Musical Defiance

The great Russian 20th century composer Dimitri Shostakovitch said in his memoirs that living under Soviet rule was like living in an insane asylum. To illustrate the point he told the following story about his friend and classmate in the conservatory, the piano virtuouso Maria Yudina.

One Sunday afternoon during the war Yudina was the featured soloist in a live broadcast over Radio Moscow of Mozart’s piano concerto 23. It just so happened that Stalin was listening to the broadcast that afternoon and was most favorably impressed. The following day he phoned Radio Moscow and “requested” that they send him the recording of the Mozart piano concerto with Yudina they had just played. Of course, having been a live performance, no such recording existed, but nobody at Radio Moscow was going to risk Stalin’s wrath by telling him that. So, they frantically summoned the entire Radio Moscow Symphony Orchestra, the conductor and Yudina to an emergency recording session that night…. Read More

It was already after 10 p. m. before everyone showed up, and the original conductor was so nervous about making a “mistake” and incurring Stalin’s ire that he could not beat time effectively. After several false starts, he was sent home and another conductor was summoned in his place. The second conductor arrived so drunk that he kept conducting sections of movements out of sequence.

After about 20 minutes of this, the orchestra members rebelled, put down their instruments and refused to play for him. He was sent home.

To everyone’s great relief, the third conductor summoned knew the score perfectly by memory. It was well after 1:30 a. m. when he arrived and was informed of his mission. He took off his coat, walked to the podium, rapped his baton on it and declared: “Alors, Mozart!” and proceeded to whip the musicians through the entire concerto in a single take! The tape was replayed, everyone nodded their assent, and a single disc was pressed and sent to Stalin.

About two weeks later Yudina received a note from Stalin himself congratulating her on a marvelous performance and expressing how much he approved of her interpretation of Mozart. Enclosed with the note was a personal check from Stalin to Yudina for 20,000 rubles!

Now, Yudina was a devout (some would say fanatical) Russian Orthodox Catholic who did not allow the official ban on religion in Soviet Russia deter her for a single second from practising and promoting her beliefs. Indeed, her public tweaking and avid annoying of the authorities in this matter had earned her the reputation of being one of Russia’s foremost “gifted eccentrics.” Good Christian lady that she was, she sent Stalin a thank-you letter which went something like this:

“Dear Josef Vissairyonovich,

“I wish to thank you for your most generous gift and express to you how much it touched my heart. I will continue to pray for you and your soul every day and every night for the rest of my life. Please remember that God’s love for you is as infinite as His mercy, and if you but confess and repent He will forgive your many sins against our homeland and our countrymen.

“Once again, I wish to thank you for your gift. I have donated it in its entirity to the church which I regularly attend.

Most sincerly,
Maria V. Yudina”

When this letter arrived at Stalin’s dacha it was opened and read by Stalin’s secretary, who promptly informed Moscow’s police chief of its contents. The police chief, in turn, passed it along to Beria, the head of the KGB. Together, all three of them showed it to Stalin, scrutinizing the leader’s face for the slightest sign of disapproval, which would have meant that Yudina was to “disappear.” Stalin read the letter, and without so much as arching an eyebrow, crumpled it and tossed it in the trash.

As the Russian author Gogol once said: “In an insane society, the sane person must convince his keepers that he is more insane than they.”

On March 5, 1953, Stalin died in his bed. Spinning on his record player was Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 23, performed by Maria Yudina.

HT — Caleb Hayden

Talking About China

Today I had lunch with a Missionary / Pastor who spent three years in Honk Kong Pastoring a Church there. He had several fascinating insights concerning the Chinese Church and Chinese culture, one of which really caught my attention.

He was saying that the Chinese government desire the moralism that is found in Judeo-Christianity in order to support their turn to capitalism. He said that many of them have come to learn that Communism does not give the moral underpinnings that is necessary to successfully pull off a expanding Capitalism.

However he also suggested that Chinese government officials realize that this is a dangerous game they are playing. While on one hand they desire a Judeo-Christian moralism, he also said that on the other hand they also understand that the Bible is a anti-statist book.

When he said this I was dumbfounded. Here he is testifying that Chinese Communist government officials understand that the Bible is a anti-statist book and I can’t seem to get large swaths of Reformed people in these united States to understand that the Bible is a anti-statist book. Quite to the contrary large swaths of the Reformed community seem to either think that Christianity can walk hand and hand with statism, or that Christianity doesn’t care one way or another about centralized government. The Chinese Communist government officials understand the Bible better than American Christian ministers and laymen.

Other interesting insights from his conversation were his explaining how many Chinese have completely lost categories and vocabulary to talk about an extra-mundane supernatural God. He says that for 60 years the Communists have beat into their heads that there is no God and so now they have lost the capacity and ability to talk God. He was not denying that the these sense of divine has been lost but only that the ability to communicate that sense has been largely lost. He noted that being back in America he is seeing the same thing in many “post-Christian” Americans.

He noted that in one of his studies with College age Americans he was teaching on God cutting covenant with Abraham. He was trying to communicate God’s goodness in making covenant with Abraham. He said that several of the students said that they, “didn’t want anything to do with a God who cut a heifer and birds in half.” I thought when he said that, “man, I need to get out more often.” If they are offended when God cuts a cow and birdies in half how much more are their heads going to spend when they get to the part where God puts His Son on a Cross?

Can it really be the case that the West has deteriorated so far that it will have nothing to do with a God who cuts cows and birdies in half because that is mean?

Pray for China. Pray for the West. If we completely throw off Christianity we will enter into a Dark Age the like which mankind has never known.

A Very Succinct Look At Matthew 22:21 & Romans 13

“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Matthew 22:21

The question that begs being asked here is, “what exactly belongs to God?”

Clearly the answer is everything, including the State.

The next question then becomes, “what exactly belongs to Caesar?”

Clearly the answer is only one thing and that is the authority to enforce God’s law, for His glory and the good of His church.

Romans 13 causes us to lean in this direction as it calls Caesar ‘God’s minister’ to do us good. As long as they ACT like God’s minister, by doing us good we are to obey them. When they begin to act like Satan’s minister, by doing us evil, then we must obey God rather then men.

Anything less then this view is impotent gnostic pietism. The Presbyterians of 1776 would not recognize the Presbyterians of today.

Hat Tip — Randall Gerard for so succinctly stating this.
I’ve only marginally modified how he originally put this.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan & Christian Military Service

The following excerpts are pulled from this link,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33807907/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

The shooter in the Fort Hood incident, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s exchanged e-mail with Anwar al-Awlaki, once a spiritual leader at a mosque in suburban Virginia where Maj. Hasan worshipped. Those e-mails indicate that the troubled military psychiatrist came to the attention of the authorities long before last Thursday’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, but left him in his post.

Mr. Awlaki, an American citizen born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents, wrote on Monday on his English-language website that Mr. Hasan was “a hero.” The cleric said, “He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.”

He added, “The only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. Army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.”

At another site we learn,

Several former colleagues have come forward to say Nidal would tell them: “I am a Muslim first and an American second”.

The reason I note these snippets are as follows,

1.) Mr. Awlaki, Major Nidal’s former cleric insists that the inconsistency of a Muslim fighting against Muslims is what pushed Major Nidal to resolve the contradiction in the direction of killing Americans at Ft. Hood instead of killing Muslims in Afghanistan.

Major Nidal understood there was a contradiction between being a Muslim and being an American soldier in a war killing Muslims. Now, what Major Nidal did was reprehensible and justice will only be served if he gets the death penalty but it does cause one to ask why American Christians in military can not see about themselves what Nidal saw about himself, and that is that they proclaim to be adherents to a faith but they are in an organization dedicated to snuffing out the faith they say they adhere to. Christians by being in the US military are supporting an institution (US government) that is committed to snuffing out the Christian faith. I’m saddened that Christians can serve in an army that is a instrument of a government that is at war with the individual Military Personnel’s own Christian people, without the slightest pangs to their Christian consciences.

The truth of the matter is that most American Christians don’t feel the contradictions that Nidal felt because they have compartmentalized their faith. For example, did any Christian serviceman feel the contradictions between being a Christian and bombing into oblivion Christian Serbia? For example, did any Christian servicemen feel the contradiction between their involvement in Iraq and the reality that that involvement led to the necessity of the indigenous Iraqi Christian community having to flee from Iraq for their safety due to the oppression they were suffering — an oppression that had official US government sanction? For example, did any Christian servicemen feel the contradiction between serving in Afghanistan and knowing that their Chaplain corps were destroying Bibles so that their usage wouldn’t be offensive to their host Muslim country? Instead the American mindset is, “Jesus saves my soul and that being so it doesn’t matter that I am one of those that the State uses to implement its humanist agenda in order to build an anti-Christ globalistic tower of Babel.”

2.) Is it really so surprising that Major Nidal would say, “I am a Muslim first and an American second?” What would we expect any true son of Allah to say? I would hope that Christians in the military would say, “I am a Christian first and an American second.” The difference is, is that Nidal saw the contradiction between being an American and being a Muslim while most Christians, being imbued with a kind of “Civil religion Christianity,” never pause to consider the things that Nidal considered.

I shouldn’t have to write next what I’m going to write, but just so as to ward off the kooks, I’m not saying that Christians in the military should start shooting up the place like Maj. Nidal did. I am saying that Christians should think long and hard about joining the US military as it is the enforcement arm of a government that is four square in favor of building up a anti-Christ globalist humanist Kingdom.

It’s just a shame that Maj. Nidal didn’t have a Muslim version of R2Kt that he could have used to resolve the contradictions between being a Muslim and being an American. A Muslim version of R2Kt would have allowed to be at peace with being Muslim while acting in a non Muslim fashion as he followed the magistrates orders.

Calvin College BOT Get’s It Right

The news in this post is already way past old, but as it is tangentially concerned with the CRC and as I am ordained in the CRC I thought I would put my fork in on this item.

The following links give the skinny on the progression of the controversy between the Calvin College faculty and the Calvin College Board of Trustees (BOT).

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/08/calvin_college_has_had_to_conf.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/08/calvin_college_professors_call.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/10/calvin_college_agrees_to_furth.html

The short version is that the Calvin BOT sent out a letter to the faculty impressing upon them that they were not to teach anything that could be construed as gay advocacy. One can only presume that the BOT sent out such a letter because they had reason to believe that such a letter was necessary. Upon receipt of the letter the faculty took exception to what they believed was a heavy handed draconian squelching of their academic freedom. As such the official faculty organization squealed loudly under such oppression. As a result the BOT, while not rescinding their original dicta, did agree to examine how CRC church teachings relate to academic freedom.

Just a few observations,

1.) Three Cheers for the BOT for doing the right thing.

2.) The cry for Academic freedom is a smoke screen. Would the faculty senate have squealed about Academic freedom if the BOT had sent a memo to the faculty impressing upon them that they were not to teach anything that could be construed as polygamy advocacy? Necrophilia advocacy? Bestiality advocacy? The squealing sound one hears from the faculty is indicative that the letter hit its mark. No doubt certain faculty members were pushing gay advocacy. So, this has very little to do with academic freedom and a great deal to do with code pink making inroads at Calvin.

3.) The gay advocacy thing is not limited to Calvin College in the CRC. CRC publications like “The Banner” is forever subtly engaging in gay advocacy. Maybe someone ought to send a letter to them.

4.) This is the way that change always happens in a denomination. Whatever change that is desired to be pursued is first brought up in some official format. That official format is then officially censored. After being censored people who are sympathetic to those who first brought it up start screaming that, “We need to have a conversation about this.” The ensuing conversation then becomes the thin wedge that is used to eventually pry the desired change into place. This sometimes takes years to happen. In my estimation elements within the CRC, having established Women in office, are now on the next campaign to legitimize “Christian” homosexuality.

5.) In my estimation, were the BOT really serious about this they would summarily fire any faculty member who, privately or publicly, was engaged in gay advocacy. Shoot, being fired for such a reason would be a badge of honor in the current academic climate and would assure the fired person of another job within days.

6.)Former Calvin academic and well known historian George Marsden felt he had to weigh into the Calvin imbroglio cautioning “against making lists of positions faculty may not advocate. Militarism and abortion could also be considered confessional issues.” Marsden went on to say,

“There are too many possible issues. You’re stirring up controversy you don’t have to have.”

People need to realize that all because Marsden speaks the world need not listen. Marsden has been significantly wrong at times in his academic career (see Gary North’s Political Polytheism) and there is no reason to think that he is not wrong once again.

I would note though that abortion certainly is a confessional issue. Would Dr. Marsden contend that it is acceptable for faculty members to be abortion advocates?

7.) In a cautionary word to parents who care what I think, I would strongly advise against sending your children to Calvin college. First, their economics department, philosophy department, and their sciences are all messed over, shot through with non Christian presuppositions. Second, the campus life leaves much to be desired. If you’re going to send your children to Calvin you might as well spend that money by sending them to a top flight “secular” school.

The issue of homosexuality and the CRC is one that I suspect we will be seeing more of in years to come in the CRC.