Here’s a Table Talk article from some years ago—back when Steve Schlissel and those who call him friend and brother weren’t persona non-grata among the typical Reformed and Presbyterian circles.

I have to say that Rev. Schlissel expresses one aspect of my own longing with regard to the desire to see a truly Covenantal community in the Church. We are so separated and individualized in our thinking and interaction—whether it is as Presbyterians, as Americans, or as Westerners, i don’t know.

I pastor a congregation of roughly 25-30 people; do you know how very hard it is to plan an event where people are willing or able to attend? Of course, with a congregation our size, it’s no use in trying to go through with an event it if we aren’t sure that more than half our congregation will actually attend. When we have even one family who doesn’t show for church on the Lord’s Day, our worship suffers, and i confess that, in spite of knowing in my heart that i am still ministering to Christians who need the Word, i personally feel very discouraged and empty, just becasue i know that, in some cases, people simply didn’t feel like making it to worship. There is also something very discouraging to me when i have poured my heart and the Word out before the sheep in my care, and i get a handshake, a “Good sermon, preacher,” and a “Yeah, i know what you meant about that” (in reference to an illustration i used), but people all go their own separate ways and don’t want to spend time with one another, or talk about anything except whether the Redskins or the Steelers are going to go all the way this year. I don’t say this because i hope someone in my congregation will read this and do so (i don’t think anyone in my congregation reads this blog), but i feel very discouraged that my own parishioners don’t show me and my family or each other any hospitality—oh, i can go over and visit, and i and my family will always be welcome (no question), but no one ever calls up and says, “We’d love to have you over for dinner this Friday,” or “Would you like to join us for a bite to eat after church Sunday?” Everyone just does their own thing with their own families.

But people just don’t think the way orthodox Jews do, as Schlissel says. I remember in college one of my professors (the class was “Kingdom and Kingship in the OT,” i think) showed Fiddler on the Roof to the class—not to try and get people to understand Jews, become Jews, or even to think that Russian Jews in the late 19th/early 20th century could show us what Israel was like in Saul and David’s time, but to show what it means to live a radically God-centered life. It was really very enlightening in that respect and in the respect that Schlissel speaks of as well. Of course, there are lots of individualistic ideals inserted into the movie and play that make us 21st century viewers who wouldn’t otherwise think about it sympathetic and judgmental of those times and their practices, but for me, the movie illustrates a cohesiveness that the Covenant community can provide to a community that has nothing else and faces uncertainty all around—and if a Christless Covenant can do that, how much more one in which Christ has drawn us all together and made us members of his mystical body.

Alright. Enough of that. (Yes, Tim, those are both fragments.)

Last evening i went to the grocery store here in town (we don’t shop there, but we pick a few things up there now and again) to get some vegetables and milk so we would have what we needed until we go to the Wally World over in Norton. (We’d go broke if we shopped here in town!)

Well, once i had picked up everything, i got in the checkout line, and i waited behind the four other people who were checking out in the only lane that was open. When i finally got up close and the person in front of me was being rung up, the bag boy started getting boisterous and braggish, but, for the life of me, i couldn’t understand why, because he was bragging about how he absolutely hates his brother. The worst thing about how he hates his brother (as if that weren’t enough) was that he and his brothers were twins (but, apparently, not identicaltwins, because he plainly said, “If i had to look like my brother, i’d kill myself!”). Suffice it to say he was far too free in sharing his feelings than he should have been in general, much less in public with customers around.

Well, the cashier, another young man around the same age—16 or 17 or so—was just chuckling at this and egging him on a bit with some lightly probative questions (”Dude, he’s your twin! You hate your twin brother?” “So, let me get this right: you hate your brother, you don’t want to look anything like him, and he’s your twin brother?”).

Well, about that time, i got up to the checkout. The kid didn’t really stop saying anything. In fact, he offered one last bit of commentary: “Some people just say they hate their siblings, but i really mean it!”

This all bothered me terribly. Don’t get me wrong: i know how it is not to get along with people (whether real siblings, other family members, or Church members), but for someone to brag so openly that he hates his brother was just so astoundingly crass and hurtful. He went on a bit more, and i just had to say something, but i didn’t want to be too condescending, either.

I just blurted out the first thing that popped into my mind. “He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.”

When i said that, both the bag boy and the cashier just stopped talking and looked at me. The bag boy said, “That’s a pretty good saying.” To which i replied, “Well, i think so, too. It’s from the Bible.” The cashier said to the bag boy, “That’s not a saying. That’s the Bible!” And then he asked, “Where’s that from?” I told him it was from 1 John 4. He just said that that was good to know, and gave me my receipt. I told them to have a good evening, and i took my bags and went.

I certainly hope that young man thinks more about how much he “hates” his brother. Perhaps he’ll reconsider both his relationship to God and to his brother.

‘Nuf said.

I’m sure you’ve at least heard about the Pope’s recent statement reaffirming Roman primacy and attempting to disabuse anyone of the notion that either Protestants or the Orthodox of the East are either simply defective churches or otherwise true churches in any sense. This should come as no surprise to anyone who knows anything about Roman dogma. It is the typical rantings of the egocentristic Roman Church that haven’t fundamentally changed since the Reformation.

Well, my very good friend Tim Bayly has posted a short statement giving a shrug to the statement that the Roman Bishop made, or rather reiterated, recently. One of the commenters even said, “One must expect the Pope to be a Catholic.” That just rubbed me the wrong way, though, when i read it. That’s why i offer here a few thoughts on the issue.

Let me say this to start with: i don’t have a problem with the Bishop of Rome being true to his convictions. I respect anyone with convictions. In an age when men are as weak as water, and none of them are willing to say anything with any strength of conviction, it is a warm sight to see someone be true to what he believes and say, basically, “Yeah, that’s what i believe! What of it?” We ought to love each other and talk about our disagreements without getting heartburn over them, but we shouldn’t abandon our convictions in the name of love, which is no love at all.

Having said that, though, i must say that the comment, “The Pope is Catholic,” (or even the old rhetorical question, “Is the Pope Catholic?”) is, precisely because of the content of this statement and what the Roman Church has always held, fundamentally contradictory. No, the Pope is *NOT* Catholic any more than Landmark Baptists are Catholic! That’s why I never use the term “Catholic Church” to refer to the Church who willingly submit to the See of Rome; i don’t even use the term “Roman Catholic,” because that is self-contradictory. I always say “Roman Church,” “Romanist,” or, to be a bit less offensive than that last term, “Roman Christian.” It throws people off at times, but it really it a pet peeve of mine, so i’ve filed this post not only under “The Church” but also under the category “pet peeves,” because one of my greatest ones is that people refer to the Roman Church (a single denomination of Christianity) as *THE* Catholic Church.

Let me explain the problem i have: Catholicity is the core Christian belief, summarized in the ecumenical creeds of the Church, that that all Christians everywhere are united to Christ in the one body which is the Church. Even Presbyterians affirm in the WCF that the visible Church is catholic under the Gospel administration and that all those who profess the faith of Christ along with their children are part of that one, holy Catholic Church (in case you’re wondering, i capitalize the term because it is a proper noun, not because i’m referring to the Roman Church). However, in his recent statement (and i’m not complaining about it, but i am expressing what is wrong with it from a Christian perspective, not why he’s a good denominationalist) he said that Protestants are *NOT* fundamentally part of Christ’s body the Church. In other words, he’s doing what the Second Helvetic Confession says that the Roman Church has always done: that is to claim to itself, a portion of Christ’s Church, what belongs only to the whole Church, namely catholicity. As Bullinger said in the Second Helvetic Confession, “We, therefore, call this Church catholic because it is universal, scattered through all parts of the world, and extended unto all times, and is not limited to any times or places. Therefore, we condemn the Donatists who confined the Church to I know not what corners of Africa. Nor do we approve of the Roman clergy who have recently passed off only the Roman Church as catholic.” In one stroke, he rightly condemns the schismatic Donatists as well as the schismatic Romanists, because both claimed to themselves the validity of only their clergy, both claimed to themselves the validity of only their sacraments, and both claimed to themselves the validity of only their Church. One can hardly deny the the parallel. It is precisely on the ground of catholicity that the Church could condemn the Donatists; it makes no sense, though, to me, then to have the Roman Church turning around and claiming the very thing that the Church Catholic rightly condemned in the Donatists.

What i’m saying is this: it is precisely *UN*catholic (regardless of how prevalent it is erroneously to call the Roman Church the “Catholic Church”) to claim that any one portion of the Church *IS* the sum total of the Church of Christ apart from all the other parts. As Paul said, one part cannot say that because i’m not that other part, i’m not part of the body. But i don’t think it is any better to say that because that other part isn’t what i am, then it’s not part of the body? Well, that’s the heart of schism! That’s not catholicity!

That is, though, just one thing that makes the Roman Church so unhealthy. For my part, i tend away from talk of “true church” or “false church.” I much prefer the Westminsterian langauge of more pure or less pure. I also agree with Charles Hodge that, notwithstanding all its corruptions and problems, the Roman Church is still a part of the visible Church of Christ, which is why we can recognize her baptism as a valid Christian baptism. I’d say quite clearly that the Roman Church is a *VERY* impure church, but its impurity has not (yet, at least, and trust it won’t) made it no church at all, otherwise we’d be in the boat with the Thornwellians denying Roman baptism is Christian baptism.

So, sure, the Roman Bishop’s statement is very good denominationalism; it’s very good schism and factionalism, but it’s not good catholicism or catholicity, because, so long as that word “catholic” has any meaning at all, it will mean what the Creed has always meant by it: Christ’s whole body on the earth and in heaven together as we commune together through the mystical union we have in union with Christ.

I don’t usually post things in email forwards (mainly, because i don’t usually appreciate their content as much as the person who sent it to me). In fact, you could say that one of my pet peeves is email forwards (especially the ones where, if you don’t send it to 500 people in the next twenty seconds, your head will explode and gremlins will dance on your corpse).

This one, though, was different, and it was an exception to my lack of appreciation for that content. This just gives simple home remedies to answer life’s little problems in a purely pragmatic way. Made me chuckle. Hope you enjoy. :-)

Amazingly Simple Home Remedies:

• When choking on an ice cube, simply pour a cup of boiling water down your throat. Presto! The blockage will instantly remove itself.
• Avoid cutting yourself slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them while you chop.
• Avoid arguments with the Mrs. about lifting the toilet seat by using the sink.
• To treat high blood pressure: simply cut yourself and bleed for a few minutes, thus reducing the pressure in your veins. Remember to use a timer.
• A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you from rolling over and going back to sleep after you hit the snooze.
• If you have a bad cough, take a large dose of laxatives, then you will be afraid to cough.
• You only need two tools in life - WD-40 and Duct Tape. If it doesn’t move and should, use the WD-40. If it shouldn’t move and does, use the duct tape.
• When confused remember, everyone seems normal until you get to know them.

Daily Thought: Some people are like slinkies. Not really good for anything but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.

I seriously doubt that Gargantua and Pantagruel ever argued over it, but i can tell you that one of my pet peeves is when the toilet paper roll is put on backwards. Really, this goes for more than just toilet paper; it also applies to paper towel rolls as well.

The right way to hang toilet paper is to have the flap hanging down in the front. This enables easy access to the end of the paper, and it allows for easy tearing.

The wrong way to hang toilet paper is to have the flap hanging down in the back. Whenever i look over at the dispenser and see it improperly hung, my blood pressure always goes up just a little bit. When i don’t just switch the roll itself around, i end up having to turn the roll backwards until the flap is on top and i can grab the end to pull a piece. The problem is, though, that even when you do that, once you tear off the piece to use, that flap falls all the way back down in the back again. So annoying!

There is someone at our church who either loves to hang toilet paper rolls and paper towel rolls backward, or is just trying to get on my nerves. We don’t have a church custodian; we usually have a work day every month or month and a half to clean and put things right. But whoever hangs the toilet paper in between times almost invariably hangs it backwards. Same goes for the paper towels in the kitchen. When i got into the church’s kitchen to use the sink (while cooking, washing dishes, or just washing my hands), more times than not, the paper towel roll is on backward.

Please, out of the goodness of your heart, and in keeping with common sense, do everyone a favor, and hang the paper the way God intended!

One thing that absolutely irks me to no end is when people write about a city and state in some text but don’t properly punctuate the city and state. Yeah, i know; it sounds like i’m picking nits here, but it really does get on my nerves.

Here’s an example of what i’m talking about from the WorldMag Blog:

Mt. Diablo High School in Concord, California is taking flack for holding race-based pep assemblies to motivate students to perform better on national tests. (”Diabolical Diversity” entry for today, March 1, 2007)

Now, far be it from me to correct people who have a weekly magazine with a nation-wide readership, but when someone writes “Concord, California” and does add the necessary comma after “California,” it really changes the way the sentence reads. For a second, i was thinkng that California is taking flack, when in actuality, Mt. Diablo HS (which happens to be in Concord, a city in California) is taking flack.

Of course, it should read thusly: “Mt. Diablo High School in Concord, California, is taking flack….”

Whenever a city is mentioned, and the state follows it as a descriptor, it is, grammatically speaking, an appositive phrase (specifically, a restrictive appositive phrase), and while not all apositive phrases are surrounded by commas, there is no appositive phrase that has only one comma; it’s all or nothing. If the appositive phrase is opened with a comma, it must be closed with a comma (unless closed by some other, “bigger” punctuation, like a period, colon, semi-colon, paren, or what have you).

I’m seeing this phenomenon more and more, for some strage reason. Is there a reason that people are only putting a comma in between the city and state without also adding one after the state? Don’t they teach this in colleges these days? In my theological writing class in college, my prof would have dinged me crazy on something like that. Maybe we should start getting magazine subscriptions, correcting them in red ink, putting a grade on them, and sending them back to the edior-in-chief, just to let him know how he’s doing.