The Baneful Effects of the Spirit of Party

In light of the upcoming election, some thoughts from our first president, in his farewell address given in 1796.

"...Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. 


"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

This election season, let's avoid putting our support of either Romney, Obama or someone else in place of our patriotism. We are all Republicans. We are all Democrats.

We are all Republicans. We are all Federalists.

--Thomas Jefferson

Doug Wilson on the Regeneration

Since discovering the Reformed pastor Pastor Douglas Wilson on the Internet, and reading one of his books (on infant baptism), my thinking has greatly benefited. He is challenging and entertaining. You won't agree with him on everything, but he will be disagreeable with style. You have to respect that.

Pastor Wilson wrote this as part of his on-going series on "Life in the Regeneration." He makes the case for an old-school evangelical understanding of conversion. 

I should admit upfront that I am of the "sacramentalist" party that he references here, and I make no apologies for that. I would be doing myself and my fellow sacramentalists a disservice if I didn't admit that Wilson makes some great points here. As I have said before to those who have questioned me on the Lutheran understanding of baptism, we do not believe that baptism gives automatic, magical ex opere operato salvation no matter what. Faith in God's Word must be there. If an infant, say, does not keep the faith, he will not be saved. Period. That means that there are lots of folks with "ecclesiastical papers stamped" who are not saved, unregenerate people. They need the Gospel as badly as a pagan. They need Jesus.

Too often, those of us in the conservative, traditional "mainline" denominations have looked down our noses at those backwoods "fundamentalists" trying to get people saved. While many of the revivalistic, Finney-an ideas on salvation are flawed, sub-Biblical and even heretical, the fundamentalists are to be commended for at least caring enough about people's souls to warn of the impending eternal judgment and what to do about it. Rather than making fun of them we should be joining them and gently correcting their bad theology. 

Wilson's piece is good in that it jolts you out of comfortable sophistication. All avowed sacramentalists should read it.

Justin Raimondo on Gay Marriage

Mr. Justin Raimondo explains why gay marriage makes no sense and why it will be bad news for the gay community. He says this as an openly gay man. Many interesting thoughts here for those interested in truth and not in power.

A Pastor Repents

It has been rather common of late for Christians to question the idea of Hell. I have done this myself. I have pondered universalism, annihilationism and other concepts. Since I'm not a ministry professional, my views on these things or my questions haven't caused multitudes of people to go astray in their faith, but this guy is a different story.

Chad Holtz was a Methodist pastor who was asked to leave his church because he denied the existence of Hell. He repents in his post of his former position and asks for forgiveness. He has deleted his old blog and is moving forward in his life. He writes, "Love doesn't win. God wins. And it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a holy, living God."


The Internet makes it easier for us to see what each other is thinking. It promotes a lot of very public dialogue and discord. It tends to reinforce the postmodern notion that all reality is a sum total of our opinions and that all opinions are valid and noteworthy. Not so. Some opinions are off topic. Some are not well reasoned. Not all views are equal. Some are true and some are not.


We have a lot of discussion but not a lot of honest reflection. It shows in what passes for good writing or good blogging these days. May I say that in pointing my finger, I am also pointing three fingers at myself. I am guilty of getting puffed up by own opinions when in reality, they didn't pertain to the discussion at hand in the least.


Wendell Berry, when asked if he was going to buy a computer, responded that of course he would not. When told that a computer would make writing easier and more efficient, allowing him to write more and get more done, Wendell said that it was precisely for this reason that he was not going to buy a computer. He had already written too much too thoughtlessly. Why only increase this temptation? The purpose of writing, in Wendell's eyes, is to produce good work, not to write as quickly and effortlessly as possible with as much machinery as possible. That attitude seems to run counter to the notion of quality work; it encourages hurried activity and not careful activity, and so impedes quality work.


This blog is abundant evidence of my careless thinking and writing. The Internet makes it far too easy to write carelessly. So we have a lot of speech but not a lot of memorable content. We're not likely to produce a John Milton or a William Blake. If they exist, they're probably carefully avoiding the Internet and its culture. We probably make fun of them for being "weirdos."


I think we need more of what Chad Holtz is offering here: honesty and repentance, and a plea to avoid the arrogance and narcissism that the Internet, with its seemingly limitless avenues of personal expression, tends to create.


Quite a few of our bloggers and pontificators probably ought to take a break. Cut out the noise, avoid comment and shut down. Listen to your own thoughts. Have more real relationships with real people. Then come back and talk to us again.


If we don't think carefully about how we communicate and how we write, the danger of sloppy writing and abundant expression is that it numbs us to seeing Truth. It will numb us and also our readers. We can get caught up in the latest fad of questioning or denying Hell, and pontificate on blogs about the failures of conservative theology, all the while ignoring our own spiritual rot and leading others into the same rot. We become fixated on our own opinions and forget the external Word of Truth. It's Original Sin in a digital world.


This is deadly serious business because religion is deadly serious business. Truth is at stake. Let us approach the altar with all due humility and reverence.

Response to a Rachel Held Evans post

The following was posted by me in response to a post from Rachel Held Evans found here. It represents my thinking currently on this ever-present and divisive issue: women's ordination and womens' role in the church.

The fact that you should mention the subject of obedient children (Titus 1:6) brings up some interesting parallels. The same word used for submissiveness of women in the church (I Timothy 2:11) is also used to speak of the "submission" of the children of overseers (I Timothy 3:4). This same word, hupotage (accent on the "e") is also used to describe the Corinthians "submitting" to one another in cheerful giving, on account of their confession of Christ (II Corinthians 9:13). Interesting, no?

The objection could be made that Paul is treating women like children, and hence, his treatment of them is demeaning and deplorable. But why would he use the same language to speak of submission to other believers in the Lord? Is submitting to other believers demeaning and deplorable?

Furthermore, does it follow that in the parent-child relationship, that the parent is more valuable than the child? Does it follow that a parent, by virtue of maturity, has more access to Christ than his progeny? Certainly not, because our Lord wanted His followers to become like little children to come to Him. The equality of children and parents in God's covenant of grace is one reason why we of the liturgical churches baptize infants.

This equality does not nullify the responsibility of parents to discipline their children, have authority over them and teach them the faith. Surely, parent-hood is a grave responsibility. Notice also how Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father in his letters.

Notice also how Jesus revealed God: as Father. So we see some rich metaphor here and throughout Scripture: God and the Church, God and the World, God and Israel, Jesus and the Church, Paul and the Corinthians, fathers and children, husbands and wives, etc. These relationships are like each other. We might add the relationship of Adam to the Garden, and of farmers to their crops and animals as being a "husbanding" relationship. See Wendell Berry and Ellen Davis for details.

So a definite relationship exists which does involve authority and headship, but the essential equality is not denied at the same time. The metaphors are metaphors, but since they describe realities that are quite large, they are more than mere metaphor or symbol, in much the same way that the Eucharist is more than bread and wine, but also Body and Blood. 

By defending these broad truths, metaphors and relationships, it is not my intent to give very strict specifics as to what manhood or womanhood is for individual people, but to give general instructions and let others play their own variations. I think other complementarians and advocates of patriarchy (Biblically understood) would agree.

Any further comments from readers are most welcome.

Tim Keller on Evolution

In this article Tim Keller manages to lay out pretty well an opinion I have come to slowly over time (you might say I've evolved). 


Modern science gives us many proofs and evidences that the Earth is old and that what we see developed and changed through evolution. Certainly genetics strongly suggest this. 


Keller deals with the issues raised by theistic evolution honestly and openly. He rightly cautions against throwing out an historical Adam and Eve, and against throwing out Genesis 2-11 as "myth turned into history." Rather, it is "history turned into myth."


Unfortunately, as with so many other issues (homosexuality, for example), Christians have been polarized into opposing camps. The liberal camp denies Biblical truth (John Shelby Spong comes to mind) and the conservative camp denies a thoughtful consideration of science. This polarization may help sell books, but it isn't good if you're out looking for truth. 


Those of us in the middle will take arrows from both sides, but it's better to stand on conscience than hide for fear of man's opinion. 


I'm still waiting for the governor of Kentucky to give me money to build a Theistic Evolution Museum...

Data point on homosexuality

This article contains important data on current issues.

I will not comment directly, for fear of causing undue offense over a highly private matter in a very public space.