Remonstrans
Can We Be Serious?
05/25/05
Can We Be Serious?
The question was asked elsewhere, but let me generalize it and suggest an answer that may clarify our thinking.
I asked the question of "How can God be supreme in a man’s theology, and yet not be supreme in that man’s worship?" because I really can't understand how this happens.
I suspect some suppose that they are serious about God but, not understanding human life and thought, fail to grasp the implications. Perhaps we are confused about seriousness.
It seems we need another word. One can be serious without being competent. One can be serious without being capable. Fundamentalists have been serious about separation but not rational. Evangelicals have been serious about evangelism but not sensible. And in both cases we are talking about their raisons d’etre.
From Weaver:
Every man participating in a culture has three levels of conscious reflection: his specific ideas about things, his general beliefs or convictions, and his metaphysical dream of the world.
The first of these are the thoughts he employs in the activity of daily living; they direct his disposition of immediate matters and, so, constitute his worldliness. One can exist on this level alone for limited periods, though pure worldliness must eventually bring disharmony and conflict.
Above this lies his body of beliefs, some of which may be heritages simply, but others of which he will have acquired in the ordinary course of his reflection. Even the simplest souls define a few rudimentary conceptions about the world, which they repeatedly apply as choices present themselves. These, too, however, rest on something more general.
Surmounting all is an intuitive feeling about the immanent nature of reality, and this is the sanction to which both ideas and beliefs are ultimately referred for verification. Without the metaphysical dream it is impossible to think of men living together harmoniously over an extent of time. The dream carries with it an evaluation, which is the bond of spiritual community.*
I suspect that most moderns never get past the first level. Some get to the second level but, I gather from my classmates, only at the academic level. An astonishing number can never get to the third level, even if they are professionals like doctors, judges and clergymen.
I know people who deny that transcendentals exist. I know some who say there is no such thing as beauty, but I do not see these people hitting on ugly girls. I know people who say there is no truth, so I accused one of them of being a child-molester. I could see the concept of falsehood forming in his mind. I know people who say there is no good, but they are certain that George Bush is evil.
Is it possible for anyone, including Christians, to regard their commitments as serious or true if they do not connect these levels? Is it possible to minister with this disconnect? Weaver is talking here about conscious reflection. It seems to me there are only two options; either there is no conscious reflection or there is a christianity severed from what Weaver calls the metaphysical dream.
And what we ask of neo-evangelical worship we could also ask of fundamentalist worship.
I ask you, is it possible to be serious about God and not serious about our obligation to him?
Can the same man be serious about God in the pulpit but not at the altar?
*Ideas Have Consequences, Richard Weaver, ISBN:0-226-87678-0
Trackback address for this post:
Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:
1 Comment from: Unk [Visitor]
What if that man senses the disconnect but doesn't have the way to deal with it?
What if he sings Fanny Crosby never thinking that the removal of Fanny Crosby were an option, that this removal were to him, as it were, a direction that didn't exist? Or that there were another category to consider?
And, quite unrelated perhaps, how many times does it take to read Weaver before a fundamentalist can start to get it?
What if he sings Fanny Crosby never thinking that the removal of Fanny Crosby were an option, that this removal were to him, as it were, a direction that didn't exist? Or that there were another category to consider?
And, quite unrelated perhaps, how many times does it take to read Weaver before a fundamentalist can start to get it?
Permalink
05/25/05 @ 21:52 2 Comment from: Ryan [Visitor]
Carl F. H. Henry, I do not believe, ever got past the first level.
Unk, do you speak of an acknowledged inconsistency? Willing to bide their time until something better comes along?
As far as your riddle, how many men does it take to change a roll of TP?
Nobody knows. It has never been done.
Yes, I am willing to shed my intellectual reputation on that last joke.
Unk, do you speak of an acknowledged inconsistency? Willing to bide their time until something better comes along?
As far as your riddle, how many men does it take to change a roll of TP?
Nobody knows. It has never been done.
Yes, I am willing to shed my intellectual reputation on that last joke.
Permalink
05/25/05 @ 22:15 3 Comment from: Brother Quotidian [Visitor] · http://www.stathanasiusuac.org
Your question is very interesting and very sad. It is also points to the reason I left ecclesiastical fundamentalism and ecclesiastical evangelicalism. At the metaphysical level you're talking about, they have rejected Biblical metaphysics. Having poked their metaphysical eyes out with sharp sticks, they scorn those who still see those metaphysical dreams, even if darkly in a mirror.
To get concrete, your question is this: can a man be serioius in the pulpit and but not at the altar?
I reply, how can you even pose such a question to a man who does not believe there are such things as altars?
Evangelical and fundamentalist hymns -- especially those damnably treacly things I hear when I find myself in their "worship" -- are full of phrases like "let us bow down" and if anyone ever actually bowed the slightest, most would freak.
"Let us kneel before our maker." HOOT HOOT!!!! No kneelers within several dozen football fields of an evangelical or fundamentalist church, unless they're unfortunate enough to be next door to a Catholic or Anglican or (maybe) Lutheran campus.
And even if they had kneelers -- just for grins, let's imagine that -- which way would they kneel? Kneel BEFORE our Maker??? Where is he? Catholics know. Lutherans know. Anglicans (at least those with any orthodoxy left) know. The doctrine of the Real Presence tells them to bow in this direction, not that direction.
If you sense a fundamental hypocrisy, a general lack of seriousness among evangelicals or fundamentalists, they are TRAINED in that character flaw by their own pious songs and prayers. They sharpen the sticks with their own hands before poking their eyes out. They weave the ropes, fashion the nooses, and lay them around one anothers' necks.
End of rant. I just got back from an evangelical meeting styled a "grand assembly" for a Christian girls club. Full of the very thing I'm talking about. Grand? When the mothers were wearing thigh-high skirts, or shower shoes? They must think Heaven looks like Wal-Mart on bargain Saturday.
To get concrete, your question is this: can a man be serioius in the pulpit and but not at the altar?
I reply, how can you even pose such a question to a man who does not believe there are such things as altars?
Evangelical and fundamentalist hymns -- especially those damnably treacly things I hear when I find myself in their "worship" -- are full of phrases like "let us bow down" and if anyone ever actually bowed the slightest, most would freak.
"Let us kneel before our maker." HOOT HOOT!!!! No kneelers within several dozen football fields of an evangelical or fundamentalist church, unless they're unfortunate enough to be next door to a Catholic or Anglican or (maybe) Lutheran campus.
And even if they had kneelers -- just for grins, let's imagine that -- which way would they kneel? Kneel BEFORE our Maker??? Where is he? Catholics know. Lutherans know. Anglicans (at least those with any orthodoxy left) know. The doctrine of the Real Presence tells them to bow in this direction, not that direction.
If you sense a fundamental hypocrisy, a general lack of seriousness among evangelicals or fundamentalists, they are TRAINED in that character flaw by their own pious songs and prayers. They sharpen the sticks with their own hands before poking their eyes out. They weave the ropes, fashion the nooses, and lay them around one anothers' necks.
End of rant. I just got back from an evangelical meeting styled a "grand assembly" for a Christian girls club. Full of the very thing I'm talking about. Grand? When the mothers were wearing thigh-high skirts, or shower shoes? They must think Heaven looks like Wal-Mart on bargain Saturday.
Permalink
05/25/05 @ 22:49 4 Comment from: Ryan [Visitor]
BQ, we sharpen iron, not sticks.
Permalink
05/25/05 @ 23:00 5 Comment from: Brother Quotidian [Visitor] · http://www.stathanasiusuac.org
You mean they use NEEDLES? NAILS?
Gag. It's far worse than I supposed. And, like I said, I just watched an entire evening of these things. I never dreamed they would mine the ore, smelt it, then sharpen pieces of it, when sticks are so handy and cheap. It suggests a postive lust for the carnage.
Gag. It's far worse than I supposed. And, like I said, I just watched an entire evening of these things. I never dreamed they would mine the ore, smelt it, then sharpen pieces of it, when sticks are so handy and cheap. It suggests a postive lust for the carnage.
Permalink
05/25/05 @ 23:05 6 Comment from: dissidens [Member] 
Funny you should ask that, and funny that BroQuot’s comment should be clustered with it.
I fought the urge with this last post to include a comment to the effect: This metaphysical dream—making all necessary allowances—is Arnold’s Sea of Faith.
I’d pulled the book down to get the ISBN number so it was on my desk; I flipped it open and read what must have been long forgotten (by me). The connection is not mine. Four paragraphs after the part I quoted, Weaver speaks of the place of the imaginative life, and two paragraphs after that we read:
The most important goal for one to arrive at is this imaginative picture of what is otherwise a brute empirical fact, the donée of the world. His rational faculty will then be in the service of a vision which can preserve his sentiment from sentimentality. There is no significance to the sound and fury of this life, as of a stage tragedy, unless something is being affirmed by the complete action. And we can say of one as of the other that the action must be within bounds of reason if our feeling toward it is informed and proportioned, which is a way of saying, if it is to be just. The philosophically ignorant vitiate their own actions by failing to observe measure. This explains why precultural periods are characterized by formlessness and post cultural by the clashing of forms. The darkling plain, swept by alarms, which threatens to be the world of our future, is an arena in which conflicting ideas, numerous after the accumulation of centuries, are freed from the discipline earlier imposed by ultimate conceptions.
Why is contemporary Christianity so undisciplined, so uninformed, ill-proportioned, and unjust? How did it get so sentimental?
What if that man senses the disconnect but doesn't have the way to deal with it?
I imagine all he can do is try to cobble something together from the shards and fragments of his history. But the important things to remember are two:
1. We do not speak vapidly about “saving fundamentalism” or “saving evangelicalism”… and I don’t think we can even speak of reformation, desperate though we may be for it, and
2. We remember that the best we can do will never produce what we had, what Weaver calls “the bond of spiritual community”.
Oh, did I mention that black is my favorite color?
I fought the urge with this last post to include a comment to the effect: This metaphysical dream—making all necessary allowances—is Arnold’s Sea of Faith.
I’d pulled the book down to get the ISBN number so it was on my desk; I flipped it open and read what must have been long forgotten (by me). The connection is not mine. Four paragraphs after the part I quoted, Weaver speaks of the place of the imaginative life, and two paragraphs after that we read:
The most important goal for one to arrive at is this imaginative picture of what is otherwise a brute empirical fact, the donée of the world. His rational faculty will then be in the service of a vision which can preserve his sentiment from sentimentality. There is no significance to the sound and fury of this life, as of a stage tragedy, unless something is being affirmed by the complete action. And we can say of one as of the other that the action must be within bounds of reason if our feeling toward it is informed and proportioned, which is a way of saying, if it is to be just. The philosophically ignorant vitiate their own actions by failing to observe measure. This explains why precultural periods are characterized by formlessness and post cultural by the clashing of forms. The darkling plain, swept by alarms, which threatens to be the world of our future, is an arena in which conflicting ideas, numerous after the accumulation of centuries, are freed from the discipline earlier imposed by ultimate conceptions.
Why is contemporary Christianity so undisciplined, so uninformed, ill-proportioned, and unjust? How did it get so sentimental?
What if that man senses the disconnect but doesn't have the way to deal with it?
I imagine all he can do is try to cobble something together from the shards and fragments of his history. But the important things to remember are two:
1. We do not speak vapidly about “saving fundamentalism” or “saving evangelicalism”… and I don’t think we can even speak of reformation, desperate though we may be for it, and
2. We remember that the best we can do will never produce what we had, what Weaver calls “the bond of spiritual community”.
Oh, did I mention that black is my favorite color?
Permalink
05/25/05 @ 23:47 7 Comment from: Curious George [Visitor]
We remember that the best we can do will never produce what we had, what Weaver calls “the bond of spiritual community”.What we had when?
Permalink
05/26/05 @ 07:00 8 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
What we had in America before the Civil War, what Arnold is talking about in Dover Beach (1867), what Weaver is calling a "common evaluation".
Permalink
05/26/05 @ 07:12 9 Comment from: Neoclassical [Visitor]
Technically, Dissidens, black is not a color.
Permalink
05/26/05 @ 07:36 10 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
I know.
But let's keep it a secret from the non-art majors.
But let's keep it a secret from the non-art majors.
Permalink
05/26/05 @ 07:52 11 Comment from: unk [Visitor]
We must work harder for far more modest goals then?
Permalink
05/26/05 @ 07:59 12 Comment from: Bob M [Visitor]
"Oh, did I mention that black is my favorite color?"
No. You did not, but now that you did, may I suggest that you look n the bright side? Jesus is coming. Depending on your eschatology, I am pretty sure that you and I agree there. Now, my question is this. In the Kingdom (consummated, if you like), what will culture be like? Will it be like Ols Testament Judaism? Or will it be more like a realized metaphysical dream?
No. You did not, but now that you did, may I suggest that you look n the bright side? Jesus is coming. Depending on your eschatology, I am pretty sure that you and I agree there. Now, my question is this. In the Kingdom (consummated, if you like), what will culture be like? Will it be like Ols Testament Judaism? Or will it be more like a realized metaphysical dream?
Permalink
05/26/05 @ 08:30 13 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Unk:
I believe so.
To paraphrase one of our nation's fathers, we must study war so our sons can study industry so our grandsons can study art.
I think the first hurdle to clear is this notion that things are not really as bad as our poets have told us. That all this frou-frou culture stuff is nice for the women and the sickly boys, but we pulpit-pounding preachermen deal with the real issues important to God. "Three points and a pome will keep them spiritual."
It reminds me of the 60s; remember all those silly things they sang about? the really goofy and dangerous stuff that got thousands of people killed? We easily assume that if you talk about a serious topic (like war), you are saying something serious. This is true of the god people.
Look, we cannot even worship today. We do not have a community of people who can gather around the Lord's Table and mean the same thing. Think about it: what does it tell a serious person, say an Eliot or a Weaver, when churches who claim the line of historic christianity have designer bibles and hold separate services to cater to personal modes of self-expression? How neo-evangelicals can talk about unity is beyond me: they have no unity of doctrine and not even a common worship service.
It is easier for us to see the fault in them, but who of us in this discussion has not felt the same alienation in our church even though by virtue of inertia and reaction we have fended off the worst excesses? The result is the same: we cannot sit as a group of people around a common idea, approve the same things and demonstrate that for our children.
As I say, we are back to square one.
I believe so.
To paraphrase one of our nation's fathers, we must study war so our sons can study industry so our grandsons can study art.
I think the first hurdle to clear is this notion that things are not really as bad as our poets have told us. That all this frou-frou culture stuff is nice for the women and the sickly boys, but we pulpit-pounding preachermen deal with the real issues important to God. "Three points and a pome will keep them spiritual."
It reminds me of the 60s; remember all those silly things they sang about? the really goofy and dangerous stuff that got thousands of people killed? We easily assume that if you talk about a serious topic (like war), you are saying something serious. This is true of the god people.
Look, we cannot even worship today. We do not have a community of people who can gather around the Lord's Table and mean the same thing. Think about it: what does it tell a serious person, say an Eliot or a Weaver, when churches who claim the line of historic christianity have designer bibles and hold separate services to cater to personal modes of self-expression? How neo-evangelicals can talk about unity is beyond me: they have no unity of doctrine and not even a common worship service.
It is easier for us to see the fault in them, but who of us in this discussion has not felt the same alienation in our church even though by virtue of inertia and reaction we have fended off the worst excesses? The result is the same: we cannot sit as a group of people around a common idea, approve the same things and demonstrate that for our children.
As I say, we are back to square one.
Permalink
05/26/05 @ 10:17 14 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Bob:
The optimist says, “This is the best of all possible worlds”. The pessimist fears this is so.
I am looking on the bright side. Every dispensation will end in such abject failure that we will finally recognize the total incompetence and absolute confusion of fallen man. And that out of this sorry charade God shall extrude something perfect.
Why? What kind of dispensationalist are you? One that thinks our dispensation will succeed?
The optimist says, “This is the best of all possible worlds”. The pessimist fears this is so.
I am looking on the bright side. Every dispensation will end in such abject failure that we will finally recognize the total incompetence and absolute confusion of fallen man. And that out of this sorry charade God shall extrude something perfect.
Why? What kind of dispensationalist are you? One that thinks our dispensation will succeed?
Permalink
05/26/05 @ 10:33 15 Comment from: Bob M [Visitor]
Dis,
No. But I do believe that what Jesus will establish has some bearing on the whole direction of our attempts at Christian Culture.
No. But I do believe that what Jesus will establish has some bearing on the whole direction of our attempts at Christian Culture.
Permalink
05/26/05 @ 13:38 16 Comment from: todd mitchell [Member] · http://withtearsoppressed.blogspot.com/
· http://withtearsoppressed.blogspot.com/
BQ, I'm with you on the need for kneelers! (Except I don't care if they face the same direction.)
As a 9 year-old child I knew Fanny Crosby was totally at odds with the Bach I listed to at home. It disgusted me so much that as a child that I erronously developed a distaste for choral music, perceiving the human voice as a blemish on orchestral music. And the climax of every message was that invitational hypnotism we all know so well. That was such an insult to Christ that I prayed for mercy upon my friends who kept going down the aisle every week.
To whom do I owe the fledgling sensibilities of my youth? By God's grace, my parents. I listened to Bach because my older brother and sister were in Minnesota Youth Symphony. My most treasured birthday present as a little one was a multi-LP album of Bach harpsichord music. I was made to practice piano whether I wanted to or not. And they kept me from that most horrid of assimilation machines, namely, the youth club of the church. And for six years of my childhood we had no TV in the house. Thank God for my parents!
Cloister your kids! Raise them up to be misfits in fundamentalism! The adults are largely beyond hope.
Any falconer will tell you that only a passage bird will train to the fist and be reliable in the field. You can't train a haggard.
As a 9 year-old child I knew Fanny Crosby was totally at odds with the Bach I listed to at home. It disgusted me so much that as a child that I erronously developed a distaste for choral music, perceiving the human voice as a blemish on orchestral music. And the climax of every message was that invitational hypnotism we all know so well. That was such an insult to Christ that I prayed for mercy upon my friends who kept going down the aisle every week.
To whom do I owe the fledgling sensibilities of my youth? By God's grace, my parents. I listened to Bach because my older brother and sister were in Minnesota Youth Symphony. My most treasured birthday present as a little one was a multi-LP album of Bach harpsichord music. I was made to practice piano whether I wanted to or not. And they kept me from that most horrid of assimilation machines, namely, the youth club of the church. And for six years of my childhood we had no TV in the house. Thank God for my parents!
Cloister your kids! Raise them up to be misfits in fundamentalism! The adults are largely beyond hope.
Any falconer will tell you that only a passage bird will train to the fist and be reliable in the field. You can't train a haggard.
Permalink
05/26/05 @ 14:05 17 Comment from: dissidens [Member]
Bob:
I do believe that what Jesus will establish has some bearing on the whole direction of our attempts at Christian Culture.
So do I. I take great comfort from this fact but little knowledge.
A prophet and his student were travelling through the country. They came upon a poor couple who had nothing but a hut and a cow. The couple welcomed in the travellers, fed them as best they could and offered them their bed for the night. The prophet declined and as they left the house he killed their cow.
The student was shocked but held his peace.
Next they came to the palace of a wealthy man who cursed them and set his dogs on them. As they left the property the prophet stooped, gathered some stones and mended a hole in the rich man's fence.
The studend was shocked but could no longer hold his peace.
"Why on earth do you return evil for good? And why in the name of everything just do you reward evildoers? What kind of prophet are you?!"
The prophet sighed. "Well, it's not as simple as it appears. It had been decreed that there should be a death in the first household, so I smote the cow to spare the people. The death of a spouse may have been more than the other could bear. This they can bear together."
"And the rich man?"
"Oh, that's easy: there was a treasure buried under the rich man's fence. Were he to mend it, he would have been enriched."
What God can do, will do, and is doing I don't pretend to understand. Few things are as simple as they appear. And I am slow to look for any apparent connection between what God can do and what I attempt.
I do believe that what Jesus will establish has some bearing on the whole direction of our attempts at Christian Culture.
So do I. I take great comfort from this fact but little knowledge.
A prophet and his student were travelling through the country. They came upon a poor couple who had nothing but a hut and a cow. The couple welcomed in the travellers, fed them as best they could and offered them their bed for the night. The prophet declined and as they left the house he killed their cow.
The student was shocked but held his peace.
Next they came to the palace of a wealthy man who cursed them and set his dogs on them. As they left the property the prophet stooped, gathered some stones and mended a hole in the rich man's fence.
The studend was shocked but could no longer hold his peace.
"Why on earth do you return evil for good? And why in the name of everything just do you reward evildoers? What kind of prophet are you?!"
The prophet sighed. "Well, it's not as simple as it appears. It had been decreed that there should be a death in the first household, so I smote the cow to spare the people. The death of a spouse may have been more than the other could bear. This they can bear together."
"And the rich man?"
"Oh, that's easy: there was a treasure buried under the rich man's fence. Were he to mend it, he would have been enriched."
What God can do, will do, and is doing I don't pretend to understand. Few things are as simple as they appear. And I am slow to look for any apparent connection between what God can do and what I attempt.
Permalink
05/26/05 @ 21:08 Leave a comment:
Remonstrans
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Misc
Archives
- August 2008
- ChristianityTuesday: Yes, SIR!
- Yes, We Have No Cuisine
- Eliot Spills The Beans
- ChristianityTuesday: Wascally Wabbits
- Searching For Answers
- We Do Mock Revivals Because We Cannot Produce Real Ones
- ChristianityTuesday: Getting With The Program
- Laughable Yet Serious
- Certainty Or Certainty About Certain Things
- ChristianityTuesday: Monday Drool
- Why It Matters
- An Update
- July 2008
- ChristianityTuesday: Funday Fool
- A More Applicable Application
- Hell Is Other People
- ChristianityTuesday: Catch and Release
- Three Yahoos In Three Hats
- On His Loneliness
- ChristianityTuesday: Tit or Tat?
- An Unforgivably Serious Man
- Untroubled
- ChristianityTuesday: This or That?
- Ask Yourself
- A Simpleton Emotes
- ChristianityTuesday: A Magazine of Antithetical Conscription
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- In Reply To Kevin Corcoran
- Trucker Frank, Webisode 2
- Couch Potatoes
- The Ethos Of Emergence
- Ben Stein Talks With Monsters
- Rich And Layered
- The Heart Of Darkness
- In Reply To Billybob And His Many Friends
- Lighting up Frank
- The Remonstrans Billboard
- My Journey
- Take Me Out Of The Ballgame
- Beaks And Talons
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- Blest Remonstrans
- Doran Comments
- Who's To Blame?
- Tardy Discernments
- Still No Place For Truth
- Preach The Gospel To Every Creature
- The Real Nonsense
- From Columbia to Clearwater
- Your Shabby Culture
- The Power Of Liturgy
- Imagine
- Lord Of The Dance
- Mind The Goo
- Where Have All The Theologians Gone?
- Evangelical Engagement
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- Semi-digestible and Quasi-orthodox
- Getting Happy
- Fundamentalism (Updated)
- At Cafe Perplexa
- Faith, Hope and Popcorn
- Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount
- (Parenthetically)
- Still Getting Over It
- Hirelings
- Illustrated Proverbs
- q.e.d.
- Can We Fix The Pulpit?
- Locked Out
- Shepherding in the Modern Age
- Stragedy
- Shepherds and Wolves
- Wake Up
- I Almost Never Cry at Weddings
- J. Gresham, J. Frank, and Favorable Conditions
- December 2005
- November 2005
- “I Will Come Into Him”
- Come To Your Church
- Come and Shine
- Come Now
- Thanksgiving Proclamation
- Come
- Salt Mines
- Oo-rah!
- Nachtlied
- Quotes to Laugh At
- Church-Music
- Little Brown Church in the Wasteland
- Illustrated Proverbs
- A Dark Past and a Bleak Future
- True Greatness
- Imagining
- Imagining Redemption
- Acts of Desecration
- Renovations.....
- October 2005
- Imagining Truth
- Corporate vs. Private Worship?
- Thoughts For A Quieter Moment
- Cathedral By The Sea
- Contemporary Christian Music
- from Richard Baxter
- Some General Answers
- Illustrated Proverbs
- What You Can Do
- Cleanse Your Palate
- Plum Sizzle on a British Landrace
- Jury Duty
- Message and Metaphor
- On Becoming Serious
- Mercy Again
- The Gift of Irony
- To Worship
- Ouch
- Prayer for Joe
- Kazoo Lieder
- All Things Cheap and Cheesy
- Evening in Paradise
- Home Again
- Worship
- September 2005
- Stolen Worship
- Illustrated Proverbs
- Evangelical Antinomianism
- They're Being Serious Again
- Why Bach?
- Once Again
- Fixed
- Survey Of Young Fundamentalists - A Bad Beginning
- Illustrated Proverbs
- Serious Is As Serious Does
- Nota Bene
- Two Items of Business:
- A Must Read
- Christian Liberty: the Last Christian Virtue
- Drinking from the Well of Christian Liberty
- Ideas Have Consequences
- August 2005
- From the Pastor's Desk . . .
- Beauty Is Not Skin Deep
- For Contemplation
- Somewhat Misunderstandable
- Disappearing Convergences
- Our Perennial Predilection
- Blame the Tech Guy
- Unrecoverable Worship
- Disordering Our Affections
- More Lost Worship
- Hope
- Worship is Never Accidental
- Great Amusements
- None of God, All of Self
- Religious Affections By Jonathan Edwards
- July 2005
- Point of Clarification
- Morimur
- Not My Church, Not My God
- Shepherd or Swineherd?
- Bumpkin Apostates
- Relief!
- "By this all will know that you are My disciples"
- Rules to be Observed in Singing of Psalms
- "Untutored But Vigorous"
- Lost Worship
- Be not conformed to this world either....
- Outward and Inward Morality
- Surveys II
- Mein Herze schwimmt im Blut
- June 2005
- May 2005
- Saying the Wrong Things About Joy
- C.S. Lewis
- Can We Be Serious?
- Borrowing the Philistine Method of Transport
- Playing With Fire
- John Piper
- Dissidens comment worth noting...
- John Nelson Darby
- Little To Offer
- Machen on Separation
- Surveys - I
- A Short Chat
- We Apologize
- H. A. Ironside
- The Same Pleasures
- If I May Be So Bold
- Did God Ever Express An Interest In How He Was Worshipped?
- Beginners in the Examined Life?
- What Those Numbers Mean
- What Place is This?
- A.W. Tozer
- Note to Self:
- April 2005
- March 2005
Search
Categories
- All
- Cafe Perplexa (10)
- Old Main (535)
- Background (1)
- Landfill (0)
- News (0)
- SupportDocs (1)
Linkblog
Remonstrans Articles
XML Feeds
What is RSS?
Who's Online?
- Guest Users: 73
powered by
