality is captured by a quote from Edmund Opus in a book entitled “Problems of Church and Society.”

“Communism is all of a piece. Adopt its metaphysics and in a technological age we get the ‘planned from the top down’ society. Start on the social level by putting any collectivist principle into operation, and it breeds more of the same until eventually the society becomes fully collectivized. The many part of society are delicately interrelated. Start by fixing the price of a quart of milk, and the glass industry will be told what it must charge for bottles. The wages of delivery men must be regulated, the diary industry controlled and so until the logical end result in time is the totally regimented economy or socialism.”

Now apply that realization to Trinitarian Christianity. Paralleling Opus we might say, “Trinitarian Christianity is all of a piece. Adopt its metaphysics and we get the unity in diversity society. Start on the social level by putting jurisdictionalism as a reflection of Trinitarian understandings of God into operation, and it breeds more and more of the idea of unity in diversity.”

All this to say that if a social order is Trinitarian it is going to resist the attempt by Unitarianism to overthrow understandings of the Trinity in order to protect itself. All this to say that historically the idea of Trinitarian Christianity was seen as foundational and worth dying for AND killing for (Consider Servetus) in order to protect.

As an aside … one thing that R2K does with its dualism is that it cuts off the influence of Trinitarianism on a social order. R2K insists that Trinitarianism’s organizing power is restricted to the Church while suggesting that Christians can be satisfied with Unitarianism in the public square.

The Current Church seems not to see the Trinity as Important

But this is not the opinion of much of the Evangelical Church today in the West. We have so insisted on the pragmatic “cash value” side of Christianity that we are increasingly putting the foundational doctrines aside.

Rob Bell seems to contend in one of his books that the doctrines of Christianity themselves are more useful than true. He specifically names the Trinity, likening the Trinity to the idea of one of the springs that serve to keep a Trampoline taut and by which a Trampoline gets its launching quality and saying something to the effect of, “People have been using this particular (Trinity) ‘spring’ to jump for years. But does that mean that it is essential? Couldn’t we change it for something else? I am not saying that we should – but certainly we could. If we did so, couldn’t we still love God, live moral lives, etc.?”

SUCCINCT EXPLANATION OF TRINITY

See handout

IMPLICATIONS OF THE TRINITY

Community

The reality of the Trinity gives us a basis for Christian community. Clearly, if God has community in Himself, then that community of the Godhead becomes the template for the community of the saints as they have communion with Him. The Church as covenant community is, or at least ought to be, the “live in technicolor” demonstration of God as community.

Miroslav Volf put it this way

“Because the Christian God is not a lonely God, but rather a communion of three persons, faith leads human beings into the divine communion. One cannot, however, have a self-enclosed communion with the Triune God- a “foursome,” as it were– for the Christian God is not a private deity. Communion with this God is at once also communion with those others who have entrusted themselves in faith to the same God. Hence one and the same act of faith places a person into a new relationship both with God and with all others who stand in communion with God.”

― Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity

Our Fellowship with the Trinity brings us into Fellowship with one another. This seems to be part of what St. John is getting at when he writes,

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

————————-
UNITY IN DIVERSITY

The Eternal One and Many gives meaning to the temporal One and Many.

One & The Many

The reality of the Trinity suggests to us that as God’s unity and His diversity (plurality) are equally ultimate so that neither unity nor plurality is more equally ultimate then the other. What this means is that followers of this Triune God build family structures, church structures, and civil social structures where one finds unity in diversity. Both Unity and Diversity are both valued properly. As such the Christian faith values both the individual as individual while at the same time valuing the individual as part of one community. Both the individual and the community, like the persons of the Godhead and the unity of the Godhead, are equally ultimate.

This doctrine of the Trinity therefore wars against all arrangements where people become uniformed clones who lose all their distinctions in the great miasma of social order oneness. Similarly this doctrine of the Trinity wars against all arrangements of social anarchy where each man does what is right in his own eyes thus losing all basis for community. The doctrine of the Trinity suggests that what will we find are a plurality of Christian communities, one in their beliefs regarding our undoubted Catholic Christian Faith, but yet distinct according to families of man that God has sovereignly placed us in. By such an arrangement one finds the reason why Heaven is populated with men from every tribe, tongue, and Nation.

Chesterton was getting at this when he wrote,

“For the highest thing does not tend to union only; the highest thing, tends also to differentiation. You can often get men to fight for the union; but you can never prevent them from fighting also for the differentiation. This variety in the highest thing is the meaning of the fierce patriotism, the fierce nationalism of the great European civilization. It is also, incidentally, the meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity.”

― G.K. Chesterton, Heretics

Conclusion

Re-cap

USA Today Slams The Reformed Faith … A Slight Rebuttal

It is often difficult to determine when the Main Stream Media is malevolent, when it is incompetent, and when it is just clueless. More often then not it is all three at the same time. Recently the USA Today ran a column on the Bowe Bergdahl case, suggesting that Biblical Christianity (as opposed to Marxist Christianity) was the cause for the apparent strange behavior of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Below I interact with some of the brilliance of the author of the column who apparently is,

1.) A Teacher of Religion
2.) The Director of the Religion program at Skidmore college.

Surely these are expert qualifications for getting everything wrong in an analysis on Orthodox Presbyterianism.

Begin Article,

“Can Bergdahl’s faith explain his actions?”

Mary Stange

Bret responds,

Already with the headline we are on shaky ground. After all, what else can explain Bergdahl’s actions except his faith? In other words, “Of course Bergdahl’s faith explains his actions.” All of our actions can only be understood in light of our faith. Even Mary Stange’s woeful analytical abilities are explained by her faith. There is nothing else that can explain our actions except our faith. You’d think a teacher of religion at the University level would realize that a person’s behavior is always driven by their faith commitments.

Mary plunges on,

Were it not for the political wrangling over whether he is a hero or a traitor, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who arrived in San Antonio early Friday, might well be held up as a classic example of the religious seeker: the deeply spiritual quester after truth, light and justice.

Bret,

This would be true except Scripture teaches that there are none who seek after God. If Sgt. Bergdahl were seeking it is only because He was a Christian.

Mary continues,

Yet the news media have been curiously silent on the question of his religious background. Aside from vague references to his belonging to a Calvinist church, no one has taken a serious look at how that church might have played a role in his decision to join the Army, and subsequently to leave his unit behind.

Philip Proctor, the Bergdahls’ pastor at Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Boise, told The Huffington Post that Bowe had “grown up in a conservative Christian home, and he was trying to figure out if this was his faith or his parents’ faith.”

Maybe. But in young Bergdahl’s case — unlike that of the more typical Catholic or Jewish or mainline Protestant adolescent — the devil had to have been in the details. His family’s faith, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, makes extraordinary demands on a sensitive young person’s conscience and conduct.

Bret responds,

We are left asking if Ms. Stange is telling us that her preferred religious beliefs are more simplistic than Biblical Presbyterianism so that there does not exist those devilish details that the typical Catholic or Jewish or mainline Protestant adolescent deals with.

And Ms. Stange asserts that the Calvinist faith makes extraordinary demands on a sensitive young person’s conscience and conduct but she offer absolutely no proof. Are we to conclude from this that the typical Catholic, or Jewish, or mainline Protestant only makes “ordinary demands” on their adolescents? And if that is what Ms. Stange is implying I’d like to know, “by what standard” Ms. Stange is determining what constitutes extraordinary vs. ordinary demands on the conscience and conduct of a sensitive young person. (And how does Ms. Stange know that Sgt. Bergdahl was sensitive?)

Mary Stange keeps it up,

A hyperconservative offshoot of the mainstream Presbyterian Church USA, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church sees the world in stark either/or terms. This is Calvinism on steroids. You are saved and bound for heaven. Or you are a sinner, treading a one-way path to the fiery pit of hell.

1.) Hyper-conservative by whose standards? I suspect, to hyper-liberals like Ms. Stange, anything more conservative than Ms. Stange’s religion classes is “hyper-conservative.”

2.) So, what Ms. Stange is saying is that we EITHER can see the world in “either/or terms OR we can see it not in either/or terms? That’s kind of a stark way of seeing things don’t you think?

3.) Ms. Stange laments the Orthodox Presbyterian Church being “Calvinism on steroids” since it teaches that one is either saved and bound for heaven, or is a sinner, treading a one-way path to the fiery pit of hell.

One is left wondering what other options exist? What exactly is behind Ms. Stange’s door number 3? Purgatory? Limbo? The Stay Puff Marshmallow heaven?

Ms. Stange continues with her blinding brilliance,

The church, founded in the 1930s, has obviously been a genuine source of support for families such as the Bergdahls, who might have little in the way of material or spiritual comforts in this life but can feel confident of reward in the life to come. It is all about the counterpoise of heaven and hell, and it appears that for Bergdahl, this cosmic tension laid the groundwork for his subsequent actions and attitudes.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church compels followers to feel the inner spark of absolute certainty of one’s own God-given righteousness. It is a more than plausible explanation that, failing such certainty, Bergdahl embarked on a series of life transformations — Buddhism, Tarot, French Foreign Legion and all the rest, culminating in the transformation from gung-ho warrior to pacifistic deserter — that looks like chaotic mood swings without the religious explanation.

1.) So, according to Stange, Bergdahl completely abandons his Calvinist faith, but his Calvinist faith is the reason for his alleged improprieties.

2.) Is Ms. Stange implying that Calvinism is only for the down and outers and the lower class fauna in life? If so she might want to read about the life of Millionaire William Borden of Yale. Maybe she should pick up a biography on the life of Henry Martyn. Stange should also consider conservative Presbyterian Cyrus McCormick. Even the founder of the denomination that Stange takes exception too, J. Gresham Machen, was a man of means.

3.) Stange asserts that “it appears that for Bergdahl, this cosmic tension laid the groundwork for his subsequent actions and attitudes” and then gives no proof whatsoever for this “left dangling in the air” claim. Wouldn’t it have been easier for Stange just to write an article for the USA Today entitled, “Why I Don’t Like Calvinism?”

4.) Stanger next reveals her utter torpidity by combining a comment about feeling the inner spark that yields certainty of God given righteousness. In doing so she combines a Quaker concept (inner light) with a gnostic concept (divine spark) with Presbyterianism. This is so jumbled and confusing that anybody who knows anything but comparative religions is left with having a fine belly laugh at such confusion.

5.) Presbyterianism of the sort that Stange inveighs against finds the chasing of feelings of any sort to be an anathema. Has Stange ever met a Calvinist? We’re not called “Frozen Chosen” for no reason. We don’t do feelings.

6.) Presbyterians do think it is important to understand that we are imputed God given righteousness but the reality of that is not based on our feelings or our certainty but on God’s promises.

7.) Stange insists that her explanation is more than plausible that Bergdahl slipped his nut because he couldn’t find the certainty for which Stange asserts he was looking. This is the worst psychologizing with no facts that one could possibly imagine. This analysis of Stange ranks right up there with the proto Psychologists probing for personality traits by feeling the bumps on a person’s head. Stange is telling us, quite without knowing Bergdhal, or any other pertinent facts, that it is the fault of Calvinism that Bergdahl was unstable.

Is this a case of the transference of one unstable person upon another unstable person?

Stanger wraps up,

Religious motives might or might not justify whatever Bergdahl might or might not have done. But those same motives can go a long way toward helping to comprehend his actions. We as a society have too frequently failed to take religion seriously as a source of evil as well as good. And, as Bergdahl might himself observe, all too frequently there has, as a result, been hell to pay.

1.) Religious motives might or might not justify what Bergdahl might or might not have done?

Translated –“We don’t have any idea of any of the facts but all this we don’t know anything about is certainly the fault of that dastardly hyper-conservative Calvinism.”

2.) We just admitted that we don’t know for sure what he might have or have not done but whatever he did or did not do hyper conservative Calvinism is surely to blame.

3.) Given this analysis I’m going to pray tonight that Stange does us all the favor of never trying to take religion seriously again.

After reading this I’m convinced that given all the hard evidence that exists right now that if I had to choose either Stange or Bergdahl to babysit by 4 children under 10, I’d choose Bergdahl.