William F. Buckley (1925-2008)

In the middle of the twentieth century, freedom-lovers in America found their hope on the verge of extinction. The modernist malaise threatened to sweep away the freedom of individuals, families, businesses, and the Church in its murky gray tide. The editors of National Review called this "the inexorable collectivist tide." When William F. Buckley launched the National Review in 1955 at age 29, he said that he hoped to "stand athwart history, yelling 'stop'!" Many had gotten lost in the modern utopian dream without questioning the premises it stood upon or the means with which it was trying to reach its idyllic end.

The conservative political ideology, though claiming the mantle of tradition, is relatively young. Early in the twentieth century, political philosophers like Russell Kirk and Frank Meyer, as well as German economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek, ushered in the intellectual seeds of which the conservative ideology would grow. These men represented the philosophical wave. Later, economist Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley made compelling public cases for the conservative ideology. They were the leaders of the popular wave. Finally, after Barry Goldwater's earlier loss in the race for President, Ronald Reagan swept into office in 1980. This marked the beginning of the successful political wave, also represented in the "Contract with America" in 1994 and the subsequent takeover of Congress by Republicans.

But of all these men, a compelling case could be made for Buckley as the most pivotal figure. He took the theories to the press, and using his incredible intellect and wit, used the press to tailor public opinion and usher in the conservative political age. The evils of socialism and its tyranny over all natural freedoms endowed to man, family, and Church has been delayed from its "inevitable" triumph over the American "experiment". If in the coming decades an overbearing government becomes the caretaker of human hearts and souls, it will do so only because the brilliant Buckley is no longer able to "stand athwart history." If Americans are wise and grateful for their freedoms, they will gladly make his legacy their continuing cause.

Doctrine Divides?

One of the most delightful of slogans to proclaim as a hip, young Christian is that "doctrine divides." If only individual denominations stopped being so nit-picky on matters of doctrine, then the consequent unity would streamline the power of the Church in the world and enable the Kingdom of God to really start growing!

The power of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution on the American mind is incredible. It is from these documents that American governance is maintained and a degree of identity is gained. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" initiated the document that brought vitality to this once-subjugated colony. In a treatise describing the perceived nature of humanity and human governance, life was brought to a new nation. Even so, that life lacked governance. Thus, the U.S. Constitution provided the rule by which Americans were to live. They united and continue to unite under its proclamations, and even moderate attempts to amend it are often squashed. The life of America is found in her Declaration of Independence, and her unity and identity is found in her Constitution.

Is there perhaps some indirect correlation between these documents with much more ancient ones? In no way was America ever a Christian nation, but did she draw her inspiration for cohesive documents from the ancient models of Holy Scripture and the creeds and confessions. It is these documents, the former God-breathed and the latter the expression of collective Church wisdom, that Christians find their unity and identity. In the Bible, one finds life in the very Word of God. The Bible, in all of its doctrines, brings to life and animates the people of God is the most fundamental sense. Upon this foundation, the creeds and confessions of the Church emphatically declare their allegiance with one voice, and thus the Church is given a systematized rule of law derived from Scripture.

Drawing this all together, those who seek to undermine the doctrinal core of Christianity are really emptying Christianity of its content and eroding the foundation of the people they hope to unite and equip. They are merely trading one unity--that of a house upon a solid foundation, for another--that of an amorphous blob with no support, identity, or direction. It is from God's Word primarily, and the Church's collected reflection secondarily, that the people of God are truly the people of God. Why do Americans understand this principle so much better than Christians? Perhaps common grace is much more palatable than the grace which offers true hope, even to many Christians.

Black Coffee and Pain

On most mornings, I like my coffee black. And pain...I like pain. When I drink alcohol, I opt for shots rather than mixed drinks or beer because I'd rather down my poison in one manly gulp than reflect between dainty sips on why masculinity as so often associated with the disgusting and distasteful. I often get mad at men who call fouls when playing a sport, because they seem like weenies to me. If one feels like he got hit too hard on the last play, he'll have the opportunity to dish it out in return sooner or later.

These are not objective observations, hence the first-person narratival format. They do provide a keen insight into my own mind, and perhaps the mind of others as well. I am sick of the mundane; the normal; the mediocre. Yet somehow I am still Reformed. Yes...the same worldview that believes God's primary means of grace to be those "ordinary" elements of the Word and sacraments and somehow attracts an inordinate number of spectacle-clad nerds...that is the worldview of this edgy extremist.

The world often bores me, so I turn it into an adventure. Power and pleasure make for hollow pursuits, and only the understanding of history offered in the Bible is compelling in the least. I must always be the hero in the final throes of life, and my damsel must exhibit distress per the stereotype. "Weird" and "quirky" become my two favorite (though bland) adjectives, as they innately describe those things and people that are set apart in my estimation.

ADD overtakes me at every turn--in the classroom, church, and conversation. Even when the subject matter in these things is compelling, I always simultaneously partake of the experience and scan the horizon for some grand overarching metanarrative that imbues life and individual experiences with greater meaning. My favorite mental term growing up was "suddenly," and I would attach that term to my inner-monologue throughout the day--most days--so as to make that next step more exciting.

And now I have the most wonderful of jobs and the most wonderful of ladies. My job is the ministry of the Word--where I get to speak on God's behalf to His people every Sunday. God divinely opens and closes hearts through my humble messengering, and that thought is invigorating. When a church drop-out dropped-in to my event this past Friday night, I cornered him and told him that I would always be accessible to him, though he was complete stranger. He was at church this morning. I like people who view church as something more than a routine.

My girlfriend--here called "L"--is the most wonderfully-weird person I know. She is additionally wonderful to accept my bizarre adjective with the positive connotations with which it is infused. She is a mystery that the mind cannot fully comprehend--a sillouette in the lighted doorway. She makes conversation an extraordinary experience, for her quirkiness fills out that empty space often residing alongside the normal, dreary activities of life.

The two greatest things I know--the power of God in His Word and the power of love--are such because they fill out the empty space. In each (though the latter is certainly subordinate to the former), words have power and meaning. Abstractions and ideals are personified. Each provides its own backdrop to the primary storyline at the forefront. Both project the human heart beyond the plane of normalcy to that of progressive revelation (to borrow a friend's recent term)--one as a window into the Divine plan and the other as a mirror. They suggest that there is more to life then the bland and boring--and much more than that offered even by black coffee and pain.

The World's Longest (but Helpful) Post

God and Human Knowledge--Stephen Roberts

An Essay Prepared for Josophat Mwale Theological Institute, Based on a Lecture Given on 20-06-07


Why should we talk about human knowledge in relation to theology? Is not human knowledge more of a philosophical concept? Yes it is, and that is why we must speak of it. In a certain sense, philosophy precedes theology. First of all, when we speak of God, we do not speak as mindless beings who merely create our own reality. We speak as those who are confident in their ability to make a claim about truth. Second, we must know why we believe what we believe. Thus, we are told in 1 Peter 3:15 “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” If we don’t establish why we believe something, no one will really care what it is that we believe.
These initial comments may still seem a bit abstract, so we shall talk about it on a more practical level. Let us examine these three statements:

I think that Jesus Christ is Lord.
I feel that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Jesus Christ is Lord.

Which of these three statements do you find to be the most compelling? In other words, if you were a non-Christian and somebody came to you to share the Gospel, which one of these statements would you find most effective? We would all agree that the final statement is the best, for it demonstrates a certainty in the heart of the person who shares such a statement. It isn’t presented as a matter of opinion, but of truth.
When I was in Malawi last summer, I had the opportunity to share the Gospel with some families in the small village of Dzuwa, north of Lilongwe. At one home, my friend asked a family if they any hope of heaven after death, and the wife immediately responded, “No, because I am a sinner.” By God’s grace, this family all came to a saving faith in Jesus Christ that day. Notice that this woman did not say “I think” or “I feel” with regard to her sin, but “I am a sinner.” It was much easier for us to share a certain hope to one who had a certain conviction of sin. Do you see why it is important to know why you believe what you believe? If you don’t know why—your faith has no foundation or claim to truth.
If the importance of this discussion as not been made clear yet, let me put it in the strongest terms: If you present the Gospel as something that you think to be logical, or feel to meaningful, you may win converts—but not to Christianity. You are only calling them to believe something as logical or meaningful, not something that is true. The problem today is that many people share the hope that they have, but not the reason for that hope as 1 Peter 3:15 calls us to do. What is the reason for our hope, and how are we able to share that reason?
Let us look first at two terms that might seem a bit intimidating, but will quickly become understandable: archetypal and ectypal knowledge. Does that first word bear a resemblance to any words you know? How about the term architect? An architect is one who draws plans for how something is to be created. For every building that you see, you know that there first was a set of blueprints that outlined how the building was supposed to be built. With that in mind, when you think of an archetype, you should think of that original plan—the perfect model that is later copied. An ectype, on the other hand, is the copy of that plan. Likewise, when you speak of archetypal knowledge, you are speaking of the knowledge of the architect of this world: God. When you speak of ectypal knowledge, you are speaking of the knowledge of those created in image: man.
This understanding of knowledge leaves us with several problems that must be resolved. First, the ectypal knowledge given to man in Creation has become corrupted by sin. As a result, the only we can have as human beings is that which condemns us and leaves us without excuse (Rom. 1). Second, if we are left only with this corrupted knowledge, is it possible for us to know anything as true?
These questions have plagued man throughout history, and have evoked various responses from different philosophers. Perhaps the most important philosopher, and the one we shall discuss briefly here, is Plato. Plato believed there to be a ladder extending from the perfect form (God) and the copies (man). As the unity and spirit of this perfect form deteriorates into diversity and matter, it loses its beauty and purity. As you can see, Plato viewed a distinction between the archetype (God) and ectype (man), but he did not view the distinction as absolute. By that I mean that Plato did not believe God and man to be fundamentally different in essence, but only different by degree. The difference between God and man was qualitative, not quantitative.
As Christians, we thoroughly disagree with Plato’s model. Although God created us in His image, we can never be like God. This desire to be like God actually led to the first sin by our parents in the Garden of Eden. It was God who created man out of the dust; It was Satan who told created man that he could be like God. Instead, Christians maintain that there is an absolute distinction between the Creator and the creature. There is no ladder, but only an inseparable gulf.
From the time of Plato until now, most philosophers have used his ladder as the fundamental model for human knowledge. On the one hand, you had those who believed they could climb Plato’s ladder. For example, “realists” believed that human beings could climb Plato’s ladder and know reality absolutely. In later days, two types of realism emerged: rationalism and mysticism. Rationalists believed that the human intellect could conquer all knowledge and know things as God knows them. Mystics believed that through meditation, the human mind could ascend to God and see the truths that normally lay hidden. You are likely familiar with this latter group, as many here who engage in tribal witchcraft believe that they can gain access to the things of God through their substances and rituals.
On the other hand, you had those who believed in Plato’s ladder, but didn’t think it was possible to climb it. Many of these were called “nominalists”, and they believed that it was not possible to know reality beyond the names we give to things. In contrast to the realists, who believed that a human could know exactly what a “tree” is and everything about that tree, the nominalists believed that “tree” is only a name invented by man, and that there is nothing we can know of the reality of a tree. In other words, those who tried to climb Plato’s ladder through human history believed that man could have the same knowledge as God, while those who thought the ladder to be impossible to climb consequently thought that human beings could have no true knowledge.
This type of dilemma still confronts us all over the world in our day. In recent centuries, “modernism” has replaced realism as an attempt to know absolute truth. Modernists believe that truths can be proven without a doubt—for example, 1+1=2. Likewise, “postmodernism” has replaced nominalism as an attempt to destroy any possibility of knowing absolute truth. According to the postmodernist, all things we believe to be reality are simply matters of opinion. You may say the sky is blue, and I may say it is white, and neither of us is able to tell the other that he is wrong.
So where does Christian faith fit amongst these two opposing lines of thought? The modernist will ridicule your faith because he doesn’t believe that your faith can be proven. Of course, his standard for proof is in many ways a matter of opinion as well. The postmodernist will be largely apathetic about your faith. To him, your faith is simply a matter of opinion, and everybody has opinions, and all opinions are equally good, so why pay special attention to yours? In other words, who cares?
Both the modernist and postmodernist follow the thinking of a famous philosopher, Immanuel Kant, when they think about faith. In order to protect faith from the scrutiny of other philosophers, Kant created a special island of insanity where faith could live on its own terms without being subjected to the tests and rigors of science. As a result, the modernists considered their case closed because faith could not be proven, and later, postmodernists simply ignored the island of faith while creating their own islands of opinion.
We of course don’t subscribe to this fundamental distinction between faith and knowledge. Christian belief isn’t a mere matter of opinion, but a knowledge of something to be fact. Thus, when the inspired writers of God’s Word and of the historic creeds of the faith wrote “I believe” or “we believe”, they were not stating an opinion but an assertion of something they knew to be true.
So what exactly can Christians claim to be true? Let us use the Trinity as our example of a proper understanding of Christian knowledge. Are we able to completely explain the Trinity? Not at all! We do not have archetypal knowledge—we cannot explain what God is, or know His thoughts. As Romans 11:34 declares: “Who has known the mind of the Lord?”
In the same way, are we left without any knowledge of the Trinity whatsoever? Again—not at all. We are left merely left with ectypal knowledge; we are still able to make certain statements about the Trinity. Deuteronomy 29:29 tells us that the secret things belong to the Lord, but the revealed things belong to man. So we are left with these “revealed things” to give us knowledge, but what are these things exactly?
Let us give the answer through what Christians would describe as the Doctrine of Analogy. When we talk about an analogy, we are talking about something that is compared to something else in order to communicate a truth. When I tell you that a boy is like a man, I am telling you that a little boy bears some resemblance to a grown man, but is not exactly like that grown man. That should make perfect sense to all of us who have been both little boys at one time and grown men now.
In the same way, the Lord provides analogies to us in Scripture so that we may understand certain things as truth. When God inspired David in Psalm 23 to write “the Lord is my shepherd,” He was giving us an analogy so that we may understand something about Him. David was not saying that God walks around heaven in bare feet with a cane, but that God is like the shepherds we see in the way He cares for us. We are not able to understand how exactly God cares for us, so He tells us that it is like the shepherd we see in the fields (but certainly infinitely better!). In the same way, when the first epistle of John says that “God is love,” we understand that God in some way demonstrates love like we do, but does so perfectly whereas our love is flawed.
In conclusion, Christians can know truth, but not absolutely. Remember that “absolute truth” is not a Christian concept, but a modernist concept. We can never know things as God knows them, because we are not God. We must avoid that devilish temptation to claim that knowledge. At the same time, we are not left with the hopeless despair of those who can know nothing. In the whole of the Holy Bible, God speaks to man analogously so that we can understand something about God, ourselves, and grace. Calvin calls God’s Word “baby talk,” because God must reduce the majesty of His language in order that sinful minds may comprehend His Word. He must speak to us as a father speaks to his baby. Let us praise God for revealing Himself to us in His Word, so that we might know things with certainty—most importantly, the things that bring about our salvation from sin and death.



Helpful Resources:
Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof
Reformed Dogmatics V.1: Prolegomena by Herman Bavinck
Christianity and Eschatology by Michael Horton
Lord and Servant by Michael Horton
The Gospel in a Pluralist Society by Leslie Newbigin
The Sovereign God by James Montgomery Boice
Institutes of Christian Religion by John Calvin
Westminster Confession of Faith; Heidelberg Catechism

TULIP

Adding a brief addendum to the previous post--Calvinism is the branch of Christianity which stresses God's sovereignty over all things, man's utter inability, and the ensuing need for the salvation which must necessarily be wholly provided by God. While most definitions of Calvinism are quite insufficient, the Canons of Dordt--a Dutch Confession of Faith--outlined five broad points of Calvinism with the acronym TULIP.

Before diving into the meaning of TULIP, it should be noted that like most points of Christian orthodoxy, TULIP came in response to the heretical views Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian of the late 16th and early 17th century. His followers produced the "Great Remonstrance." (as shown below)

"The Great Remonstrance published in 1610 by the Arminian clergy codified Arminius's beliefs into five major points:
Rejection of the doctrine of election
Rejection of predestination
Rejection of the belief that Christ died for the elect alone
Rejection of the belief in irresistible grace
Assertion of the belief that saints could fall from grace."

(taken from http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/armin.htm)

Thus, the five points of TULIP found in the Canons of Dordt came in direct response to this assault upon the Gospel. The following is a brief introduction to the points of TULIP:

Total Depravity: Humanity is utterly sinful and incapable of anything meritorious in God's sight. Humans are fundamentally broken, and though the Image of God is not totally lost in any person, every part of man and his work is skewed and tainted. Thus, humanity is not only in need of help when it comes to eternal life, but must be revived from the dead.

Unconditional Election: Election refers to God's choosing of a people for Himself, and this is what God does when it comes to salvation. He elects (or predestines) certain people for salvation from the beginning of time. This is great news for Christians, who know the power of sin over an enslaved humanity, because it places salvation entirely in the hands of the only One with the power to bring life.

Limited Atonement: This is often the hardest point to swallow for Christians, though it is true nonetheless. Jesus Christ did not come for all people--He came for His people. He died for those whom God elected from the beginning of time to save (John 3:16--For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever would believe in Him might have eternal life). Is it fair the God would create people without allowing them the opportunity for eternal life? (I used to struggle mightily with that question.) Yet what mercy it took to save some! It also is not like people theoretically lack the opportunity for salvation--the call of Christ is heard round the world. Many will never be given the faith that will overcome their obstinacy and rebellion, however. (For more on this, a coming post will be dedicated to the matter of reprobation.)

Irresistible Grace: While the call of Christ is heard 'round the world, the call is only effectual for some. By effectual, or irresistible, what is meant is that this call for those whom God has chosen is absolutely undeniable. One may resist with all of his or her might, but one cannot fight off the love lavished by God upon His people.

Perseverance of the Saints: When someone truly comes to saving faith in Christ by God's grace, they in no way will ever be able to relinquish that saving faith. As one youth pastor in southern California notes, with today's connotations pertaining to perseverance, preservation would be a better word to use. One is never able to fall away from grace. It is impossible. Christ is the author and perfecter of a Christian's salvation--what He has started, He will finish.

So if God is entirely in control of salvation as with all other things, where does this leave the Christian in his or her impetus to share the Gospel? That question must wait until another post, but until then, remember another product of the Dutch Confessions: guilt-->grace-->gratitude.

What Does it Mean to be "Reformed?"

George Marsden, a historian of the highest rank, wrote an article entitled "Reformed and American" which sought to define "Reformed" in historical context. In that article, "Reformed" was used to describe three movements (which often overlap): doctrinalistic, pietistic, and culturalistic. While such historical studies can be quite helpful, they fail in two regards: 1) historical trends tend to describe terms much more effectively than they define them, and 2) the implication that a word can only be defined along such lines involves a certain degree of unwarranted cynicism.

The first point can be demonstrated quite easily by applying Marsden's standard to the term "Christianity." This term has meant very different things to different people spanning the globe and two thousand years of church history. The doctrinalist may think Christianity to be nothing more than a sophisticated worldview; the pietist, a moral way of life; the culturalist, a social program. Should any of these groups be considered a part of that unique redemptive religion known as Christianity? In the present day and age, there are many nominal "Christians" who label themselves as such because it is part of their culture. Should they be included in that definition of Christianity because they include themselves in the label?

Absolutely not. Christianity, according to the true Christian, is the one true religion revealed in God's Word which offers the one true hope in the one true Savior who in life and death opened the way of salvation for sinners. This definition would be considered static and objective by the true Christian. The term cannot be effectively applied to a State, culture, or way of life. To do so does violence to the meaning of the term.

The second point can be demonstrated on simple philosophical terms: If, a) a term or fact can have no objective meaning and b) can only be described in different ways by different people of different ages, then c) the way of cynical relativism and baseless skepticism is inevitable. J. Gresham Machen made this point in a different form over and over again against those adherents of Liberalism, who claimed the label of Christian, using the pragmatist argument that doctrine (facts) is merely an expression of each generation's experience. This wrong-headed logic has since extended beyond the bounds of the Church (where it did incredible damage) and spread its sickly cynicism to society-at-large. The appeal to experience is no real appeal at all.

Before this post gets bogged down in negative argumentation, a positive presentation of what Reformed means will be offered. To begin with, Reformed, as it originated in the Reformation, was used to describe the theology derived from Scripture, particularly espoused by John Calvin. This understanding of "Reformed theology" was soon cemented in the Dutch Confessions (Three Forms) and the non-continental Confessions (Westminster). Thus, three "C's" will be proferred in order to provide an accurate understanding of historical Reformed theology.

Calvinism. This primarily refers to the core beliefs of Reformed theology. One of the best expressions of Calvinism was the Reformation "solas" (Latin=only). Sola Scriptura holds that God's Word was the sole authority of the Christian for doctrine and life. Solus Christus holds that Christ is the sole mediator of salvation. Sola Gratia holds that God's grace alone can rescue sinners from death. Sola Fide holds that faith is the sole instrument through which salvation may be attained (as opposed to works in any part). Soli Deo Gloria holds that the glory of God is the sole motive and purpose of human life. These five solas stood opposed at every point to Roman Catholicism and Arminianism, both of which exalted man and denigrated God.

Confessional. Reformed theology is by nature Confessional, as the historic confessions best describe the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures. It is not merely a belief in predestination or God's sovereignty, but an entire worldview under subjection to God's Word and the confessions that present Its truths systematically.

Covenantal. Finally, Reformed theology is inherently covenantal, in that it considers God's relationship with man to always be conducted through a covenant. Thus, throughout the Scriptures God lovingly binds Himself to His people, declaring "I will be your God and you will be my people." All truth of God is revealed and mediated to man through this covenantal relationship. The eternal binding of this Covenant of Grace is of course found in the perfect life and atoning death of Christ for God's elect.

In addition to all of this, Reformed theology does not claim to be one competitor among many or simply one interpretation of Scripture, but claims to be the proper and faithful understanding of Scripture. In an age in which any claim to exclusive truth is viewed as hostile and arrogant, such a claim comes under frequent attack. Yet, if one is truly gripped by profound truths of the Gospel as they come to light in Calvinism, the confessions, and the covenants, then one is thrusted into incredible awe, wonder, and humility. Out of those truths come the piety and desire to engage the culture that is spoken of by Marsden. As Machen once remarked, Christianity rightly-understood is the "religion of the broken-hearted."

The Delight of (a Certain Type of) Decadence

You might be considered old-fashioned if you assert that the most sexy clothing worn by the opposite sex is their winter garb. What do mittens, a stocking cap, and a scarf have to do with "sexy?" Old-fashioned fogies like yourself might retort that there is mystery in modesty, and that such mystery unlocks true beauty. How is that possible, especially for the physical beauty that depends so heavily upon sight? Well, a scrooge of clothing etiquette like yourself would reply that mystery opens the way for power, pursuit, and privilege.

In an age that virtually coerces the masses into sheer buttnakedism, an individual shows remarkable power in showing the ability to veil beauty and reveal it as one's discretion. The "right to choose" gains new meaning in this sense. The pursuit of women by men is a static feature of human relationships, but the extent of that pursuit will always be a variable. When a woman's top resembles a double-barreled water balloon launcher, about to be pulled back and let go, she makes the pursuit way too easy. As people guard their hearts and only allow their emotional vulnerability to slowly expand over time, so they must guard their bodies and only allow physical vulnerability to slowly expand over time. In prolonging the typical pursuit, romantic relationships gain a degree of privilege. The male, in his state of delayed gratification, comes to share in the female's respect for her own body and regains his own humanity in learning to care for the heart as well. The female, likewise, comes to appreciate the effort of a male to restrain his physical impulses for her sake. In keeping the proverbial princess in her tower, the male learns how to proceed with valor for the sake of his beloved and the female learns how to wait with patience for the sake of her beloved.

The power of mystery was largely lost in a 20th century modernist culture that devalued the human individual. Evil socialist impulses robbed people of their dignity and made them cogs in the societal machine. Conversely, the reigning capitalist paradigm, applied to human beings, made them as valuable as the social market dictated. Consequently, human beings were worth as much as their weight in butts, boobies, and ding dongs. In addition, the vacuous theories of Darwinism and social utilitarianism turned humans into animals and made them as valuable as the social and sexual "utilities" they offered.

Hence, the following description of certain women by Evelyn Waugh in his book The Loved One (from the 1940's) is incredibly refreshing:

"She was the standard product. A man could leave such a girl in a delicatessen shop in New York, fly three thousand miles and find her again in the cigar stall at San Francisco, just as he would find his favourite comic strip in the local paper; and she would croon the same words to him in moments of endearment and express the same views and preferences in moments of social discourse. She was convenient; but Dennis came of an earlier civilization with sharper needs. He sought the intangible, the veiled face in the fog, the silhouette at the lighted doorway, the secret graces of a body which hid itself under formal velvet. He did not covet the spoils of this rich continent, the sprawling limbs of the swimming-pool, the wide-open painted eyes and mouths under arc-lamps. But the girl who now entered was unique. Not indefinably; the appropriate distinguishing epithet leapt to Dennis's mind the moment he saw her: sole Eve in a bustling hygienic Eden, this girl was a decadent."

Gas-Price Galore

Perhaps the most ridiculous fiscal complain in American society is that which is leveled at gasoline prices. It is likely that voting habits may even be influenced by such price fluxuations. I am a student who commutes about 300 miles every week, needing to get gas about every week and a half. With my eleven gallon gas tank, I pay an extra dollar and a few cents for every ten cent price hike. Even in times of extraordinary hikes--like that caused by Hurricane Katrina or OPEC ham-fistedness--I might possibly pay an additional $5 every time I refill my tank. Even if those communiting into major cities with gas-guzzling SUV's pay ten times that amount in that time span, they are paying far less than the fine occurred in an ordinary speeding ticket, and they can more than make that cost up with their well-paid city jobs.

Yet people scream and cry about the raising of gas prices. While taxes rob each taxpayer of many thousands of dollars each year and bloaded government programs threaten to make this robbery even more severe, people cry about gas prices! This is the free market at work, people. The world's oil reserves are diminishing (cf. the peak oil debates), while consumption, especially in growing nations like China and India is increasing exponentially. What happens when the supply diminishes and the demand increases? Higher prices. This protects the supply and demands discernment amongst consumers.

The California wildfires provided an apt example in this regard. Several gas station jacked up prices along the major highways out of southern California. People immediately complained about greedy price-gouging by the oil companies in a time of distress (rumors of $9 a gallon at some stations). The only problem with that accusation is that it lacks thought. Hundreds of thousands of people were fleeing their homes, and the last time the do-nothing EPA inspectors checked, gas stations were not connected to a vast underground American oil reserve. The finite supply had to be protected and preserved for those who really needed gas. A dramatically-increased price will accomplish such an intended effect.

The witless witchhunt for rich oil barons will only turn this minor inconvenience into a major debacle. The CEO of Exxon-Mobil makes $13 million a year, while George Clooney makes $25 million. While $13 million is a lot of money, it is nothing in the realm of the rich. Meanwhile Exxon-Mobil is affected by OPEC extortioning and a lack of easily-accessible oil reserves. Money must be poured into research and heavy-cost extraction efforts (for example, in portions of Canada where oil is extracted from sand flats). If the populist politicians demand that these corporations reduced prices, they will create a fiscal crisis and energy shortage.

What this comes down to is simple personal responsibility. Fattened-up Americans need to stop looking for external sources to blame with vague ideals of get-slim-quick schemes, and should actually tighten their own belts. Oil has become America's achilles heal, making the wealthiest country in the world beholden to tyrannical despots. Its use also produces air pollution that people of all political stripes find unpleasant, if not damaging. Instead of punishing the evil, rich men for this problem, why not exercise personal discipline? Why not seize the opportunity afforded by higher gasoline prices to consider the importance of every commute and seek new ways of energy-efficient transportation, such as public busses or hybrid vehicles. In the meantime, the populist politicans can divert their energy from conspiracy-based economic McCarthyism to worthwhile proposals offering economic incentives to those corporations that invest in alternative energy.

Let it Rain!

The Garden of Eden was a paradise in every way imaginable--untainted by sin, harmony between man and his environment, and a landscape painted in shades of unimaginable beauty. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were banished from the Garden and cast into the wilderness of thorny toil and painful pregnancy. The generations and the work they did would both be encompassed by the shadow of sin. Within that wilderness, man remains to this day.

Yet flowers bloom. Some 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ walked within the wilderness. Soon after that miraculous baptism of Christ, where God the Father thundered "This is my Son, with whom I am well pleased," and the Spirit hovered, signifying His presence with Christ, the Messiah was cast into the desert for a time of temptation. This desert could be seen as the Garden of Eden A.S. (after Satan). In this barren ruin of Eden, the wild beast again submitted to the rule of man; in this barren ruin, Christ--the second Adam--was tested by Satan, but this time, the Word of God prevailed over the word of the tempter.

God's people for thousands of years previous to that point had attached themselves to the hope of the promise (Gen. 3:15) and waited for the day when relief would come to a parched world with parched hearts. In the day of Christ's ministry, buds began to bloom and a trickle of water seeped from the earth. He walked the worldly wilderness, with the mission to know it and conquer it on behalf of His people. The whole of human history emphatically declared its thirst, to which Christ said "I am the water of life."

The continual rainstorms in southern California right now powerfully evoke this ancient imagery. In a land known for its barrenness, the most vibrant hues of green now abound. What once was scorched by wildfire now blooms anew with life. Amidst such flourishing scenery, how can one not think of Christ?

Through Adam, the first federal representative of humanity, came sin, death, suffering, and pain. Through Christ, the second Adam, the new representative of the redeemed peoples of the earth, came righteousness, life, peace, and hope. Christ, upon His perfect life, death, resurrection, and ascension, made rare buds bloom and issued forth that trickle of watery hope.

There will be a day--that Great Day--when Christ will return on the clouds. The buds will spring forth into a new Garden and the trickle will turn into a mighty torrent, breaking through the impediments of death. On that Day, a new heavens and earth will be created. Heaven and earth will meet in the New Jerusalem, but the new city of God, unlike the original Garden, will allow for no more rebellion. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil will no longer be accesible, but will be replaced by the overgrowth of the tree of life. The leaves of that tree will be for the healing of the nations. There will be no more sin, no more pain, no more tears.

My God, let it rain!

Where is Your Authority?

In a small book by J.I. Packer, entitled Freedom and Authority, the ancient Roman moralist, Seneca, is quoted as describing the slavery to self as the worst possible slavery. He believed that any other authority structure was preferable to the tyranny imposed by one's own will. John Paul II put out an encyclical not too long ago, putting his own spin on Seneca's sentiments. The belated leader of the Roman-Catholic church wrote that true freedom is exercised in one's ability to escape animalistic impulses in favor or reason and virtue.

Like Seneca and John Paul II, many Christians and pagans throughout world history have sought to establish an accountability to a higher authority. They would engage in this quest because, through deep reflection, they would come to realization that human authority was compromised by the selfish desires of the human heart. To grant absolute human authority was even more unthinkable. As Lord Acton once said, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Although the need for a higher authority was well established amongst the ancients, the source of that higher authority was oft-debated. Ancient Judaism sought its authority in a god of rules--compromising on the Old Testament God of the Law that condemns. In this way, human reason and righteousness could be guarded by self-imposed, Pharisaic rules. Ancient Greeks and Romans worshipped pagan deities, who happened to be quite permissive when it came to those animalistic desires of mankind. Roman Catholicism, arising a few centuries after the early Church, sought to make the Church the guardian of God's words--most notably centralized in the papacy. In all of these various expressions, people cloaked God's rule in human garb, preferring a rule that was made less terrifying through some form of human mediation. None of these systems were willing to fully account for God's holy law and man's wholly depraved character. Even so, the pursuit of a higher authority was generally a given.

The post-Enlightenment Western World tired of such antiquated views and sought to establish a worldview based on the autonomy (independence and authority) of the human mind. Philosophers established rational proofs and naturalistic scientists established a scientific method, both of which gave man absolute, unquestioned authority over the object of his pursuits--an absolute authority that would have made Lord Acton shudder. Human autonomy in this form--where God is ignored in the initiation, process, and end of human enquiry--became an inhumane autonomy. As America's Founding Fathers correctly noted with their system of checks and balances in human governance, human beings are always in need of accountability.

In the Western World of the 20th century, mankind bowed down to the primacy of the human mind--an unchecked mind which set loose unprecedented horrors across the face of the globe. Such human-centered external power is now checked by the power of individual human experience, which looks within for self-guidance. Instead of being guided by optimistic individuals with misguided notions of truth, this truth-from-within conception will ultimately bring a truth-by-consensus mentality by necessity of order, and will bring the same sort of human-centered tyranny unleashed upon the world in the past century.

So where is authority to be found? For the Christian, that authority is found solely within the Word of God. The Bible is the transcendent Word from God, breaking upon human hearts as the immanent source of hope. It is through the Bible that God speaks to mankind, offering the divine plan of redemption in the sphere of human history. When one bows the knee to the God of the Bible, she is acknowledging He who created the world in perfect harmony and even now restrains sin and chaos through His providence. When once bows the knee to anything else, she is prostrating herself to the same forces that initially brought chaos and brokenness.

Christians must resist the tyrannical authority of the papacy, which assumes the throne of Christ with utter disregard for the Lord of Hosts. They must also resist the tyranny of "mini-popes"--those church leaders who deny the need for accountability from a larger denominational structure. In addition, those charismatic groups that claim the power of the Spirit while neglecting the power of the Word must also be considered dangerous. There are many Christians in all of these other bodies, but they are Christians playing with fire.

Instead, the Christian should submit himself to a local church body within a larger denomination which professes the supremacy of the Word of God over all of human life. He should profess allegiance to the historic Confession of that denomination, a confession which unites believers of many ages and many countries under a clear understanding of the Bible. In this way, he will also avoid the pitfalls of interpretational, a la carte Christian relativism. God speaks to His people as they wander this worldly wilderness and has granted that the Church maintain the bonds of unity in these dark days. Why forsake the gifts of the Lord?

A Jacket is Not Enough

The breeze bit against the young man's body through his jacket.

Normally, warmth is something taken for granted. (Finitude has a remarkable ability of finding someone out.) Though the clouds do not obscure the sun--though a man could still bathe in the warm rains of his world--the clouds still cast a shadow and the proverbial man still finds himself chilled.

God could have cut His creative work short and left it with the definitive remark, "Good." If anyone cuts such corners, it is not God. If anyone remains unsatisfied with simple "good," it is God. The God who demands perfection from sinners according to His righteous character could never settle for anything less than perfection in His own work. Thus, God created His masterpiece--opting to make her of rib instead of the dust of the earth. He veiled her in long hair and gave her the power to sustain the generations of mankind. "Very good."

Wind is by nature a finite force, exacting its will without regard to those within its folds, yet bound to pass as a word spoken and forgotten. It enshrouds man within the walls of its blustery tomb for a moment, leaving a cacophony of silence in its wake. Who fills the silence, but God, the Master-Craftsman?

The young man thought to himself, "A jacket is not enough."

Christian Tyranny

The Dec. 9th, 2007 issue of the Washington Post Magazine features an article entitled "The Trials and Tribulations of Hashmel Turner." The byline: "An unassuming small-town preacher and his unconventional lawyer are trying to win the right to pray to Jesus at city council meetings." At issue is the alleged right of a city council member to pray in Jesus' name. The case, Hashmel C. Turner Jr. v. The City Council of the City of Fredericksburg, may advance to the Supreme Court where the "right to pray" in city council meetings will either be enshrined into federal law or prohibited.

What is the purpose of the State in this world? Is it to function as a religious organization? Many would like to think so. The Religious Right speaks with wistful nostalgia of the golden age of a Christian America, and many speak of America as the modern day Israel, representing the cause of Christ before a fallen world. Socialists also believe the State to be a religious entity. Sin is defined as social injustice in this scheme, and redemption is found through the power of State to remedy social evils.

The traditional political dichotomy of liberal v. conservative proves itself to be unhelpful when it comes to Church-State tensions. Both ideological groups tend to view Christianity as a means to an end. Liberals have typically viewed the Church and the State as cooperative entities, working together for social justice. Conservatives have typically view the Church and State as competitive entities, in which the Church must harness the power of the State in order to promote and enforce a code of civic virtues.

What is the Christian position? Christ said that His Kingdom was not of this world. Instead of riding into Jerusalem on a mighty military steed and implementing a theocratic state, He rode into Jerusalem on a lowly donkey and bore a Roman cross, instituting the theocracy of the Church in the process. He instructed people to render unto Caesar what belonged to him and to God what belongs to Him. The Kingdom advances on this earth when the Church proclaims the redemptive message of the Gospel.

What results have past intermingling of Church and State borne in history? One needs only look at the Crusades for a clear example of the Church inappropriately wielding the sword of the State. Roman-Catholic tyranny and its usurpation of the throne of Christ with a mere man may likewise be tied to its political interests. In fact, every authoritarian regime in world history has by definition taken upon itself religious properties in order to exact its power.

Was America ever a Christian nation? Never. It was founded upon such religious principles as natural law and an awareness of sin, liberty and the need of the government to preserve the integrity of the family and Church to attend to religious matters. Christian? No. It could best be labeled as a blessed period in which God, in His common grace, imbued the American consciousness with an extraordinary sense of civic righteousness.

Is there such a thing as a Christian nation? There is no such thing. The State is a God-ordained insitution (Gen. 4), which is specifically areligious. Ideally, the State preserves the right of the Church to maintain its redemptive prerogatives. The usurpation of religious functions by the State necessarily comes at the expense of the Church and the family. Likewise, the Church, by aiding and abetting this diabolical usurpation, becomes a tool in the hand of idolatrous man rather than Almighty God.

The Twentieth Century has seen an unwarranted transfer of religious power from the Church to the State. As a result, the Church often finds itself corrupt and spiritually impotent and the State has become a bureaucratic monstrosity that competes with the Christian remnant for the spiritual vitality of human souls.

In the aforementioned article, Turner is described as living "through bad times: segregation, bomb shelters, the Vietnam War. But something was different. 'Before, it seems like things came from somewhere outside. Now it seems like America is eroding from within.'" Within that statement, one finds the modernist quest to put the Church and State in bed together and make pseudo-spiritualized pagan babies. Something was different in the twentieth century: evil had come to be viewed as an exterior force, such as segregation, Hitler's Germany, or Tojo's Japan. In the 21st century, such absurd simplifications are discarded and the the disturbing realities of every human heart are coming to light.

At least Turner's lawyer is consistent--he appeals for the same rights to sectarian prayer for Muslims and Wiccans as he does for Christians. Conservatives are right to stress that the Church-State separation is intended more as a buffer for the Church's right to free expression than as a wall with which to exclude religious voices from public venues (the latter opinion was voiced by the bigot, Thomas Jefferson, years after the Constitution). They are not right, however, in assuming that religious disciplines, such as prayer, are appropriate and beneficial for the State. The battle for public prayer should not be between sectarian and non-sectarian prayer, but between prayer generally and an absence of prayer. The latter should be preferred.

"Teacher's can't control kids anymore because the government took God out of all these places," said one member of Turner's church. Really? Perhaps kids are uncontrollable because the government took upon itself the responsibility of raising children--a responsibility entirely unsuitable for an areligious entity. Two other members of Turner's church said that it didn't matter whether one prayed to God or Allah because "Everyone is praying to the same God." That is what happens when the Church submits her prerogatives to the State. The Enlightenment figures had their goddess of reason; Americans have their goddess of non-sectarian spiritual virtue.

In the West, the Church has largely prostituted herself to the nations, much as Israel did in the Old Testament. Is it any surprise then that the vital centers of the Church are developing in third-world countries? America has not failed--the Church failed by handing the keys of the Kingdom to an entity which knows not the door.

Rebels with a Cause

The true health of a Church may be measured in its proclamation of the dark side of the Gospel: the power and guilt of sin. It is one's doctrine of sin that provides the landscape for one's doctrine of Christ. Christ came to conquer the power and guilt of sin, so how it is exactly defined also defines the ministry of Christ and His redemptive work.

In that vein, men like the one above (Joel Osteen) may and should be considered heretics. Even a non-confrontational postmodern should be able to make this claim. As Dr. Michael Horton said on 60 Minutes, Osteen preaches a "cotton candy gospel." How dare one make this claim about a nice young man like Pastor Osteen--a man who loves Jesus so much? Because Pastor Osteen loves an emasculated Jesus. Joel Osteen defines the guilt of sin as one's inability to escape their past, and the power of sin as poor self-esteem and self doubt. Consequently, Osteen defines Jesus as the conquerer of the past and the giver of self-esteem. Jesus becomes the little string-drawn puppet attached to the fingers of an autonomous humanity, rather than the God-man who will return on the clouds with awe and terror in His wake.

There is a reason why "sin" and "Christ" are the two hardest words to speak and hear. One exposes the horrible plight of the human heart; the other reveals the exclusive way to escape the penalty of that plight. That is why it is admirable when a young Christian finds herself trying to speak those words of power when many a pastor of God's flock display cowardice of the highest rank in avoiding them.

For those looking for a rubric with which to judge the faithfulness of the preaching and teaching they receive, here is what the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church says about sin: "Sin is want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God" (Shorter Catechism, 14). Sin is not injustice, as the socialist would claim; it is not feelings of guilt, as the psychologist would claim; it is not even bad deeds, as some Christians might think. Sin is the guiltiness of man before the law of God--the law that man definitively rejected and rebelled against in the garden of Eden and which is rejected and rebelled against in every human heart (Rom. 1 and 3:23). Every system and ideology that desires an allegiance as strong as Christianity must redefine sin and salvation in its own terms in order to claim that allegiance.

There is no excuse for ambiguity on the matter of sin by the Church--such ambiguity enshrouds the Savior in shadow. Sure, it is a painful thing to hear (especially for modern and postmodern Americans), but the the Scripture tells that the Gospel is offensive. Even so, there is such love in bringing sin to light: "For God demonstrates His own love for us in this--while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8). The doctrine of God is here: sovereignty (absolute control and rule), revelatory (accessible to His creation), and loving (mercy toward sinners). The doctrine of sin is here: guiltiness and helplessness (in need of some supernatural act to escape God's wrath). The doctrine of Christ is here: the atonement (offering Himself us to pay our penalty, turning away God's wrath).

Lord God, please convict human hearts of their sin and pastors' hearts in their unfaithfulness in preaching and teaching this necessary message. Please teach Your people to come to terms with their disease rather than being distracted with symptoms--exposing our wounds before the salve of Your grace in Christ. We are rebels against the living God, with the cause of thwarting Your purposes. Our lives are individual towers of Babel, seeking to exalt ourselves to the highest place. Yet in our pride, we stumble. You deconstruct our baseless edifices and reveal to us the Roman cross in which the God-man connected You to Your people in one great redemptive act. In light of our need for Your grace and Your fulfillment of our need, we--the people of the broken heart--prostrate ourselves before You in reverence and awe. May You lighten our burden and our path as we walk the road of faith, giving You the glory. Only in Your Son can sinners know the love of God. We know, and we rejoice.

In Jesus' Name, we pray. Amen.

A Snow-Strewn Mist

The sky, congested with gray, drops millions of little while flurries.

The ground is thick; the trees are bare.

Sight extends no more than fifty yards to the past or the future.

Each torrent of flurries presents another wave of nostalgia.

The wall of white obscures the view while imbuing hope.

The chill forces the heart to beat with greater fury.

Enveloped by a snow-strewn midst, I am lost in wonder.

Where is Home?

Home is where the heart is. Aside from the bad grammar in that statement, it is really quite profound. What do you think of when you think of home? In Michigan, I lived in a house with six other guys, but not a home. I share a house with five other men in California, but no a home. Whenever we picture "home," we are reminded of the smell of Dad's old suit or Mom's perfume as she got ready to go somewhere. We remember a bed surrounded by posters and the places in the yard where we liked to play. Home is where the heart is.

We inevitably leave the home of our upbringing for another home. Until we find this mythical "other home," we are in a very real sense homeless. We keep our hearts in a small bandana tied to a stick to await the time when the bandana may be untied. Perhaps that is why college and the period right after so often cause an existential crisis--the homeless feeling cannot be assuaged. With a nature that cries for autonomy and in a society that demands personal responsibility, this feeling becomes exacerbated. How can we live in a world that doesn't offer us a home? Can brave and enduring battles be won abroad without a home where we can rest and regain our fervor?

There is a temporal remedy for this homelessness in found within the auspices of marriage. The bandanas finally are untied and the valuable content within is put on display. This is where the existential crisis of the collegiate years finds its resolution. Moving from location to another location does not affect this status, as even a tent shared with the spouse is made a home. The howling winds of the worldly wilderness may whip through a large, but lonely house; they will not whistle within the embrace of those joined in marriage.

Yet, even marriage is but a tent for the home-seeking human being in this world. The tent is a mansion for those who do not know the Lord, for within its confines they find their greatest home. For Christians, this tent is a lookout post--there they find refreshment; there they search the horizon for the coming home; there they offer the water of life to weary travelers; there they know that they abide in a grace afforded for the home-bound until that Day comes.

Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Bob den Dulk: Building Bridges

Ecumenism is incredibly overrated, as it often assumes that various denominations will diminish key distinctive in order to reach this higher ideal of "unity." This concept of unity is an appealing bowl of stew for the weary Christian, but often comes at the cost of one's confessional birthright. At Calvin College, I saw this tendency at work in a meeting between some CRC leaders and many Mainline leaders. At the time, I didn't realize that the only commonality amongst that group was the belief is some vague notion of Jesus. That seemed enough to build unity amongst those people. My denomination, the EPC, suffers a similar desire for unity. Like the fundamentalists of old, the EPC seeks to unite its church to a small list of "essential" doctrines, while ignoring other key distinctives.

True unity for Christians is found in the historic confessions. All true Christians believe in the Bible as God's authoritative Word, but each denomination has a confession that says is essence "We hold these truths to be self-evident." A sign of denominational decline is found in the sacrifice of any part of a confession for the sake of unity; a sign of its growth is found in gathering people around the deep unity forged upon a confession.

Bob den Dulk, like most Dutch men, was a giant. Also like many of the Dutch, he was gentle giant. He was an ordained elder and administrator in the greatest of Dutch-American denominations, the Christian Reformed Church. From early on in his life, he knew that a non-compromising unity was a blessing, and sought that unity amongst Reformed denominations with similar confessions. As a little boy, he spent time with one of the great leaders of the ecumenical movement: Cornelius VanTil. As the PCUSA succumbed to heresy and apostasy, the CRC quickly sent aid to the beleaguered conservatives under Machen. This mostly came in the form of three professors to Westminster--the foremost being VanTil. While unknown to the public at-large, VanTil in my estimation may have been the greatest theorist of Christian apologetics in the modern era. He was also a symbol of historic Reformed unity.

It was not surprising then that little Bob den Dulk eventually went to a Dutch Reformed school, Calvin College, followed by a Presbyterian seminary, Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. For years he faithfully labored as an administrator at Westminster until called upon to help plant a Reformed seminary on the West Coast, later known as Westminster Seminary California. Early on, WSC was known as a Presbyterian school, adhering to the Westminster Confession. In Bob den Dulk's five years as President of WSC, he was able to convince the seminary to also adopt the Three Forms of Unity, the Dutch Confessions, as another point of adherence. In doing so, he created a legacy in which students from the URC, CRC, OPC, PCA, and EPC come together as a unified body of Reformed Christians under the two beautiful banners of historic Reformed unity.

Bob den Dulk not only sought out God-honoring ecumenism between people of similar confessions, he demonstrated that warm-hearted love most characteristic of the Dutch brethren. When he met a firey Christian in the Philippines who wanted seminary training, den Dulk helped him through the admissions process at WSC and took him into his home, treating him like a son. This man, now a Christian leader in the Philippines, wept the last time he saw his "American" father. Bob den Dulk also seized opportunities given to him to share the Gospel. One of my elders at New Life Presbyterian Church was a non-Christian when overseeing the construction of the WSC chapel...before he met the Lord through Bob den Dulk. My housemate Zach now has several shelves of his bookcase filled with Calvin's commentaries, given to him by Bob den Dulk this past summer.

Bob den Dulk died in early August, leaving behind a legacy amongst friends, family, Westminster Philadelphia, Westminster California, Covenant College, and a host of Reformed denominations of various backgrounds. Every path he blazed was done with the grace of God. My one memory of this giant of a man was from Board luncheon at WSC where he was explaining to Dr.Kim (one of my professors) that conservative churches might leave the embattled CRC for the PCA if only the PCA let them continue to hold to their Dutch confessions as well as the Westminster Confession. I inwardly wondered, "Why not?" As his death loomed, Bob den Dulk sent out many letters of hope amidst his suffering. Westminster Seminary California demonstrates the best of true ecumenism, united upon the greatest of historic confessions. Much of that spirit can be traced to a giant of a man, whose shadow still lingers over the faithful remnant of Reformed Christians in the United States.