Category: Insights

Article with pictures here.

I have nearly finished in two days “A History in English Words” by Owen Barfield.

Barfield was an Inkling, a good friend of Tolkien, a better friend of C. S. Lewis, and a scholar who heavily influenced both of these legendary writers.

As best as I understand it, Barfield explained to them and the rest of the modern world that when language was invented, the world was a magical fairyland of Gods, and most things took their name from the gods.

Owen Barfield

As an illustration, when an infant sees a man and says, “Da Da!”, he has really only one concept: his daddy who is a man. The baby does not yet recognize other men. Not until he gets older will he be able to differentiate between his father and other men.

The same is true with society and language. “Panic” comes from Pan, the greek god of herds. Whatever Pan does to make those herds stampede is the same thing he does to humans when they go “pan-ish-like” or “pan-ic.” Only later, would an emotion known as panic be separated from a ghost who makes you panic.

The Latin word “spiritus” means wind, spirit, and breath. This is because when early man saw wind, he assumed it was a god breathing onto the world.

Who cares, you might say. Well, Tolkien and Lewis came to believe that this enchanted view of our world is much closer to reality than modern man’s sterile, “natural” view of nature. Barfield contradicted another scholar, who said myths were a “disease” of language. Rather, as Tolkien later put it, language was a disease of mythology. To say it another way, the gods came before the words.

Tolkien and Lewis believed the world is teeming with angels of many rank, both good and bad, along with the activity of the Holy Spirit.

If you think this is out of step with the enlightened leaders of the Reformation, think again.

John Calvin, in his commentary on the four living creatures in the early part of Ezekiel, says that “All creatures are animated by angelic motion.”

Calvin’s assertions were so strange that his modern translator argued with him in the footnotes. Nevertheless, Calvin went on to say: “While men move about and discharge their duties . . . yet there are angelic motions underneath, so that neither men nor animals move themselves, but their whole vigor depends on a secret inspiration.” (pp 334ff).

Modern man has lost his way. Not only is his worldview wrong, it is also boring.

What Tolkien did was bring excitement and mystery, enchantment and angelic or elvish magic back to the universe. People, who have eternity planted in their hearts by God, have been longing for this better version of reality.

| By chattabooks | 8:36 AM

The recent “Mormon bashings” on my Facebook page—or what one person called “drive-by postings”—probably deserve a more lengthy commentary. I have written long pieces in the past (books, blogs, etc), but currently the platform of social media seems to have me providing more Krystal bite-sized nuggets. Yet once in a while, more content is appropriate.

A number of you have dialogued and argued with me on these Mormon exposes, for various reasons. I love all of you. (“Faithful are the wounds of a friend” “An honest answer is like a kiss on the lips.” [Pr. 27:6,24:26]). Each of you is willing to provide your thoughts in writing to dialogue toward the truth. Conversely, many people simply hate and say nothing. (Pr. 10:18)

Since Relativism and Tolerance are key gods of our age, let me start with that issue: Many are simply offended that I would be “mean” to anyone, regardless of the situation. That doesn’t seem like Jesus. I agree, in general. But both Jesus and the Apostles could get very nasty when dealing with critical matters where supposed religious leaders are deceiving the good-hearted folks, being “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” what later is called the promotion of “heresy.” There are various forms of heresy, but the nature of Christ and doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation, the starting point, the center of all Christian belief, and when that gets tampered with, Jesus and the Apostles get pretty “mean.”

Jesus told the Pharisees, “You belong to your Father, the devil . . . the father of lies” (Jn 8:44). In Revelation, Christ calls the gatherings led by these same leaders a “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 3:9). Not very nice words.

Paul pleads with sinners to repent. He exhorts the Jewish people themselves to follow Christ. He says problems of the flesh (adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness, etc) are obvious failures and offers forgiveness to those who practice them (like the Corinthian guy sleeping with his Mother-in-law). But he doesn’t condemn them with the kind of fiery words of damnation that he reserves for promoters of heresy. He calls these types, among other things, “warped and sinful … self condemned.” (Titus 3:11)

So, there is obviously “a time for everything,” including a time to be “mean” like a mother would be mean toward a predator trying to eat her babies. I don’t think everyone will be able to get past this point since Relativism is so dang prevalent in our culture. (One person already unfriended me over this issue—I have no idea who she was, so I’ll probably get over it.) But I hope most of you can get over the “meanness” thing. Because it’s not the issue.

Oh, one other point here. False teachers screwing up people’s understanding of Jesus being God himself (like Mormons) can make the nicest people in the world become “mean.” In the 4th century, a bishop named Arius was promoting the view of Jesus now propagated by Mormons. St. Nicholas was one of the bishops at the council of Nicaea which attempted to sort through the false teaching of Arianism (not Aryanism, a racial word). St. Nick is Santa Clause (repeat St Nicholas and emphasize the first and last syllable and you’ll get it.) Church tradition tells us Santa Clause was so infuriated by the heresy spouted by Arius that he got up, walked over, and punched him in the face! He went to jail for it. When it comes to Arianism, its nice guys gone wild.

Why emphasize the heresy of Mormonism right before a pro-life, pro-family candidate like Romney might possibly defeat the very liberal Obama? I have answered this question a number of times in the threads but will repeat it briefly here.

Firstly, I care more about upholding, preserving, and championing the divine nature of the Lord Jesus Christ than I do about politics.

Secondly, if Mitt Romney were a proven, longstanding prolife advocate like, say, Rick Santorum, that would make some difference. He’s not.

Thirdly, if I thought the country was on the precipice of overturning Roe v. Wade, I would be more interested in Romney. It’s not. The U.S. made its decision in the early 90’s to abandon any relationship between God’s law and civil law. On the most extreme issue of whether it should be legal to chop up a baby in the womb (even to the 9th month), our leaders silently approved, despite the fact that thousands of Christians were arrested blocking abortion clinics. Around that same time, both houses of congress and all 50 state houses openly discussed partial birth abortion, described it in detail, televised it on CSPAN, and the people and lawmakers decided to keep allowing it. Our country has made its decision, and I grieve the choice.

Fourthly, if I thought Romney was a less dangerous choice than Obama, that would also make a difference. I don’t. Seeing that lives won’t be saved by overturning abortion, it would be good to prevent the millions dying from our foreign wars. These conflicts are not about Democracy (when do we invade the Saudis?) but about oil and the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, the efforts of desperate Western billionaire bankers to stay on top. Obama seems to reluctantly agree to the schemes of the secular, godless Neo-conservatives, despite the Nobel folks trying to egg him the other way. Conversely, Romney promises to boldly champion the evil machinations of the military industrial complex, the great monster we now face that Eisenhower tried to warn us against in 1960. This monster involves untold corruption. Assassinations, drug dealing (Russia begged the US to shut down the Afghan opium trade, but we refused), 16 intelligence agencies promoting lies upon lies, conducting regular torture, and other abominations too manifold to detail here. For most people, it goes under the category of: “You can’t handle the truth.” Suffice it to say, Ike was right.

The institution of government in America is not Christian and does not look to become so. This crushing blow has let me to another institution that I will discuss in a moment.

Because of my long, slow march toward despair of godly government in America, I have switched my strategy to help “strengthen what remains,” as Christ says to the church of Sardis (Rev. 3:2).

What does remain? There are millions, maybe even a 100 million or more good-hearted, faithful followers of the true Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God himself in the flesh, one of the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Maybe less than millions. Who knows? But they are out there in vast numbers. Now, the Evil One may be attempting to snatch even that away from us. Robbing America of its moral and Christian foundations was not enough. Now it is time to deceive millions of Christians regarding the foundational belief of the Trinity.

You may say Romney is not heading up the church, he is heading up government. I understand. But where are the voices condemning the evils of Mormon heresy? Liberal Christians don’t care. Conservative religious leaders are in a silent political alliance. The Billy Graham organization has just removed Mormonism from their list of cults. For them, politics has become more important than championing the historic Christian foundation stone of the Holy Trinity.

Many ancient Christians were tortured and killed over the Arian heresy of the Mormons. My wife is reading a three-volume history of Byzantium, the empire that started about the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Today people think Constantine legalized Christianity and believers coasted from there, leading to institutional corruption. In fact, just as soon as Arianism was condemned as a heresy, Constantine’s son took over and killed Trinitarian Christians en masse in the name of Arianism. This persecution continued off and on for centuries. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Trinitarians have been tortured and killed for this foundational belief.

We, however, are afraid to offend our “nice Mormon friends.” We, unlike those tortured, are more interested in electing a Mormon to office than speaking out against Arianism.

My father earned his doctorate in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, a great man. I grew up talking theology at the dinner table. Yet, until I became connected to the historic Christian church, I could not have told you that we worship “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the Trinity one in essence and undivided.” I sing that every week now in the Divine Liturgy, as I have become Eastern Orthodox (more on that later). But growing up we talked about things like Calvinism, the rapture, the millennium, and modes of baptism. It’s not that we didn’t believe the Trinity. We just really didn’t talk about it much. We assumed it was, well, taken care of and obvious.

I say all that for those who think I am barking up a tree of paranoia. No, our evangelical Christian culture, though very well meaning, is really shallow and superficial when it comes to what we believe at a fundamental level. “Hey, if you love Jesus, it’s all good.” Arians say they love Jesus, so it’s really, really, not all good. It’s scary. Our culture is ripe for an Elmer Gantry to step in and lead the sheep to danger and destruction. Our media dominates and is owned by secular, godless people who are at best indifferent, and at worst hostile to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our military is dominated by secular neo-cons.

Is Satan not the ally of those who deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ? Did Satan not inspire Lenin and the Bolsheviks only 100 years ago to slaughter 8,000 pastors and millions of Orthodox Christians to advance an atheistic empire? Why are we exempt from such dangers?

I am not equating Romney with Lenin. I think the dangers I just laid out are true regardless of who is President. But Romney would make it even more complicated, as the evils of Arian/Mormon heresy will be more veiled and hushed. With Obama, we know we have a guy who promotes same-sex marriages. We don’t confuse him with a nice, conservative follower of Jesus.

So, what to do? On a general level, we must defend Christianity. We must be outspoken and champion the fundamental belief of Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, and the Trinity. We must be willing to pay the price for doing so.

My personal decision has been to join the ancient Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian group behind Catholicism. Our church is vibrant in all sorts of cultures across the globe. Of those Christians being persecuted and killed in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, many, if not most, are Orthodox.

When dealing with these larger questions, the biggie of them all is this: who is in charge? Who makes the rules? Once this question is answered, it is easier to do the right thing. Just follow the leader. “Follow me, as I follow Christ,” said the Apostle Paul.

Let me provide a brief church history, terribly truncated by me and certainly from my perspective: Jesus laid his hands on the Apostles and actually began the institutional church (now a dirty phrase!) and “the gates of hell have not prevailed against it.” It continues today in the form of the Orthodox Church. In 1000 AD the Patriarch of Rome broke off from the rest of the Patriarchs because he wanted to change the Council of Nicaea. For a thousand years, the church had been “ruled” by hundreds of bishops coming together in a full council to decide the core truths of Christianity. No one man was in charge. They did this less then ten times in 1000 years. From these councils we crystallized the teaching of what books are Scripture, the Trinity, the divine and human natures of Christ, and other foundational Christian beliefs.

Rome’s break really screwed up Christianity. The other bishops said the councils cannot be changed, and they certainly did not believe one man should be in charge. 500 years after this “Great Schism,” as it is known, the Reformation rightly rebelled from various false teachings and practices committed by a Roman Catholic Church that had strayed from its authority—problems like indulgences, papal infallibility, and crusades. The Eastern Orthodox never committed these false practices.

Unfortunately, Martin Luther let the genie out of the bottle. If one man can break away from the church, he can decide for himself what is right. He can cause a church split. He can lead church in his own home. Hell, he can just have church with himself. Who can tell him different, for the Protestant belief is that he is in charge. Instead of one pope, we now have millions of them.

It is time to return to our forefathers, return to sanity, return to foundational Christian teachings. The Church fathers know better than we do. They know how important it is to sing each week, as has been done for nearly 2,000 years: “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the Trinity one in essence and undivided.” They know how important it is to honor saints on the calendar day after day who lost eyes and limbs, who were boiled in hot oil, and who were ultimately killed for their commitment to the Trinity over Arianism. They understand that championing the Divine Essence of Jesus Christ is far more important than being cool or looking weird. (Funny robes, written prayers, and outdated music are not important issues.)

You can try fighting this battle on your own, but it is not recommended.

As I said at the beginning, I love all of you. I appreciate your vigorous responses. I am serious about this issue. Thank you for letting me discuss it in a lengthy fashion.

 

A Phil cannot replace a Tiger. Neither can a Luke or a Lee. An imaginative name needs to be matched by something just as interesting.

Like a Bubba.

Despite Tiger Woods’ collapse the past three years, no golfer has come close to replacing him in the public imagination as golf’s top icon. Because no one else has the right stuff.

Tiger grabbed the public’s fancy in the late 90’s with the longest drive on the PGA Tour. Jack Nicklaus did the same thing 30 years before. Phil Mickelson can drive the ball a long way, but not as long as Tiger. New Master’s champ Bubba Watson, however, is by all accounts the longest driver now on tour and sails his long ball far past Tiger Woods.

Phil can be somewhat interesting. Recent U.S. Open champ Rory McElroy is a nice kid. Padraig Harrington won three majors in a couple of years. But none of them have that touch of glamour and panache needed for a reigning celebrity. Tiger debuted the collarless shirt concept that featured his finely toned muscles, and he always wears a bright red one on Sunday. These little strokes of image consciousness make a big difference.

Bubba doesn’t do little. Like his drives, Bubba sports a large dose of panache. His glowing pink driver makes Tiger’s red shirts look dull. Bubba’s physique is larger and broader than his counterpart. He wears a $500,000 white watch, designed specifically for him by famed designer Richard Mille (only 38 others were made). Bubba drives the actual car used in the Dukes of Hazzard TV show dubbed “The General Lee.” You can’t make this stuff up.

Tiger has also bedazzled the crowd for many years with his amazing trick shots down the stretch. Out of the deep rough, over a tall tree, or around the corner, he seems to have the ability to pull it off. Bubba doesn’t have a category called “trick shots.” They’re all extraordinary. He curves every shot he hits 20 to 40 yards, in either direction, mostly for the fun of it, in order to appease his overly active, ADD mind. He calls it “Bubba golf.” The 40 yard hook he hit from the deep woods underneath several trees to win the Masters? “It was a pretty easy shot,” he said. And he meant it.

Until now, no one has threatened Woods’ billion dollar industry as Mr. Golf. No one has been enough like Woods to pull it off.

Bubba surpasses Tiger in all these important qualities. But he may also leap ahead of Woods due to the ways he is unlike the reigning icon.

Tiger makes a perfect swing that has been developed by the greatest teachers in golf. Bubba has never had a lesson. The average guy can relate.

The average guy may also be yearning to return to some old-fashioned values in this age of growing moral chaos. Tiger’s swinging lifestyle, then his attempted recovery via Zen Buddhism, both have a certain avant garde appeal. But the rest of the Billy Bobs in America likely prefer Bubba’s excitement about winning on Easter. A few weeks before, he posted his priorities on Twitter: “1. God. 2. Wife. 3. Family. 4. Friends. 5. Golf.”

No one doubts that Tiger puts golf first. His steely facade down the stretch of tournaments in some ways gains admiration from the fans. But prolonged bouts of non-emotion can wear on people over time. Bubba wept like a baby after sinking his winning putt. He kept doing so during the award ceremonies. It’s definitely different, but it might be a different that the masses are ready to embrace.

The largest contrast between the two golfing greats is championships. Bubba has one. For now. Unlike the other contenders, Bubba actually has more potential than Tiger Woods. And unlike the others, he can steal the limelight from Tiger even if he only wins a few here and there like Phil or Padraig or Rory have done. Because he can capture the public’s imagination, thanks to the complete Bubba package.

When I wrote a devotional book for Zella Dixon, we also produced a documentary video about her extraordinary story. Both of Zella’s sons died early, but she continues to profess her love for the Lord and her gratitude for His care.

I am particularly proud of the soundtrack for this video. I spent a lot of time browsing various versions of hymns and southern gospel recordings, and the result seems to flow really well with the theme.

In hindsight, I would make the introduction and bit shorter. It takes a while to get to the first spoken words, and it takes several more minutes to reach the “inciting incident.” Nevertheless, all in all it’s a good piece. The message is certainly powerful and ageless.