The Guardians of Reputation

This is the fourth post in a five-part series on Aesop’s Fables. You can read this post independently from the others or you can read the introduction here for more background on the history and use of Aesop’s Fables and catch up on the other two fables I examined here and here.

GENIUS, VIRTUE AND REPUTATION

Man-Sitting-Alone-Under-Tree-Painting

Genius, Virtue, and Reputation, three great friends, agreed to travel over the island of Great Britain, to see whatever might be worthy of observation. But as some misfortune, said they, may happen to separate us, let us consider, before we set out, by what means we may find each other again. “Should it be my ill fate,” said Genius, “to be severed from my friends—heaven forbid!—you may find me kneeling in devotion before the tomb of Shakespeare; or rapt in some grove where Milton talked with angels; or musing in the grottos where Pope caught inspiration.” Virtue, with a sigh, acknowledged, that her friends were not very numerous; “but were I to lose you,” she cried, “with whom I at present so happily united, I should choose to take sanctuary in the temples or religion, in the palaces of royalty, or in the stately domes of ministers of state; but as it may be my ill fortune to be there denied admittance, inquire for some cottage where contentment has a bower, and there you will certainly find me.” “Ah, my dear friends,” said Reputation very earnestly, “you, I perceive, when missing may recovered; but take care I entreat you, always to keep sight of me, for if I am once lost, I am never to be retrieved.”

There are few things that can be so irreparably lost as reputation

I have no need to recite to you specific examples of great leaders who have irreparably lost their reputations. Regardless of your social circles, you can supply names just fine on your own. But take note here what the parable quoted above states is the surest–indeed, the only–safeguard against a loss of reputation.

It’s three-fold:

(1) genius which we could also call “wisdom”
(2) virtue
(3) and (implicitly) community

The loss of these three naturally leads to a loss of reputation. Virtue and Wisdom–companions of Reputation–must keep careful watch over him because isolation from them will prove his ruin.

When we understand the true nature of fallen man we will come to understand that isolation is one of the greatest dangers a man can face. Isolation can be physical, authoritative, emotional, theological or spiritual. The dangers of an unaccountable government are ingrained in the minds of my fellow Americans due to our history with fighting against a despotic monarch whose power was unrestrained but do we also see the dangers of theological or spiritual isolation where a man decides for himself–arbitrarily and independent of scripture or any church body or tradition–what is right and wrong, what is sound teaching and what is not?

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE WORD OF GOD

The Bible describes itself as the very words of God. In 2 Timothy 3:16 the apostle Paul writes that “All Scripture is inspired [or “breathed-out”] by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

Keith Mathison writes “…a claim to greater authority than that of Scripture is a claim to greater authority than that of God. Such a claim is nothing short of blasphemy.” (pg. 47) [1]

Man is not free to create his own moral code and do “whatever is right in his own eyes.” He is subject to the transcendent, eternal, law of God–a reflection of God’s unchanging character.

For further reading on the infallibility of Scripture I recommend:
Why We Believe the Bible by John Piper

But if the Word of God is our final authority, our only sure, certain and infallible guide, why do we need anything or anyone else to help us discern truth? If we all just read our Bibles and our Bibles alone, wouldn’t we naturally come to the same conclusions? And yet, as many Bible scholars have pointed out, that already begs the question, “which Bible?” “with or without the apocrypha?”. Many resort to: “Well we should just love Jesus.” –but which “Jesus”? The Mormon “Jesus”? The Jehovah’s Witness “Jesus”? They all read the same Bible as we do yet come to vastly different conclusions about the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Thus, there are necessarily three Divinely instituted guardians of the Truth:

(1) THE CHURCH

“Protestant evangelicals have often made it clear, when discussing the doctrine of sola fide, that justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. We are justified by faith alone, but a faith that does not produce spiritual fruit is a dead faith that cannot save. Similarly, our final authority is Scripture alone, but not a Scripture that is alone…Scripture is certainly sufficient, but it is only sufficient for certain things. It cannot read itself. It cannot preach itself. It cannot interpret itself. That is the duty and responsibility of the church.” (Keith Mathison, pg. 43) [1]

“…authority has been given to the church in order that she may preserve the unity of the faith and reject the errors of heretics….Any person who has been a Christian for more than a few days is aware that there are numerous competing interpretations of Scripture. There are disagreements and debates on virtually every major issue. How are these disputes to be resolved? If we adopt the individualistic doctrine of [“no authority but the Bible”], it is not possible to settle any debate because the final authority is each individual. Each individual decides for himself and by himself which arguments are stronger. If the next person judges differently, who determines which of them is correct? …this…has led to endless division in the church.” (Keith Mathison, pg. 50-51) [1]

In our highly individualistic, post-modern times, we are urged to “be Bereans” but what exactly does it mean to “be a Berean”? Yes, “they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11) but where and how did they examine the Scriptures? Your layman church member did not have private access to the Scriptures. They had to go to the synagogues to read the Old Testament scrolls and this would have been a topic of public and communal discussion. It is for this that they are called, “more noble than those in Thessalonica” who in contrast, rejected the public exposition of the Word of God (Acts 17:2). [3]

1 Timothy 3:15 tells us that the church is “the pillar and ground of the truth,” NOT individuals. Covenanting with a local church body and submitting to its teaching and leadership protects individual believers from the dangers of their own isolated, private interpretation (1 Peter 1:20), supplying the communal companionship of wisdom and virtue.

For further reading I recommend:
Keith Mathison’s essay Sola Scriptura

(2) CHURCH ASSOCIATIONS

But it is not a single, local church, that is entrusted with guarding and interpreting the truth revealed in the Bible. “Just as no man is an island, so also no church is an island.” Dr. Renihan writes in his contributive essay in “Denominations or Associations?” (pg. 94).

“Imagine…a church that has ‘no creed but the Bible,’ where the minister one week is convinced that baptism should be restricted only to professing believers and the next week changes his mind and thinks babies can be baptized too. Can he be held to account? There would seem to be no way of doing this; in practice, whatever he thinks is the truth on any given matter at any given moment–that is the position of his church. This is surely a recipe for chaos in that it places the congregation completely at the mercy of whatever the current opinion of the pastor might be. He has, in theory, unlimited power, and the Bible would seem to mean whatever he decides that it means.” –Carl Truman, pg. 162-163 [2]

Whole churches, as well as individuals, have distorted truth and promoted error throughout two-thousand years of church history.

In Chapter 2 of “Denominations or Associations?”, Mr. Earl Blackburn walks through numerous passages of scripture that demonstrate communication and cooperation between churches, such as when the epistles were being circulated, that presupposed an existing and organized relationship between the autonomous churches–how else could these things be accomplished?

This network of churches is what we Baptists call an association of churches.

The Apostle Paul repeatedly wrote to churches to warn them of false prophets and teachers (many of them “pastors”) or of other groups of believers that were pressuring them to surrender “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” as Jude put it. There are rogue churches just as there are rogue members and just as the church is a gatekeeper trusted to mark heretical and unorthodox individuals, so associations are trusted to mark heretical and unorthodox churches. New Testament churches warned other churches, supported other churches, and held other churches accountable.

For further reading I recommend:
Denominations or Associations?
I have written a summary outline of it here
and a review here

(3) TRADITION AND CONFESSIONALISM

But certainly, an entire group of churches can and have erred, what then is the handrail to grasp hold of to prevent a theological tumble off a cliff? It is at this point we need to step back even further and observe that it is not the association of churches in each respective generation that determines and defines the central teachings of the Word of God but the church throughout all the ages, spanning from now back to its first conception. The means of the church for preserving the truth is confessionalism or the summary teaching of the principle truths of scripture as tested, refined, and prioritized throughout church history.

Jaroslav Pelikan wrote, “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”

Words are central to the Christian faith. God spoke the world into existence (Gen. 1:3), He spoke to His people through the prophets (Heb. 1:1), He called His Son “the Word made flesh” (Jn. 1:14), and He speaks to us today through the Written Word (Heb. 4:12) and the Written Word confessed and explained through preachers (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Tim. 4:2, Rom. 10:14, etc. etc.).

Christ founded His Church on a confession (Matt. 16:17-18) and the church has been confessing Christ ever since.

The Words of God, by Divine command and Apostolic example, are to be openly confessed, repeated, summarized, and explained. Paul urged Timothy and Titus to uphold “trustworthy” and “sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9; 2:1) and to refute what was contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3-11). With this as our foundation, we must understand Paul’s qualification for Elders to be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2b) as describing not only skill but content and the stipulation “above reproach” as requiring not only moral excellence but doctrinal excellence. [3]

Because, to return to our fable, there is more than one way a man can forfeit his reputation.

Identifying with historic confessions of the faith is the greatest way we can identify with the church–and thus, with Christ. It is our surest safeguard against heresy and heretics both, for order and precision are the terror of agents of chaos whose chief weapon is to distort, dilute, and deny.

To ask “what have the saints confessed, upheld, and defended for two-thousand years?” is to link arms with Virtue and Wisdom.

May you never be parted from them.


confessingchrist(paper_2)
For further reading I recommend:
The Credal Imperative by Carl R. Trueman

Footnotes:
[1] After Darkness Light, a collection of essays; Sola Scriptura by Keith A. Mathison
[2] The Credal Imperative by Carl R. Trueman
[3] I don’t have a proper citation for this observation, but it and many others in this essay are properly credited to my daddy who has studied, sought council from other pastors, and preached on these topics. In keeping with the spirit of this essay, I have sought out the wisdom and virtue of my pastor (who happens to also be my daddy), have listened eagerly to the men of my church’s association teach on these topics, and pulled down from my daddy’s library shelves the careful words of saints gone before me. Nothing in this essay is “new” though it may be new to you, as it has been to me as well over the last couple years. I hope it to be a fair and accurate summary of the writings of those before me that encourages you to deeper study, utilizing the four means God has given.


Read the rest of the series here:

An Introduction to Aesop’s Fables

The Man and the Lion – Revisionism and Reductionism

The Snail and the Statue – The Injudicious Eye

The Redbreast and the Sparrow – To Imitate the Strains I Love

Advertisements

Revisionism and Reductionism

This is the second post in a five-part series on Aesop’s Fables. You can read this post independently from the others or you can also read the introduction here for more background on the history and use of Aesop’s Fables.

THE MAN AND THE LION

0034lionstatue

A Man and a Lion once argued together as to which belonged to the nobler race. The Man called the attention of the Lion to a monument on which was sculptured a Man striding over a fallen Lion. “That proves nothing at all,” said the Lion; “if a Lion had been the carver, he would have made the Lion striding over the Man.”

One story is good, till another is told

Most homeschoolers have run into this problem at one time or another in their education: revisionist history.

It’s what distorted Christopher Columbus’ voyage of discovery and evangelism into a revolutionary attempt to prove wrong the flat-earthers.
It’s what distorted the Pilgrims into Indian land-thieves.
It’s what distorted “the War of Northern Aggression” into “The Civil War”.
It’s what distorted the long legacy of creation scientists into an embarrassing lineage of frauds and anti-progressives.

The list could go on and on. True is it said that “he who wins the war writes the history books”.

And those who have been a faithful student of history will also have recognized a sub-category of revisionism that is subtler, and that is: reductionism.

Revisionism is the complete refabricating of a historical event. In brief: it’s making things up. The men of Christopher Columbus’ crew did not believe in a flat earth–no one did–they were starving to death and feared their supplies would run out before they reached land. So much for battling against Christian anti-progressives.

But reductionism on the other hand, involves the telling of true facts…selectively.

20140424-155319.jpg

This problem plagued me when I studied American History in homeschool. “Founding Brothers” by Joseph Ellis, demonstrated by many proofs and direct quotations from the founding fathers the heavy influence of the enlightenment on their ethics, values, and worldview, but also quietly discredited the Christian faith of these men. This wasn’t a prominent discussion in the book–more like something running in the background. There was one section where the author claimed that Jefferson and Adams looked forward to Heaven not because they would be with God but so they could continue to debate. The author quoted several of their letters. Then there was one off-handed, unsupported comment about George Washington believing that Jesus had possibly been buried alive. I almost missed the comment because it seemed to come out of nowhere. I kept thinking that Joseph Ellis would bring it back up later but he never did. So I looked it up online. Though I could not find any source material about George Washington’s stance on the resurrection I did discover that Joseph Ellis believes that George Washington was not a Christian.

545370_George-Washington-In-Prayer-at-Valley-Forge2

George Washington in Prayer at Valley Forge (public domain)

I then pulled out “Christianity and the Constitution” by John Eidsmoe, thinking to lay the matter to rest once for all. But I was shocked to find that one of Mr. Eidsmoe’s primary sources for his statements about Washington is the Rev. Weems! Weem’s biography on George Washington is where “The Cherry Tree” and other anecdotes originated.

In “Rediscovering George Washington” Richard Brookhiser points out that “the only problem with these stories is that, in order to tell them, Parson Weems had to first make them up, since we know very little about Washington’s education or his father.” He said that Weems responded to the needs of the public for an emotional bond to the austere president and that he assumed, like many people over the course of history, that George Washington was born with the qualities we so admire rather than that they were cultivated over a lifetime. “We treat what was a result as a natural condition, as if Washington had been carved from the same stone as his monument” says Richard Brookhiser.

Gilbert_Stuart,_George_Washington_(Lansdowne_portrait,_1796)

Gilbert_Stuart,_George_Washington_(Lansdowne_portrait,_1796) Public Domain

Yet, John Eidsmoe uses Parson Weem’s book as one of two primary sources for his chapter on George Washington, arguing that just because Weem’s account is unsubstantiated does not mean it is false.

This is an unpardonably sloppy assertion for a historian to say, an argument that would hold no ground amidst serious historians. Yet John Eidsmoe’s book remains a popular source among many Christian homeschoolers because it gives them the Christian nation they desire to claim as their heritage and uphold as a precedent in modern politics.

I am just as wary of Christians with an agenda as I am with secularists. When you have an agenda, you will always see what you want to see.

But this is an instance of reductionism not revisionism because there were, in fact, enlightenment thinkers and Christians both among the Founding Fathers. I believe that there is no denying the strong humanistic convictions of Thomas Jefferson and the lesser influence humanistic ideals had on others of the Founding Fathers. But, that is not all there is to the story because you also find Christian men seeking to apply their Christian principles to the constitution and establishment of America. It’s not one or the other but both. Any position that denies the influence of either Christianity or humanism in our nation’s founding is guilty of reductionism.

History is rarely as clear-cut as we’d like it to be.

My favorite book on George Washington ended up being “Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington” by Richard Brookhiser quoted above. Though written by one whom, as far as I can tell, is a secular author, I found in it the historical integrity I was looking for. The author pointed out the opposite errors of historical traditions in making George Washington the epitome of piety on the one hand and on the other, renouncing all marks of a Christian worldview on the man.

It did not personally matter to Richard Brookhiser that many historians say George Washington “never referenced the Bible” but because he desired truth, Mr. Brookhiser took these historians to task for their suppression of the truth–then went on to discuss the famous president’s lesser-known affiliation with the Freemasons, a back-door entry to enlightenment principles blended with Christianity, a fact which best explains the duality of ideas present in George Washington, evidenced by this famous quote:

“[Americans] are, from this period, to be considered as the Actors on a most conspicuous Theatre, which seems to be peculiarly designated by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity.” GW, First Farewell Address, Circular to the States, June 14th, 1783

Christians leap on the references to Providence and the stage metaphor but sail over “the display of human greatness and felicity”, a statement which, if closely examined, demonstrates the blending of enlightenment ideals with Christianity that marked both the man and his time.

What is the solution to overcoming revisionist and reductionist history? –Reading the history books of both man and the lion. Read original documents. Look for historians who love the truth too dearly to sacrifice it on the altar of their agenda. This gives them credibility because it demonstrates integrity. If a man defends a lion’s show of strength though he ultimately disagrees with his mission, mark him, for that is a man of integrity.

In addition to the proverb: “the story depends on the teller,” I would also add: “An honorable man acknowledges the truth even when it’s not in his best interests.”


You can read the rest of the series here:

The Snail and the Statue – The Injudicious Eye

Wisdom, Virtue, and Reputation – The Guardians of Reputation

The Redbreast and the Sparrow – To Imitate the Strains I Love

An Introduction to Aesop’s Fables

The_Tortoise_and_the_Hare_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_19993

Most of you have probably heard the classic tale of “The Tortoise and the Hare” but do you know where the story came from and that there are more pithy anecdotes where that came from?

The Tortoise and the Hare is actually one of more than three hundred short stories compiled under the title “Aesop’s Fables“.

Continue reading

Reviewer’s Digest //Non-Fiction

A Grief Observed by C. S. Lewis

20141227_170038_1


Read October 28th

 (Afterward by Chad Walsh read on the 29th)

4 Stars

I was pleased with myself for finishing the entire book in one sitting–but then again, I couldn’t very well go to bed in the middle anyway. It frightened me to see the questions, the doubts, the despairs of a well-grounded theologian when faced with grief–more frightening still, to see myself in the background of his introspective mirror. But in the end, it encouraged me to see the man of despair climb to be once again the man of hope.

Continue reading

It’s Ok to Ask For Directions (Reflections on The Scarlet Letter and Reading Classics in General)

Are you ready to hear something possibly surprising about this book reviewer? Here goes: sometimes, I read a book and I weigh every word, I analyze the themes and motifs, let the plot sink in, evaluate the characters, then I close the book and…have no idea what I just read means. Sometimes the scenes of the book tumble and jumble in my head, noisily knocking around like Mexican Jumping Beans and I can make no sense of them. I can grasp no common thread or foundation to build on.

This must mean, you might say, that it’s a badly written book. But what if this book is a classic? What if this book is universally recognized by literary scholars as a Madonna of American Literature? Then, you would be forced to say what I was forced to see, that this blogger was missing something and needed help.

Continue reading

Four Reasons The Great Gatsby is a Great Read

The green light beckons on the horizon, the arms of the enigmatic Jay Gatsby outstretched towards it, reaching, reaching, until it fades away like the last warm kiss of summer.

*contains basic spoilers common to most other reviews of the book*

I understand why so many love The Great Gatsby: the writing’s vitality, vividness and rare wit carries an irresistible charm, the characters positively leaping off the pages, the insights of the narrator keen: splicing motives, revealing nuance, plumbing irony. But I also understand why so many are disgusted or disturbed by The Great Gatsby. The plot hinges on two extra-marital affairs and all of the characters are willing participants in a lifestyle with appalling characteristics. To understand the story’s rich themes and startling insights one must simultaneously step back to view the story as a whole and lay aside preoccupation with or squeamish shock over the main plot point to probe deeper into the characters’ motives and try to understand why they make the choices they do and examine the message the author is conveying.

Personally, I fell in love with the book and here’s four reasons why I think it’s a good read:

Continue reading

Songs of Asaph: So Long Moses (Andrew Peterson)

As Americans we are raised to believe Kings are evil, to be cynical of all monarchies and most of all to despise hereditary succession. This is not without good cause. The best of men are still human and power draws out pride like blood in the water to a shark. And yet this is not the fault of the position but of corrupted man. Power does not corrupt man. Man corrupts power. Fallen man, like everything else, has given Kingship a bad name. And yet from the beginning, from the time God delivered the law to Moses at Mt. Sinai, God promised a King. But when would that King come? And who would it be?

Continue reading

Seabird

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

(A 300-words-or-less review)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0395266815/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0395266815&linkCode=as2&tag=livinheassha-20

Something between a picture book and a novel, Seabird makes for a pleasant summer afternoon’s reading or a periodic before-bed-time story with something there to spark the imagination of both the adult and the child too young to read it on his own. I loved the imagery and word pictures. The book reminded me constantly of Moby Dick. Sometimes it took only a word to bring back the salty sea breeze and the zing of the whale lines, taut with the chase.

Continue reading

Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1613822847/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1613822847&linkCode=as2&tag=livinheassha-20

Summary & Analysis (contains spoilers)

Gulliver’s Travels, before it is anything else, is a satire–both on human nature and travellers’ journals such as Robinson Crusoe–which means there is far more to it than meets the eye and nothing is as it seems.

Continue reading

Walking the Bible: a Photographic Journey

⭐️⭐️⭐️

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060799048/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0060799048&linkCode=as2&tag=livinheassha-20

The next best thing to walking where the saints of Ancient Israel walked is walking it through the eyes of a skilled photographer, recalling to life the very air they breathed. History is tied not only to real people but real places–places you can revisit, relive, places retaining insights even in its soil into the lives of those who trod there.

Continue reading