The left behind at the Boar's Head Tavern

Absolutely brain dead. The detritus left at the iMonk's old forum that is.

This will not help (it never does), but I'll try:

"Social justice." No, you're right, we regenerate Christians don't like the phrase. Not because we want to divide society into hierarchical levels with you being at the sudra level, but because when a fallen human being says 'social justice' they mean 'government tyranny.' You know, left-wing, centralized, big, messianic, tyrannical government; fallen man's most favorite idol.

"Liberals take care of the poor." This was stated over there. Liberals put the poor into dead end projects and other types of ghettos, killing their souls by getting them on the dole, then liberals give *nothing* to charity because they justify that government is taking care of it. Meanwhile conservative Christians and political conservatives provide all the charity to the organizations picking up for all the government-created poverty and dead-end social chaos.

“But what is the use of preaching the Gospel to men whose whole attention is concentrated upon a mad, desperate struggle to keep themselves alive?” – William Booth

The above was put at the top of their forum. I don't know the context of this wickedly dumb statement, but I'll just take it as it is. Ah, those noble savages and their Protestant work ethic ways... Enough said. OK, I'll say one thing more: it is the 10% of people in any rough and tumble economy that starts all the businesses and invents everything and discovers everything and builds and creates and fixes everything, and they have the energy to do it. The rest of the people fall into place into the companies and overall economy the 10% of hyper movers and shakers create for them. This is why the wicked left always tries to - through government control - *destroy* such types. I.e. the wicked left can't enslave whole populations when those 10% of active people are free to do their thing.

Oh, and by the way, the quote above by William Booth is basically saying: Why talk about something as blasphemous to our worldly beliefs and man-fearing ways as the Gospel when the glory of our holy selves and world is calling us and needing all our time?

What else did I glance at over there at the iMonk's old forum...?

"The internet and me have departed ways at my house. Two children under 20 months deserve more of my time." Ah, the iMonk's daughter's statement on her blog that she never read her father's website because she resented its existence because all she remembers about it growing up was wondering why her father spent all his time in front of his computer screen instead of with her. Well, we can't talk about his daughter saying *that*, the iMonk being a saint now and everything...

Obviously churchians have never had their ass kicked

Want to see how fast people are banned and with how much juvenile contempt people are treated at the so-called 'puritan board' (which is pretty much a general analogue to any churchian environment around today)? Look at this thread. It's only 9 comments. Look at what happens to newcomer 'Cato the Elder'.

I can't wait for the return of the King for many reasons. When He returns He will no doubt deal with obvious evil, but what I truly can't wait for is what He will do to these churchians who have taken His name and played the little fascist against His people. I will be in that great army with my King, and I too will have some fun chasing them down (to the rock, no doubt, they will be hiding under). For every little act of contempt these churchians have shown to God's people I will personally inflict a separate act of pain on them as they are being herded towards and into hell where they belong.

(Will they go to hell for such behavior they exhibit on an internet forum? Well... Sounds trivial, I know. Yet you know it is behavior that represents who they are. Can you picture them in heaven? I mean, truly? They'd get tossed on their ass out of heaven. If they ever climbed over the fence to get in.)

Calvin's Secret Providence of God

Calvin, the more you increase in understanding of the Bible and doctrine and the faith in general, continues to impress.

The reason I call him a barefoot mystic compared to modern day Reformed academics is because he so clearly and faithfully states what the Bible says that the result is a mystical teaching because the plan of God is a mystical teaching. Regeneration? Yeah, academics, you hate it *because* it's (read closely and slowly) *out of your control.*

Imagine that, something out of the control of your inane and shallow grasp of things.

I just picked up the new translation of Calvin's Secret Providence of God (ISBN: 1433507056). It reinforces anew the understanding Calvin had, and his ability to stand on solid ground and parry false teachers, getting to the heart of the matter through and through, and using language that sounds very modern, but only because it is a universal voice. Nothing affected. Just to-the-point and on-the-mark.

On the iMonk (Michael Spencer)

[Updated, at the bottom...]

Friends of the iMonk (Michael Spencer) who has recently passed away are looking around the internet for posts about him after his passing, especially from sites where there was, let's say, some friction between the writer and the iMonk.

It's just difficult to write about a person who has recently died. It really is just bad form to say anything but rest in peace. Of course since I'm writing this I'll go beyond that now.

When people die they of course become saints. Michael Spencer was not a saint. (Nor was he the equal of C. S. Lewis, by the way.)

Michael got attention by being someone who gave some evidence that he was able to know the truth, then turned away from that truth. He also, after turning away, was in the biblical category of a mocker. He mocked 'true believers.' He did it though, again, as somebody who seemed to know enough to know better. Which isn't good.

In one of his videos where he was making a case for a pastor friend who had just lost his job the iMonk said (paraphrasing): "He's a good guy. He's more conservative than me. So don't let the fact that he knows me reflect on him badly in any way."

So if Michael knew that being 'more conservative' was a better thing then why was he hanging out with the liberals. You see Michael gave evidence that he knew the truth. He knew the truth and was, granted, in a goober sort of way, apostatizing from the truth. And his motives seemed to be to play games. To take up a middle ground where he wouldn't have to take anything seriously or defend anything that was serious, and where he could make fun of the people who took doctrine seriously. If you read Michael you'd see that liberal theologians never (OK I'll say rarely since I havn't read everything he wrote) got the mocking treatment he gave Calvinists and 'truly Reformed.'

People I suppose were attracted to his writing the same way people are attracted to writers who tell them what they want to hear. Or they were just attracted to soft-focus liberalish easy take-no-stand devotional blog writing. Where the right people were always mocked (true believers, truly Reformed, Calvinists who actually believe that Federal Theology stuff) and the idols of the world and mushy theologians were treated respectfully. Also, people were attracted to his environment where constant whining and complaining were the order of the day. (We're all guilty of this, but we have different complaints, don't we?)

Michael also liked being an opinion-maker. "What will the iMonk say about this?" And to keep people interested Michael knew that being a wobbly on doctrine did the trick. "Oh, look, the iMonk is actually saying something orthodox! Whoopi!" Then later: "Look, the iMonk is quoting Shelby Spong favorably. Oh, no!"

People can work themselves into such centers of attention. It's kind of an occult thing. They have to keep you off-balance to do it well, and to keep it going. Just being for the truth consistently is boring.

One of his friends started a sentence recently this way: "Michael Spencer and C. S. Lewis taught us that..." No, no, no. Stop. Back away from the keyboard. We all know blogger extraordinaire Dave Armstrong is the modern C. S. Lewis among us.

I believe the 'intermediate state' for the currently unregenerate is to be stuck in one's living time. Actually to be 'dead' in one's living time (to be in the bondage of sin is to be dead). We can only think of that as 'revolution', or a wheel turning, but it's more just 'living time' where a person remains the same person in their time and death and birth become mere intervals, rather shocking ones, yet mere intervals nevertheless. Don't ask me to sync that theory up with the fact that the Bible says we die once, all I can say is it *is* actually one death, it just seems to us like a wheel turning because we can't conceive of higher aspects of time any other way.

A regenerated - born again - believer goes at death to be with God. But an unregenerate person at death stays in their living time. The same person. Maybe with slight changes based on new habits or even new understanding or new tricks, or abilities, they may have picked up, but basically the same person in the same time. A season in Hades and then back 'under the sun.' Until they are born again, potentially.

Reformed theologians don't even know what to make of the 'intermediate state' for unbelievers at death. It's not eternal hellfire. Eternal hellfire is where you are judged to at the great white throne judgment. At the end of the great Age. At the harvest. The second coming. When the wheat and the tares are separated.

It's not soul-sleep.

I believe Tertullian had a big Greek word for what I am referring to which is basically recurrence (not reincarnation, but recurrence). Can't remember it.

So, don't grieve for the death of the iMonk. He is still in his time. Grieve that he may never value anything above himself. That is truly something to grieve about.

The fact that I gave him a few shocks will help him. (I write that seriously. You can't come into contact with me in any way and be the same afterward.)

Shallowness is a problem in churchianity-ville. The iMonk was a bit shallow. Most of the people he mocked are a bit shallow as well, to be honest. A lot of shallowness going around. One finds it a little difficult imagining the iMonk or James White applying themselves to a work of literature like War and Peace and actually getting through it rather than setting it down next to the iPod saying, "This is stupid."

By the way, the 'James White would not have been happy' refrain at the iMonk's old forum is not very nice, is it? Is that necessary?

Death is hardcore. The iMonk's familiar physical figure is now under a lot of dirt. I don't think he's lost (I know, he had the pious liberal Christian's mantra of "Jesus, Jesus, it's all about Jesus", but it seemed an afterthought in his last few years, and came across as pretty empty as that pious mantra usually is). But think of him as a child now. Seriously. You can even pray for him without praying for the dead. Just know what you should pray for.

____________
Update: We see a common thing among some mushy, wobbly, liberalish, extortionist Christians (yes, extortionist: "Give me what I demand or I just may be atheistic and mocking in what I write and say, and since I know what the truth is I can attack it more subtly than most, and you know I can, so come down to my demands or look out...". Not that the iMonk was as sharp an attacker of apostolic biblical doctrine as other types, but he was acting on the same stage.) It's a justification they use. It's: "I was raised in a fundamentalist environment, and I ain't going back there." No, you're not a mushy, wobbly, liberalish, extortionist Christian because you were raised in a fundamentalist environment; you're a mushy, wobbly, liberalish, extortionist Christian because you demand to make demands on the Word of God and you refuse to value anything above you.

You also like to play 'hard to get.' "Um, no, sorry, Truly Reformed, you just aren't scratchin' my itch, you know? Keep tryin' though, 'cause you never know when you might get it done. You just ain't gettin' it done now. 'Scuse me while I go read some Shelby Spong. Oh, my, does that make you upset? Oh, dear me. Well, you know, if y'all weren't so square..."

These are the same people C. S. Lewis wrote about who would hold all of Heaven hostage because some people go to hell. God is a patient and long-suffering all-powerful Being, but something tells me He brings His fist down hard on people like that.

I won't be mean on this one, but this is a scary thread... Great books and their relation to the faith

Look at this thread at the so-called PuritanBoard.

Quickly: great works of literature are *influences.* That's not to say they are 'good' or 'bad' influences like a football coach or a friend who does drugs. They are unique influences that are *above* the level of influences that we come into contact with in our everyday lives; general life influences *require no effort on our part* for us to be 'influenced' by them.

On the other hand to *get* the influence that is great works of literature *you have to make an effort to approach them.*

Higher influences are like this. Actually they are two things: they are rare and they require self-motivated effort of attention to engage them and get from them what is of value.

Without any contact with these higher influences a human being remains dead asleep and ignorant within the helter skelter of undirected life influences.

The so-called Christians in the thread linked above are 'counseling' that people shouldn't read great books, but I guarantee you each one of them watches Hollywood movies and sits in front of television sets or listens to radios or reads newspapers and magazines. Those influences *require no effort.* (I'm restraining myself from using harsh language towards these people. They really deserve no such courtesy because they set themselves up as teachers of Christians, notice how many 'elders' are writing in that thread, for instance.)

Let's make it simple:

LIFE INFLUENCES (no effort required, they just come at you): food (hunger), sex (sexual desire), money (need to make it or have it), mother-in-law (general life influences everybody has to deal with). Throw in all the shallow activities and diversions people are drawn towards and spend their time with, the aforementioned TV shows, movies, video games, 'light reading', etc., etc.

HIGHER INFLUENCES (effort very much required, they don't just come at you): imaginative literature, history, philosophy, art, music, science, religion. And anything that generally falls within one of those categories. Mathematics and technology fall under science, for instance. These influences reside in a hierarchy, some higher than others. It is a given that such influences, no matter how inspired and vetted by Time itself, are always a mixture of wheat and chaff. Yet the wheat in them is real. Universal human nature, for instance, is found in such influences. The ways of the world are found in such influences. On the mark presentations of such understanding. And when you engage such higher influences you *potentially* (though it is rare) begin to be able to *see* the hierarchy and where each influence resides. You also begin to develop within yourself not only some understanding of yourself and the world around you, but something very substantial, like a more *essential* development within you (not just surfacy knowledge) that increases your level of self-awareness and objective understanding of the world around you (and above you and below you). You also begin to develop being. Potentially.

I have to say potentially because there are even (gasp) *professors of literature* who so filter everything they read through their inane and juvenile vanity and worldly pride and rebellious self-will and all their various ignorant demands they make on everything that they truly get very little if anything from such higher influences. But, you can sit at the feet of Christ and get it all wrong and learn nothing. An aspect to look for regarding such people is they will take everything *at the same level.* They can't see *degree* of inspiration. They will even write books saying that the great books are no better than a common romance novel, or that the Iliad and a comic book are basically worth the same.

There are also influences higher than the higher influences listed above, but here we get into the realm of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God and direct conscious influence that only comes from God. This level of influence needs regeneration.

The relation of the Word of God to the great books can be seen like this: all the higher influences mentioned above are like a mountain. Some novels, for instance, are more at the base of the mountain, most reside somewhere between the base and the summit, few reside at the summit level. The same with all other kinds of higher influences whether works of art or music or what have you. The summit level influences are rare. Many genre novels, few epic poems. The Word of God, the Holy Bible, is *beyond summit.* Notice though it helps to be at the summit. First, when at the summit you can see more. Then, when at the summit you will *value* what is *beyond summit*...

Those other influences even, in a real way, *lead* you to what is beyond summit, the Word of God. When you climb up that mountain getting real understanding at each stage.

You don't need them, but we can see in history that ignorance and Christianity are not an authentic mix. I was going to say not a *good* mix, but I chose the other word for some reason. It can be a cheap word, but it seems to be apt here.

I think I've cracked the code of Susan Wise Bauer's histories of the world

I think I've struck on why I've been excited over Susan Wise Bauer's World History (The History of the Ancient World and The History of the Medieval World, the first two volumes of four): it's because they describe history subtly, without mentioning it, from a Christian - or, kingly - perspective.

The perspective is unique because it's not just above ground level everyday life, but it's above the level of the kings and emperors and caliphs, and is so comfortably, and in an on-the-mark way. It demystifies the highest level of power and life in this realm. Again, subtly.

It is like a history of kings and empires and wars written for kings.

In the sense that a Christian is a king. A prophet, priest, and king.

Secular historians subtly are in awe of the diabolical theocracies of the city of man where the king/emperor/caliph become human deity. Bauer, perhaps not necessarily aware she is doing it, has all these wizards behind the curtain exposed and uses language the way one would tend to use language to describe them as such. Again, though, with no moralizing or any obvious self-conscious sense that this is what she is doing.

I read an outraged review at Amazon where the reviewer was apoplectic that Norton would give an 'English professor' such a stage. "Why do we need this?" he lamented. "Is this necessary?" I sensed the guy was an atheist as I read it, yet Bauer is not overtly Christian with her language, yet this guy could just intuit he was reading something that was heretical in the secular realm. A world history that exposes his idols. He was not happy about the entire enterprise, and I thought it particularly comical that he was attacking Norton, the publisher, for 'allowing' Bauer to write such a world history, or for having published it.

Death

Some dogs that die seem to be ready to be something higher, like a human. Then again some dogs that die seem to still want to be dogs. The latter are alive still in their living time. Only mourn the possibility they will never get above themselves in what they value.

The History of the Medieval World by Susan Wise Bauer

Currently reading The History of the Medieval World by Susan Wise Bauer (pictured above).

The virtues of this book are deceptive. Those who fancy themselves intellectuals will say it's a mere galloping outline (they'll say that without the metaphor); yet it is more than that. The author presents clearly what happened on the ground, and accomplishes that by having developed real understanding of what was going on in a time-line and geographical and universal human nature sense. One may think that is a run-of-the-mill requirement for any historian, but it really isn't. How many history books of the period can we read and still not be very clear about Ostrogoths and Lombards and who preceded who and where did they settle and what degree of power did they have and so on. In deceptively simple brush strokes Bauer puts all this down clearly in short, to-the-point chapters. She also maintains a disciplined perspective which, again, can seem overly simple, but there is method to her madness. She also treats each religion and empire and so forth with an equal tone. You might think she is being politically-correct when she gets to the Islamic part of the history, but you quickly see she is just being disciplined with her tone and perspective and treating Islam like any of the other peoples and parts of the world. The result is to enable one to begin to see the universal patterns and types and human nature and nature of power going in its cycles in each part of the world. Again, any good history does this, but Bauer seems to have hit on a formula that makes it strangely clear. Obviously a weakness of her series (this book is volume two of a projected four volume history of the world; the first volume is The History of the Ancient World) is the weakness of any history of the world, the necessary space limitations and inability to go into depth in any one era or individual and so on. So I know there will be people who glance at it and say, "It's a little too mile-wide and inch-deep. Too much kings and emperors and caliphs, and not enough of what actual people were doing and creating and how they were surviving and living their simple lives." That, though, is not what the book(s) intends to accomplish. It intends to provide a rather sparkling clear narrative of world history from a disciplined, good perspective in an even tone, and not without the author's understanding of human nature thrown in. She is on-the-mark when she describes leaders in her more informal ways. Typing them using modern language and metaphor and so on. There is a lot of suffering and violence going on at ground level that her narrative doesn't put a spotlight on, but again, any history of the world will be limited by space. She actually highlights just enough of that, though without moralizing, to make it generally known. I've read a few histories of the world, and this one has strange and unique qualities which make it worth looking into.

------------

Some email excerpts I wrote on this book trying to get people to read it:

When you said you bought the books I mentioned, did you also buy the Susan Wise Bauer book (History of the Medieval World)? I can't get over how interesting I am finding it. She so easily and deftly - without seeming to even try to do it - makes clear all this difficult history of the 300s and 400s and barbarian movements and so on. I can't explain it, you can only see it for yourself. I'm not enthusiastic because I'm reading this time of history for the first time, I'm enthusiastic because its being presented clearly. There's nothing new under the sun, and you can see how these personalities are as 'modern' as what is around today. All these names, Stilicho, Alaric, even Attila (didn't know that as a teenager he was a hostage to the Roman Empire in Ravenna). Vandals, Visigoths, etc. She has really taken the time to *get understanding of the material* and then has presented it in a *not vain* manner, i.e. not academic in a way to make her seem brilliant
and all that; it seems deceptively simple, but she couldn't do it unless she had gotten understanding of it prior.

This shows what I'm trying to get at with this Susan Wise Bauer book (History of the Medieval World) -

http://www.christianitytoday.com/lyris/booksandculture/archives/02-02-2010.html

Click on the second link in the text where it says 'this week's podcast.' I found the guy annoying at first, but then I could see he is just trying to articulate why this book is unusual.

He's actually talking about the first volume (History of the Ancient World) in the projected 4-volume history of the world. But it's the same. The style of the writing is the same. (I've actually just bought that first volume today.)

I'm still reading Bauer's History of the Medieval World. I said she has her limitations, but all world histories make sacrifices. I call her style a *galloping skeleton.* But she's unique in being able to write narrative that makes things clear. Belisarius' career as a general is very clear to me now. I can now go into that in more depth elsewhere if I want to, but what Bauer gives is a lot, even if a bare skeleton galloping along.

The Ostrogoths took Italy then the Lombards took Italy. I can see that clearly now. This is Bauer's gift. It's deceptive, but what she is doing is she is getting understanding of what happened on the ground before she writes her galloping summary, so she is able to communicate a *clear* summary of events.

I'll stop now...

Oh, my God, the horror, the horror, the HORROR!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c81bcjyfn6U

I'm going to go so far as to say these Bauer books are school books. They are world history for those who will be playing conscious roles in time. Serious. Because what you begin to see from her fast moving narrative is the universal patterns and types playing out. Not really as we usually think of that, but a more in-depth sense of it. The result being the 'not taking too seriously' events. I mean by that, not screw-off-ism, but laughter of the Gods type of thing. That doesn't get at it either. The vanity of historical events and movement mixed with high-perspective understanding, but not minus any valuation for what is serious regarding the human condition and the plan of God. Maybe that gets at it.

Read Susan Wise Bauer's History of the Medieval World. Do it, do it, do it. I'm a universal world history buff. I've owned all the well-known volumes. Even read a few. In fact I was skimming through Welle's Short History of the World (the one I read a long time ago, I never attempted Outline of History), and in the contrast you can see why Bauer is so clear and unusual. She writes swift narrative like Welles, but she has more space to work with. And I think I've discovered her trick: she may have stumbled upon a structural formula, like what is found in ancient works. Hers is like 'wheel, wheel, wheel...' And no matter if the subject is Byzantium, or Persia, or Korea, or the Franks she makes them all seem the same *in a real way.* She takes the mystery from them, yet describes them still as they are. It comes across at first as naive, yet... it's not. When I got to the Mohammed chapters I said, ah, she's being politically-correct here, but upon further
reflection I could see she was just treating Islam as she was treating all the others. And from that you get a different, higher, more pristine perspective and understanding. I can't quite describe it well.

One strange note: I find that in the India, China, Korea, and Japan chapters you receive impressions that can be found in much fantasy literature. Like some fantasy literature is more 'eastern' in impression even though the setting and characters aren't portrayed as eastern. Even the names of the leaders have fantasy genre sounds to them.

For many years now everything I've been reading has really been 'going over old ground' type influences. With this book by her it's the first time I am getting new impressions and encountering a new influence. And it's basic. Getting a basic dose of complete world history. In this unusual, valuable way she delivers it. With her volumes you get a total God-like view. The perspective she maintains it part of what makes her presentation unusual. Total, complete earth, complete time. We're really benefiting from her study and obvious completnik approach which she's been gathering her whole life, I bet, and which enabled her to write the children's world history, and graduate up to this new one for big people. I still havn't caught in words what makes her history unusual. You can only see it for yourselves.

I think I've struck on why I've been excited over Susan Wise Bauer's World History (the first two volumes of four): it's because they describe history subtly, without mentioning it, from a Christian - or, kingly - perspective.

The perspective is unique because it's not just above ground level everyday life, but it's above the level of the kings and emporors and caliphs, and is so comfortably, and in an on-the-mark way. It de-mystifies the highest level of power and life in this realm. Again, subtly.

It is like a history of kings and empires and wars written for kings.

In the sense that a Christian is a king. A prophet, priest, and king.

Secular historians subtly are in awe of the diabolical theocracies of the city of man where the king/emperor/caliph become human deity. Bauer, perhaps not necessarily aware she is doing it, has all these wizards behind the curtain exposed and uses language the way one would tend to use language to describe them as such. Again, though, with no moralizing or any obvious self-conscious sense that this is what she is doing.

I read an outraged review at Amazon where the reviewer was apoplectic that Norton would give an 'English professor' such a stage. "Why do we need this?" he lamented. "Is this necessary?" I sensed the guy was an atheist as I read it, yet Bauer is not overtly Christian with her language, yet this guy could just intuit he was reading something that was heretical in the secular realm. A world history that exposes his idols. He was not happy about the entire enterprise, and I thought it particularly comical that he was attacking Norton, the publisher, for 'allowing' Bauer to write such a world history, or for having published it.