Medieval Times

I finally finished The Life of Thomas More (Peter Ackroyd).  As I mentioned previously, it was pretty painful (as evidenced by how long it took to finish).

The greatest error a student of history can make is that of anachronism - reading historical events into one's current context (ironically, this was common in medieval times).

So, when we think of the Popes, Kings, nations, and Church of More's time - we must not think of those things as they are now - but seek to set them in their own context.

For example, More's trouble (which led to his death) stemmed from the King of England (Henry VIII or H8) seeking a divorce (or annulment) from his wife.  The Pope would not allow it, and the King declared the independence of the Church of England from the authority of Rome.

But the context is much deeper.

For example, there were four major super-powers in the West at this time: France, England, the Holy Roman Empire (effectively Germany), and the Vatican (which had its own armies for attacking neighbors) (there was also Spain, but it was unified with the HRE in 1516).

Furthermore, H8's wife (Catherine) was the sister of the mother of the Holy Roman Emperor (aunt of Charles V).  But, the HRE and England often fought together with the Vatican against France.

Royal marriage was a diplomatic matter.  Ann Boleyn was English, but had grown up in the royal court of France.  Divorce was not just a theological or civil matter.

In the same vein, there were parallel secular and religious courts (heretics were tried in religious courts and then handed over to the secular authorities).  Part of the issue was which court would have the highest authority - secular or religious.

Almost Done with More

Reading has been painful these last few months.

After finishing Tyndale's biography, I decided I should see the other side.  Teems recommended the biography of Thomas More by Ackroyd - which happened to be in my local library.

These two books have been like night and day.

Some of the differences must be attributed to the talents of the biographers, but some is certainly due to the subjects.

The English language has been shaped by the Bible.  And the English Bible was heavily influenced by one man - William Tyndale.

To read Tyndale's writing is to hear the Bible.  Some of it is due to him having steeped himself in Biblical themes and principles - but some of it is common authorship.

Teems did an excellent job of letting Tyndale speak for himself (from his own writing).  The old English was almost always cleaned up for easy reading.

Ackroyd seems to do the opposite.  There is much analysis and consideration, with only snippets of original material - always in the old English.  This breaks up the flow, and makes it hard to extract the person behind the writing.

But More was a lawyer, very much in the modern sense.

His job was to represent his client's interests, and to submerge his own opinions and positions.

So, for More, there is always the audience in mind.  What to reveal, what to hide, what to spin.  How best to influence, how it will reflect and interact in the big picture.

It is that big picture which I will need to develop more.

Hyper-skepticism and Hyper-credulity

What is the connection between: Bart Ehrman (athiest), Paul Tsoukalos (guy from the History channel), and certain Catholic apologists on Facebook?

Their reasoning is all along the lines of:
"I can't trust the Bible, therefore X"

Where X is:

1. Mud+time equals man
2. Aliens are responsible for everything in history
3. I can only trust the Catholic Church

It's really a variant on "Anything but God" (anything but the Bible)

The Perspicuity of Scripture

It saddens me when people who call themselves Christians go on to doubt that we can understand the Bible (what is sometimes called "The Perspicuity of Scripture").

Understanding this principle is really quite simple:

1. God has chosen to reveal Himself.  This has included many different methods (Heb 1:1-2), but for us, is in the Bible.
2. God is always successful in His plans and purposes

To deny #2 is effective atheism.

But what about #1?

Some will say that God can only be known through a mediator.

However, this runs into the problem of "why can we communicate".

That is, we can only communicate clearly because we are in the image and likeness of God, and God communicates clearly.

If God does not communicate clearly, then we have no reason to believe that we can communicate clearly (or we are greater than God in this regard - and God is not God, back to effective atheism).

So, if God cannot communicate clearly, we cannot communicate clearly - and thus you cannot communicate your argument.

Father Hunger

"Father Hunger" (Doug Wilson) - I read a lot of what Doug Wilson writes (second only to John Macarthur and related things from the Pyromaniacs).

Doug Wilson is a writer.

I don't just mean that he writes stuff.  He reads a lot, and writes a lot.  This shows up in his writing style.  He makes allusions to other writers, and he has a pithy way of compressing big ideas down and making them understandable and memorable.

At the same time, I disagree with Wilson on some pretty major theological points: he is a Presbyterian (a sort of uber-Presbyterian, called "Federal Vision") and post-millenial - while I am a Baptist, and pre-millenial.

If Presbyterians have any advantage, it is that their theology more naturally integrates the family - which is just the subject at hand.

This is a short book, at 207 pages (plus a short study, end notes, and an index) and Wilson starts right in.

First, he identifies our cultural problems as fundamentally theological - that bad theology leads to bad thinking and bad doing ("we become like what we worship", as he would say).

We have a father problem in our country, because we do not seek our heavenly Father.

Wilson covers this from every angle, with his usual insight and wit.  He makes a compelling case, and gives the Biblical solution - we need repentance, lots of it.

This problem affects every facet of life.  Children related to their parents, husbands and wives, even roles in the church.

He rolls the controversy of "The Shack" (where the Trinity is portrayed as two women with Jesus) into a one liner:
"You need a father?  Here, talk to your mother about it."

This book is excellent for anyone who wonders why things are so wrong, and is interested in making them better - whether it is a better father, or son, or wife, or daughter.

The appendix has an economic study on the impact of fatherless homes.  It shows clearly that divorce and abandonment by fathers is not zero, and not "better for the kids" (to avoid arguments).

Judgment and Salvation

Last month, I finished reading through the book of Isaiah (approximately) twenty times (I spent about a year in it).

Isaiah is a challenging book, for a number of reasons.

The first is length: at 66 chapters it takes a long time to get through one time (about two weeks), and you can forget the beginning by the time you get to the end.

Second, the book is mostly prophetic utterances - not a story or narrative, with clear boundaries (people did this, then they did that).  This makes it hard to break up into smaller chunks to be processed.

The third challenge is related to the second - because it is prophetic language, it is often hard to grasp, or unclear in meaning or subject.

Nevertheless, there is a clear message which comes through - that of God's judgement on sin and His provision of salvation.

I took several style of notes as I was reading; in one, I wrote a word or two to summarize a chapter.  You see: judgment; salvation; judgement and salvation.

This makes sense in context.  Israel had disobeyed God for some time, and was about to go into the Babylonian captivity.  We also see many strong messianic prophecies (God ultimate plan of salvation)

Tyndale

"Tyndale: The Man Who Gave God an English Voice" (David Teems) - This book is really excellent in every way.  If I had to sum up everything in one quote, it would be:

"In the age of Tyndale, there was very little that was laughable.  It was a rather humorless age." (p. xv)

For those who do not know, William Tyndale was a Bible translator.  He produced the first English Bible from the Greek (John Wycliffe had earlier produced an English Bible from the Latin Vulgate, but it was not widespread).

At the time (the Protestant Reformation, 1517 and on), this was considered an evil and rebellious act.  In England, the Bible was in Latin (even though the people - and often the parish priests - knew no Latin).  In 1519, a family of six was burned at the stake (in Coventry) for teaching and reciting the Lord's Prayer in English (p. 264).

Tyndale was initially a priest (as most educated people were).  When Erasmus' Greek New Testament was published (and things started to boil), he asked for permission to produce an English translation.  This was refused, but we see the beginnings of the drive that Tyndale had to see God's word made available to everyone.  Shortly after, Tyndale fled England, never to return.  Teems wonderfully documents his trials and tribulations as an exile.

Teems handles this weighty subject with aplomb.  You would have to have a heart of stone not to weep at times, but that is the nature of the matter.  Teems avoids sentimentality, or polemic.  He maintains objective distance, while letting the people of the time speak for themselves.  I came to feel that Tyndale was a brother I would have gotten along with very well.

There are also humorous moments, which Teems is eager to bring forth.  This is not a sad and dreary tale, I was eager to finish it - eager to get back to it when life kept me away.

I'd like to read bios of Erasmus and (Sir Thomas) More now, for comparison.