On not blogging and blogging again (Wazzup?)

It is fair to say, "I told you so."

On July 29th I said I was probably going to be "out of it" or take a "hiatus" for a bit. Of course the characterizations of that post began immediately. In some quarters it was said I "quit." Other people simply didn't read down the page. In the latter case I realize I'm not the beginning and end of their day, so I get it. Pretty much outside my immediate family, I'm not the beginning or end of anyone's day. In the former case, all I will say is "you wish."

As far as months go to take a dive into the idle side of the pool in blogging, August is a good one. Government never illustrates how important it is in our lives than in August when those bums decide to take time off. Having injected themselves into every aspect of our lives, when they take a vacation (no one can interrupt their plans, you see both how annoying they have become (that's the importance part) and how useless they are.

If you're moldering in Jail, you're going to keep doing that, if you need a Government agency which has made themselves a Machiavellian necessity, you're out of luck. In short it's clear in August how much Government dominates our lives and the news, and in some ways it reveals tragically how little they are really necessary. It's a great time to not be blogging and I wasn't.

Your Modern Pharisee will (God willing) successfully transition from an Automotive Finance Manager to "Something Else" by about the third week of this month. The end date for my training is a little murky. It sorta depends on my progress and the availability of work which my employer really doesn't want to discuss in detail with me. That's ok.

Once again to the great disappointment of my detractors, I have cleared the hurdles of background checks that were in this case the most extensive I have ever endured and come out smelling like a rose. No my dear opponents, there's nothing criminal in my past lurking around waiting to be found. It was kinda fun in retrospect to deal with the one issue of "my arrest" in Ocala Florida back in the 90's. It ended up with Florida saying "what arrest, there ain't no stinking arrest." Someone had listed a bogus arrest in a database by a company that has it's headquarters in....

....wait for it....

Dallas Texas.

Hmmmmm.... Maybe I didn't remember "my arrest" because it never happened.

Ya think?

You think, I'll wonder.

I keep warning that the focus of the Modern Pharisee will be shifting, and then I kinda don't shift. There are reasons.

For one, I love politics but it's so futile. I've promised to write on the topic, so I guess I should, but again, it's so futile.

For another, the pickings in the FLDS cases are now slim. The phase of appeal in Texas will begin soon as some of the plea bargains facilitated appeal, since they preserved the right of appeal. Men "convicted" of their crimes in those cases plead "no contest" and essentially agreed with the state that if the state were allowed to present certain evidence a jury would convict them and it was useless to fight that inevitability. They did however state that they'd like the benefit of appeals, and since the transcript of a plea bargain is short, those cases have gone straight to appeal. As with the cases of the children where one favorable ruling sent all the children back, one successful appeal of the warrant in any FLDS case will void every conviction obtained so far.

That brings me to the nascent status of Warren Jeffs as a victim or martyr or even hero. He could go either way at this point. Essentially a martyr is a victim of a particular narrow variety. Warren could just be another wave tossed victim drowning in his oppression, or he could be a martyr for his cause. I hope at least for the latter. Increasingly Warren S. Jeffs whose trail of dismissed charges and overturned convictions is looking like a man wronged.

Without meaning to insult his legal help, he doesn't have what is generally recognized as the best legal minds in the country helping him. They are good lawyers to be sure, and they may even be great lawyers. His religion's pilfered coffers don't offer the image of a man with unlimited funds hiring the best attorneys money can buy who in turn would produce an OJ/Johnnie Cochran type verdict. His attorneys' track records are poor in his case in the first few rounds. They lose, and then they fight back. Then they start winning.

The bottom line is that Warren can be portrayed, if portrayed skillfully, as being downtrodden, victimized, persevering and being willing to suffer martyrdom for a cause. That cause can be extended in it's relevance to all of us, again, if the portrayal of Warren and his travails are accurate and if they are sold to the media in terms of what he does for all of us. Warren Jeffs can be everyman fighting the limitless power of the state to bend laws and processes for the purposes of destroying both a man and the faith he represents. If this can be done, he is at least a martyr. If he can live through this, and win, he can be a hero. Ultimately most of us need heroes, not martyrs. Martyrs die for a cause, Heroes win and allow us to believe we can "fight the power/the man/city hall" and live to tell about it. Really, that's what most of us want to do. If forced to fight for a good cause we want to win or have our champion win and live so that we can go back to living our anonymous lives. Anonymous lives of personal freedom. That in a nutshell is what Warren and the FLDS represent at this time. A focal point for personal and religious freedom in a free country.

The last matter of housekeeping is the progress of the "new denomination." I am beginning to transition into a "pastoral" role but the denomination is not formed yet. The small group of people I am involved with want urgently to remain in the places we were planted and seek and pray to God that this be so. This involves submitting to the existing authorities in the churches we are attending if we are still in them. The process that a month ago could have taken a week or two weeks has stretched out into a much longer period of time, but seems to be entering an end game that will have a nucleus of persons in those churches, "unchurched." That will be when we start.

As a consequence the new denomination will begin, again, God willing. It will begin as essentially a cloned version of the Orthodox Presbyterian denomination with a rewrite of the Westminster Confession of Faith's chapter 24 and a sort of WCF convention call to address other perceived deficiencies of the Confession. The proposed new wording of point one in Chapter 24 will be: "Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. It is it lawful before the LORD for a man to have more than one wife, but not for woman to have more than one husband, at the same time." The old wording was: "Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time." Other unisexed language with regard to divorce will be changed and screeds against "Papists" will be deleted. Other than that the WCF will remain intact and the Book of Church order used by the OPC will be adopted. Everything will be examined ultimately, but that is the first order of business and the basis of our separation from existing denominations. As soon as the denomination is large enough, the "Convention" to examine the WCF and book of church order will be held.

This will become my primary task. My job will become for funds, not personal fulfillment (though I do like my new job) much as Paul was a tentmaker. I will follow and comment avidly with interest and commitment when it comes to FLDS cause. It think it has widespread impact in preserving and restoring our liberty if the cases go their way. I have committed to the FLDS to be in prayer for Warren's release and the overturning of the convictions of the men in Texas. I will offer them up in prayer to God that this be done, if it be his will. I think if it is not his will to do so, the days will be dark for all of us.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Confronting the Church on Marriage, Part V

The following is cross posted at "Vermont Polygamy." When we last left off, I promised to take up this discussion, interacting with Hebrew Language professor Stewart "Woody" Lauer on the topic of "Elder Monogamy," and his surprise admission. That was last year, then several stories I had been following blew up, and dominated my time.

Sorry about that, it is hard for me at least, to maintain burning intensity of interest on several fronts at once, I don't know about you, but that's me.

I had written the following for public consumption about 6 years ago, and had sent it to the session of my church in April of last year, who then sent it along to Dr. Lauer. It is the argument based on the supposed argument that Elders are to be monogamous. It's a sort of "AHA!!" contention that is offered to polygyny proponents by monogamy only proponents. I lay aside the contention of some that the Greek word "mia" is mistranslated for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that calls our translations into so much disrepute that we would have to all go learn Greek and Hebrew to continue the discussion. I'll accept, at least for the sake of discussion with the OPC, Dr. Lauer, and the COPC session that it means "Husband of One Wife."

"Elders are to be husbands of one wife" Again, "dicto simpliciter." This is a condition of office, not a rant against polygyny. Again, take a deep breath. The argument using this verse employs the notion that it is an ideal to be striven for. Credible, until you realize you've just said women are sub creatures. Besides it's virtual proof that there were polygynous couples in the early church. Otherwise why say anything about it?

Remember this is a talking point, designed to get the conversation going. There is a great deal more to talk about on the polygyny side of the argument, and perhaps we will get to those other points. The most significant contention I make here, is conceded outright:

Dr. Lauer - "I agree with the last two sentences, above."

I've highlighted what he agrees with. First some housekeeping. I hadn't noticed in 6 years that I said something incredibly silly that NO ONE has ever picked up on. "Polygynous couples?" That should be families, not couples but the concept of the adult component of family being a "couple" is so deeply embedded in our culture, that I said it, repeated it, didn't pick up on it, and no one did for all that period of time where I have used that form of the argument as a "foot in the door" when discussing polygyny.

Dr. Lauer concedes without a fight that one of the major contentions of many "monogamy only proponents," that "polygyny is not mentioned in the New Testament and not present in the early church" is completely false. They were there, that's it, and from my point of view at least, the practice was so unremarkable that it's only mentioned in passing. Indeed, if you were to ask of a Disciple why they never mention polygyny as part of a claim they didn't, because they were downgrading the practice, you'd get a really weird look, like "we didn't mentioned beards either, dummy."

All of what I am doing here, has now come to light in my church over the issue of membership. After months of stonewalling me on membership, I went to the congregation and said "they won't let me join" and the church responded with an email in which they said the following:

"(Our refusal to allow Hugh to join) involves (him) both believing and publicly advocating, especially via the internet, a position that that is so seriously sinful that no church throughout all of Christendom accepts it."

Which makes you wonder if they even read the response they contracted with Dr. Lauer, to write.

The position was "so seriously sinful" that Paul, the apostle, whose writings are the ones on which we base doctrine and church governance, didn't think it was even important enough, to mention. He doesn't mention it in the face of SPEAKING to congregations in which he looks out over the church, identifies and sees (and knows) men who are in church, with several of their wives in tow.

In the past a friend (now deceased), of mine and I had remarked to one another, if we ever got past the first rung of church elders, and reached the "intelligentsia" round, very quickly many of the arguments routinely raised and fervently held to, would be dropped. That drop was audible. Dr. Don Dean and I have had discussions with prominent theologians who admit in one way or another, privately, that our arguments are not unsound, they just won't sell in the church. In Dr. Lauer's response through the session of COPC a number of such concessions occur. This is one of them.

It is in fact powerfully convincing that polygyny is an acceptable practice when it's going on right in front of Jesus, his disciples and the growing church in the New Faith. It's going on, and the disciples and apostles say NOTHING whatsoever about it except that Paul seems to be saying "If you have a polygynous man in church, don't make him an elder."

Woody goes on to say that it indicates disfavor, but that is frankly impossible. Again now the first part of my contention comes back into play.

Dr. Lauer - "(I)t is clear that the apostles (representing Jesus officially; 1 Cor 14:36) viewed it with disfavor, disqualifying the man from office. This official, negative attitude toward the practice on the part of the Lord’s apostles cannot be dismissed so lightly."

There are some, who employ the phrase "it is clear" because it is precisely the opposite, it's not clear.

Dr. Lauer is easily refuted. If those disqualified from the office of Elder are viewed with "disfavor," then he is saying women are viewed with disfavor. (Elders as husbands unpacked, means among other things, elders are to be men.) Any other man that qualifies for office on marital status can be disqualified also because they are not "apt to teach." Paul himself says that teaching is a gift:

"Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?" - 1st Corinthians 12:29 (ESV)

This is extremely simple logic. Some of the qualfiers for office of Elder in the church have to do with morals, and indeed, on the face of it, it could very well be that being polygynous is being morally compromised, or at least "morally not quite the best thing." Elders are not to be drunks for instance, but Paul mixes up his list naming things that are merely things Elders should and should not be, but otherwise acceptable, and things that no one should be, particularly elders. A man not gifted by God to teach is not to be an Elder. A woman, no matter how she is gifted, is not to be an elder. Neither are viewed with disfavor, it does not logically follow that a polygynous man is viewed with disfavor. We know from other passages of scripture that drunkenness is a bad thing, there is no such corresponding scripture for a much married man.

Though the this post is short, and Woody's answer is short, it is what you do when you're trying to avoid an uncomfortable truth. Unless you change your position on the subject, you give it a short shrift and blow past it. This is what Woody does, but not before showing us a very important fact.

Polygyny is mentioned in the New Testament. It is NOT commented on, in that context, as a negative. The most important theologians in the church, Christ, and his immediate Apostles say nothing whatsoever about polygyny being wrong or substandard, even though polygyny is right in front of all them, among the believers. The most that seems to be said is; "Don't make them, and women, and people who can't teach, Elders."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The WCF is not the final word. Who says? The WCF!!

I have renewed my written insistence that the local body of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church admit me as a member in a letter sent via email today:

The OPC uses the American revision of the WCF, it would seem, since it is numbered in Arabic numerals, and chapter 25 deletes a reference to the pope being Antichrist.

"There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God."

The original, and the revised version of the WCF Chapter 25, says this:

"The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will."

Thus per the WCF, there is error in the WCF, and by your allegiance to it, you say there is error in the OPC and in it's local representative, the Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Vermont.

I am, and have been appealing to this principle of WCF Chapter 25. For this to be faithfully adhered to there can be no artificial restriction on time or subject of discussion with regard to any article of the WCF. Granted, there are those articles that if rejected would cause a man to be no believer at all, but then their interest in the church should wane. For all other articles and chapters of the WCF, there must be the possibility of discussion. Marriage is not an issue central to salvation. If it was, King David burns in hell along with his wives as do most of the Kings of Israel and Judah. They reside there with the Lawgiver Moses and with the father of the prophet Samuel as well as Israel himself, and Abraham.

I wholeheartedly agree that if I am shown to be at variance with WCF, there is cause for discussion. Discussion I contend, has yet to take place. Carl and I spent most of our time in fellowship discussing other topics, and at the slightest pressing of the issue, which would have had to have been in a public place among unbelievers, he became reticent.

The session has met with me only once and only to gain an appraisal of my point of view. There is no record of conversation between the session and I, or any member of it, in a face to face setting with the express topic of marriage, monogamy and polygyny on the table.

The sessions only interactive response with any argument I have made is actually that of "Woody" Lauer. My reply to Woody in June of 2009 remains unanswered. Indeed, the session has corresponded with me since that time, most notably in July, but made no interaction with my responses to Woody, most notably my refutation, complete and utter, of his contention that Kings were directed to be monogamous and his appeal to the nuances of the Hebrew word "Rabah" and it's stem and aspect.

In the cases of the first use of "rabah" in verse 16 of Deuteronomy 17, the "stem" and "aspect" of the word are the same as in the case of it's use with wives in verse 17. It is the "Hiphil" stem and "imperfect" aspect. This renders the two constructions parallel. Furthermore, there are some other uses of the same stem and aspect that are worth looking into. Genesis 16:10:

"Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, 'I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count.' "(NAS)

Or Genesis 17:2:

"I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly."

Genesis 22:17:

"...I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies."

Genesis 28:3:

"May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples."

This simply cannot be a word that is confined to the use "make more than one." As it is used, in the immediate context, and others, the Hebrew "rabah" in the Hiphil stem and imperfect aspect means "a bunch." It may mean "a really big bunch." It is in fact conceivable, by stretch of the imagination, that the 1000 consorts of Solomon were actually not too many. This is consistent with Nehemiah chiding him only for foreign wives.

If interpreted to mean "more than one wife" which is distinctly inconsistent with "rabah's" usage elsewhere by Moses in other books, the interpretation would have the effect of limiting a King to one horse. The sentence construction again, is parallel. Whatever is said about a wife, is also being said about a horse. If a King is not to have more than one wife, he is also being said to be forbidden to have more than one horse. If a King lives in a way that is instructive to the rest of the populace, then indeed we are to have only one wife, as the King would, and indeed, only one horse. This would make animal husbandry problematic, and getting horses a really big problem because in this same passage we are told that a King was not to go down to Egypt again, for the purposes of multiplying horses. Why not say "don't have horses at all?" which would be a far simpler instruction. This is only one example of well documented answers I gave to Woody's letter to the session, which was intended for me.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church also takes this position:

"Members are received into a local Orthodox Presbyterian congregation by the session on the basis of their credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. While members are exposed to the Reformed faith from the pulpit, from the teaching ministry of the church, and from the sincere convictions of their elders and deacons, they are not required to receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms as a standard for membership....

All church officers-ministers, ruling elders, and deacons-are required to receive and adopt the Confession and Catechisms as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Bible, and to approve of the government, discipline, and worship of the Church."

This helps the church to be unified and all of one mind. Officers are, by the way, allowed to take exceptions to the Standards, within reason. This allowance somewhat distinguishes the Westminster Standards from the Scriptures (on which we are NOT allowed to take exception!).

http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=56

http://opc.org/whatis.html

To hold me to a standard the rest of the denomination does not share, and to hold me to that standard without discussion, both are sins. I renew my insistence that I be accepted as a member of COPC in Barre Vermont.

Hugh McBryde

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Failure of Church Discipline and the Failure of the Reformation

It occurs to me that the reformation is failing, because church discipline, isn't working.

In my chosen denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, it is viewed that "the church" in Christ's description of church disciplinary procedure is the leadership. In a Presbyterian church, conservative or liberal, that body is the session. Ok, let's go with that. First though, let's look at the text of Matthew 18:

"If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church (ἐκκλησία-ekklēsia): but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

The Greek word for church (ἐκκλησία ekklēsia), really doesn't lend itself to a leadership gathering but more towards the whole church. That's the first point. The second is this procedure does not lend itself to tight control over the congregation by the leadership. Anything decided in private can be appealed to the most public configuration of the church and it's leadership, if it is indeed meant as it would seem here, that when you lose the one on one, the two or three on one, you take it to everyone. Since the word can mean the ENTIRE Church, such as the "Church Universal," it can mean a decision can be appealed to the whole of a denomination. This can only be undertaken when individual bodies are responsible to one another, hence, in part I would think, Presbyterian governance, and why I prefer it.

Taking the narrow interpretation favored by church and denominational leadership, that "the church" Christ refers to in disciplinary matters, is THEM, the leadership, there is still this uncomfortable reality. What if the session, who is the church in this formulation is held by someone, either in the session, or being accused before the session, to be wrong. It could be the accused, the accuser, a minority member of the session. Let us go to 1st Timothy 5:

"Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality."

The problem would be, that you could conceive of the session as of a Presbyterian church as a constituted court, as described in 1st Corinthians 6, but when that court behaves badly, who is the judge? The court? In the case of session misbehavior, either by one or all of them, the only place for such judgment is the church, because in misbehaving, one would expect that most of the time, they would cover their own misbehavior. 1st Timothy 5 then becomes a "never use" procedure, which I constantly refer to as the "emergency stop" of the movie "Spaceballs." (If you ever saw it, you remember that the "emergency stop" was labeled with a tag that said "never use.")

So of necessity then, the court of last resort in the immediate area of the church, is the church body itself, at the very least, because the issue of Elder misconduct is the province of the church as a whole. The discipline of the Elder, is to be public, for the specific reason that it serves as a warning to all. The church will publicly deal with it's highest leaders, and punish them publicly which is a statement that no man's power exceeds the rules of the church. The rules of the church as both Christ and Paul laid them out.

It may be that "going before the church" is going before the session, but if the session is questioned, as it is in my recent encounter with them, the battle goes before the church. Herein is the problem, because the denomination (and most of them for that matter) teach THEY are the court of last resort, not the congregation, and the congregation, eager to be uninvolved in the matter, assent to that. In trying to take the issue to the congregation, the congregation viscerally rejects hearing the case, and becomes angry, and the session becomes indignant, and then starts massively bending rules, such as deciding in private, receiving anonymous accusations and then employing the sword of civil authority, to enforce their views. How can this be the public process of Matthew 18 where accusers go in person, the courts of 1st Corinthians 6, which are to be used instead of the shame of public ones and the center ring keel-hauling of the elders? It's not. But that's the way things have gone.

The result of this is moral failings are not aired out in public, which is consistent with "confessing your sins one to another" and doctrinal questions don't get dealt with. Doctrinal failing on the part of an individual is "heresy." The session Polices membership, assigns the name heresy to doctrine, the member cannot be a member, or is thrown out of membership in private tribunals, and there can be no questioning of doctrine. We get then Westminster Confessions of Faith thrown in our faces, and while the Bible is supposed to be the final word, the real final word is the WCF vision of what the Bible says, and it can never be questioned, or you sin, and you're thrown out and the congregation doesn't want to hear it.

Why then haven't we reformed anything lately (Semper Reformanda)? Because you can't get anything past the guard dogs of the denomination, and the denominations as a whole, would prefer to sleep. The snarling reaction of my congregation this week which essentially was "I don't want to be involved," proving why we, as conservative reformed people, are dying out. Some estimates are that there are less that 700,000 in the United States and some of the larger denominations in this country are actually comprised of ethnic Koreans, evangelized and convinced, who have moved to this country. That's about 10% of conservative reformed Presbyterian membership all by itself. We stay perpetually stuck in the confessional mode, swearing to authorities like the WCF. Functionally speaking though, if anything is wrong with the WCF or various other reformation era catechisms or confessions, there is no way to change them unless what we do is destroy our faith, as theologically liberal denominations have done.

None of what happened this week was really a surprise. The minor details of exact procedure and speed of action could be said to be mildly surprising. I knew for instance, that the church would "Go G" on me, I just didn't know exactly how. I was fully expecting to be served, at work, with a restraining order. It just worked out a little differently than that.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Were the Kings of Israel sinners to have more than one wife?

You've been taught that they were. Were they?

In a post that involves such fine points as "Hiphel stems" and "Imperfect aspects" of a Hebrew verb, and other far more obvious proofs, Vermont Polygamy continues it's examinations of the arguments of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, as made by one of their prominent theologians and professors of the Hebrew Language; Stewart "Woody" Lauer, read more.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The discussion continues, at Vermont Polygamy

Ten days ago I posted on my interaction with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and it's local body, Covenant Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

That discussion continues at Vermont Polygamy.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

A Continuing Series at Vermont Polygamy

Over the past year, and more intensely over the past four months, I have been in locked horns mode with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

The perspective of this discussion is one of a Reformed Person (myself) who claims the tradition of the Reformation (that's Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Knox) who disputes the conclusion of the Westminster Confession of Faith on Marriage. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is big on formal membership and I am lobbying to join the local church. It was important that I complete this process, to be in submission to the church, prior to launching off on my own to promote polygynous marriage being legal, in Vermont. Read on.

More →

Sphere: Related Content