last word on rob

This is going to be the last thing I say in regards to Rob Schläpfer, mainly because regardless of recent events, I like Rob Schläpfer! I don’t think he’s a terrible person. He’s witty, insightful, and generally good natured. What’s going on in his life that is affecting him the way that it is, I can’t say. What made him “lose hope,” I don’t know.

I pray for Rob, and I love Rob. It’s not my desire to bash on him, or anything like that. I was merely discussing the public issues that all parties had already publicly discussed, including Rob. In the meantime, I’ve received e-mail and seen comment posts that seriously disturb me. In an earlier post, there’s a couple of comments allegedly from Rob originating from an IP address in Oregon. Then I received an e-mail sent two minutes later by someone named “Paul Klee” from the same Oregon IP address, via mac.com. They all contained the same colorful language.

Call me optimistic, but I refuse to believe that these originated from Rob. I simply can’t believe that someone that intelligent would reduce themselves to such language. I don’t claim to know what’s going on, but I want no part of these little games. Someone, somewhere is lying and posting with false names. Frankly, it’s none of my business, and I’ll have no further part in it.

sick again?!

You’re not going to believe this! I’m sick again! Please pray for my health, as this is just getting insane. I’m kind of nervous about going to the doctor, because if I’ve only got 6 months left to live, I’d rather not know. I’m a firm believer that one’s death should always be a suprise. Kind of like that last “gotchya” before the end.

rob retracts?

I emailed Rob Schläpfer directly about the less-than-accurate statement he made in regards to the review of James White’s The God Who Justifies being the only one they’d ever published. While he didn’t respond to my email, he did delete his responce to James White on his blog. Now Mr. Schläpfer’s blog only has been reduced to a single entry.

empowered again

Well, my family and I survived the Great Nova Scotian Blackout of ?04. If you hadn?t heard, we got an early snowstorm on Saturday. About halfway into it, however, the temperature rose. That resulted in wet, sloppy snow that built up on power lines, and transmission towers, collapsing many of them.

For me, it was a shock. I woke up Sunday morning, and stepped into my kitchen. My coffee had brewed, and I had just flicked on the light switch when everything went dead. At first, I thought I?d blown a fuse or something. I had no phone, or power, so I grabbed my cell phone and started calling my Sunday-school students to let them know class was cancelled. As it turned out, church was cancelled! Alyssa was at her grandparent?s for the night, so Marsha and I braved a long cold Sunday alone. Monday morning, I?d had enough, so I went out and started shoveling my way out.

?They can take our power, but they canna take… OUR FREEDOM!? I cried, and my car fought it?s way out of the driveway like a warrior-poet. There was no power anywhere. Anywhere, that is, except Windsor. That?s where my parents live, and where Alyssa spent the night (thanks be to God). We decided it was time to pay my parents a little visit? and perhaps shower? and eat hot food? and spend the night. There?s still a number of people who don?t have power today, and haven?t had it since Saturday night, so please be in prayer for the folks up here. Lots of elderly, and families with young children, and folks who have electric ventilators and so forth up here who are suffering plenty. So far there have been no major injuries or fatalities reported, and pray that the Lord might permit it to remain that way.

Here’s a few headlines of the events for posterity…

• Halifax Herald – Nov 17 2004
• Halifax Herald – Nov 18 2004
• Globe & Mail – Nov 15 2004
• Globe & Mail – Nov 16 2004
• Canada.com – Nov 17 2004
• CanadaEast.com – Nov 18 2004

sick again

I’ve got another cold. Tieren mentioned in passing that I’ve been sick (on and off) for like a month now. I’ve got to admit, looking back, it seems I’ve felt bad more often than I’ve felt good.

I think moving into our new office at work is somehow contributing to my weak immune system. You know, fresh paint, old asbestos dust and so forth.

discerning drama

Those close to me will tell you how much I simply adore drama. That is sarcasm, by the way. I loath drama, and I detest those individuals who seem to either thrive on it, or manufacture it. That’s the primary reason why I’ve avoided the whole “new perspectivism” debate, because it seems to be heavily painted with drama. The acerbic attitude of many of those in support of the governmental view of justification towards those who deny it seems to color the entire issue with assorted hues of technicolor rage.

I want to be clear that I don’t mean to throw everyone involved in the debate in that same barrel of bad apples. As usual, it’s always the most vocal folks who seem to have the most words (and usually the least amount to actually say). This particular issue, however, has seriously divided former friends and brothers like few other issues in recent history. I find it interesting (and mildly ironic) that the debate between “forensic justificationists” (my new word, like it?) versus “governmental justificationists” reminds me vividly of the recent (and ongoing) debate between Dave Hunt and his various Calvinistic detractors. Dave often accused Calvinists of being “elitists,” especially when Calvinists pointed out that Mr. Hunt didn”t have the background/education to address the issue respectfully. Now, in that case, I believe the Calvinists had a leg to stand on – I can point you to much better attacks on Calvinism than Dave Hunt’s works. He really, genuinely doesn’t ‘get’ Calvinism. In the “new perspectivism” (a.k.a. “Reformed Catholicism,” “governmental justification”) debate, proponent accuse the detractors of not understanding the fullness of the scholarship underlying the discussion. They accuse those who don’t find merit in the arguments of being “divisive,” “unwilling to listen” or just plain unintelligent or unscholarly.

A couple of friends of mine (I still reckon them friends, even though we haven’t spoken for some time, primarily because of the different circles we travel in) have a blog that used to be subtitled “Less Calvin, More Luther” and is now subtitled, “Calvin Must Decrease, Luther Must Increase.” I find that title very appropriate given the current drama surrounding the debate on the issue in question, especially when you consider the fact that Luther, at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529, lost his cool with Zwingli and company, refusing to discuss the matter of the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper rationally and instead scrawled “hoc est corpus meum” (“this is my body”) on his table. If that’s the attitude that Luther represents, then rest assured, he is indeed increasing. [NOTE: This is obviously not the intention to the blog's authors, and I'm totally applying my own personal interpretation to that phrase.]

What I find particularly fascinating in this situation is the way folks react when they can’t convince someone from the other side that they’re wrong. First, the accusations of ignorance, followed soon after by name calling, then the silent-treatment, then some more outbursts, and then taking their ball and going home. The ocean of emotionalism that these two battling ships seem to be sailing on is amazingly turbulent. I remember when Tim Enloe, after multiple largely unsuccessful volleys, eventually shut down his web site and his blog, thusly kicking the dust from his feet. He, of course, turned around and started a new one up again, as well as a second where he could rally his like-minded troops.

Now we see the same sort of thing coming from Rob Schlä°¦er (antithesis.com / discerningreader.com / christiancounterculture.com / etc), who has been extremely upset with one individual in particular who he used to unashamedly support, although he’s left a few of his old standbys by the wayside. Mr. Schlapfer’s book sales web site (discerningreader.com) offers some comments on a web page that discusses how they review books (now located here). It’s in the section titled “Excellent – A “must-read!” and states the following: “Some of the authors whom you will consistantly find here are: Jay Adams, Jerry Bridges, D. A. Carson, Marva Dawn, Os Guinness, Michael Horton, John MacArthur, John Piper, R. C. Sproul, Gene Edward Veith, and James White.” Now, the emphasis on “consistently” is mine, because what you’ll find is that it simply isn’t true. In fact, four of the authors who used to have their own page on discerningreader.com have been removed. You will find that the links to Os Guinness, John MacArthur, Gene Edward Veith and James White no longer function. These authors, 36% of the “must-reads” are consistently not found there. Why not? What’s changed?

Let’s take, for example, Dr. James White’s book The God Who Justifies. A couple years ago, the Discerning Reader offered the following short/sweet review: “A new standard…put this to the top of your reading list!” Later, this book was added to Rob Schlapfer’s “Advanced/Essential Training” list of suggested books. Later still, the little happy note disappeared, and there was no comments at all. Then, as the New Perspectivism debate started heating up, the following review of The God Who Justifies was offered by The Discerning Reader:

“A well-argued theological defense of the Reformed understanding of justification by faith – as distinct from Roman Catholic and Lutheran understandings. James White has done an excellent job bringing together some of the best statements from Reformed theologians of the last 450 years and integrating them with his own apologetic insights as one who regularly debates Roman Catholics, Mormons and others. The result is a definitive restatement of the central doctrine of Reformed Theology. Essential reading for beginning and intermediate students of the Bible. Advanced students will want to ponder the more exegetical “less theological” arguments from contemporary New Testament scholars such as Tom Wright, Paul Barnett, Don Garlington and others. In fact, the real weakness of the book is that it fails to address the issues that are truly on the forefront of today’s theological discussions. One would hope that a future revision of The God Who Justifies will do so, through careful exegesis of the texts, as opposed to merely thoughtful citations from the confessions and theologians of the Reformed past. That would truly serve us in coming to a final conclusion as to what Paul (especially) is saying on the matter.”
- The Discerning Reader

An exchange of accusations then took place. Dr. White questioned this change to his book entry on discerningreader.com, and Rob Schlä°¦er responded that it had been that way for some time. Dr. White’s comments on the review can be found on his blog (the 10/16/04 entry) and Rob Schlä°¦er’s responce to this entry is located on his own blog. Two things I find interesting about Mr. Schlapfer’s comments: Firstly, Rob seems to indicate that the fact that James took offence to being referred to as “an ass” is the result of backwards, fundamentalist thinking. Rob must be so forward thinking to be well beyond my scope of understanding too, because I know I, and most of the Christians I know and fellowship with, would take offence at such a comment. Secondly, in referring to the expanded review of The God Who Justifies, Rob comments, “This is the only note we have EVER published about the book. Prior to Winter 2003, we simply listed the book as one of our ESSENTIALS.” That, as I’ve demonstrated, is false. The origional review, placed in the exact same physical postion on the web page read, “A new standard…put this to the top of your reading list!” You can check the page on the Internet Archive and confirm that fact yourself. Maybe he just forgot.

Rob also apparently feels that the Discerning Reader is suffering, “due to the abuse we have suffered from staunch Reformers like Dr. White, who seem determined to drive us out of business.” Perhaps, the reason the Discerning Reader is suffering has little to do with outside influences, and has more to do with internal issues. Perhaps those very same internal issues have manifested themselves as Rob seems to have chosen the same path as those before him: He’s closed down his primary website, antithesis.com, with the short comment, “antithesis is shut down – perhaps for good. I’ve just lost hope.”

Why is this issue, most especially, generating this degree of drama? Comments welcome.

leftist sovereignty

While I don’t really find myself cheering the Bush victory (primarily because I feel he was the lesser of two evils in regards to certain moral issues – not an individual I would personally have faith in, if I were an American citizen), I do wonder what the left is going to do now. My conservative-Christian brethren south of the 49th and I often disagree on political issues (such as anti-hate legislation, gun control, government-funded health care… socialistic Canadian thinking, primarily) but I think I can easily agree with a comment Dr. James White recently made on the Dividing Line webcast, when he said it was really a choice between “putting the brakes on” or “flying right off the cliff.”

This presidential race polarized the USA as I’d never seen before. Forget the wartime election issue for a moment – this election seemed to pit two key worldviews against each other. Kerry/Edwards were extremely leftist, even by historical Democratic Party standards. Meanwhile, Bush was about as right-winged as they come – a church-going, white Protestant with strong opinions on moral issues. Add into the mix a controversial victory in 2000, Michael Moore’s extremely popular/controversial film attacking every aspect of the Bush leadership from the election onward. Over and over again it was clearly stated by leftist supporters that Bush was not the valid president.

Okay, but what now? Not only did he win the electoral vote (which, by the way, I think is quite amusing when you see the party names and consider that the reason for having an electoral college in the US is to maintain a “republic” in contrast to a “democracy”) but he also took the popular vote. The majority of Americans want George W. Bush as president.

Now, often enough, the left explains such right-winged victories as, “Well, you see, the large uneducated masses from Hick-ville punch their drool-stained ballots, and mark an X on whatever name they think are going to maintain the status quo.” Oddly enough, those same right-winged, drooling idiots quickly transform into noble agents of progress whenever there’s a Democratic victory. But, this time, before those accusations go flying around, I’d like my more liberal American friends to consider the following:

Despite all the controversy… despite all the negative media… despite the scathing documentaries… despite the mudslinging political advertising (how do you Americans STAND those ads?!)… the right won. Not just the presidency, but the senate and the congress to boot. Now, here’s my thought: Maybe, just maybe, it’s possible that on some of the key issues of this past election, the majority of Americans actually aren’t as liberal as you thought they were. Perhaps, just possibly, the majority of Americans aren’t represented by the Michael Moores of the world. Perhaps, on issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage… maybe Americans really do have opinions on those issues. There exists the remote possibility that the left has gone too far to the left to provide an engine of change in a country that is saying, “No, we won’t go there with you.”

Maybe the next presidential candidate offered by the Democratic party should start with a left-leaning issue that we agree on. Say, the environment, for example. The economy is another “safe” area. I don’t believe this election had as much to do with the war in Iraq as the pundits believe. I think that’s just the only justification they can come up with, because they were convinced that Kerry would win. Not enough focus is being given to the many moral issues in question. Eleven states put the subject of gay marriage on the ballot for consideration by the voting public. Eleven states voted to ban it. Why would that be?

You can choose to blame it on the “uneducated masses” or you can choose to see it as a guiding principle when advancing future agendas. Maybe the majority isn’t as liberal as you thought they were. Mike Moore, when he was on the Daily Show (one of my faves) promoting Fahrenheit 9/11, said “We live in a very liberal country…” You know what Mike? Maybe you’re wrong. Or, at the very least, when you used issues such as environmentalism, women’s rights, and gun control to support your assertion, maybe those aren’t the REAL “liberal” issues.

I challenge the left to, instead, ask this question of themselves and their candidates: “What, if any, moral foundation will you use to discern that which is right and good from that which is not?” Then, and only then, are you in a position to confront a nation that has clearly defined themselves as a conservative country. Either that, or find a nice little uninhabited area (I’m pretty sure you could talk to Denmark about Greenland – prolly get a decent price) declare sovereignty and start a TRUE democracy where the citizens can truly vote any way they want to with no hold barred, without the fritters of “law” or “objective absolutes” hindering progress. I’d be willing to bet folks like Michael Moore, Bill Mahr and Janeane Garafalo could easily get elected there.