Weeks Blog

Young American men today are a mixed bag. Speaking generally, our young men are entirely given over to the lusts of their flesh. Pornography is ubiquitous. And yet, these same men play video games and watch movies and read books that contain extraordinally graphic depictions of violence and mayhem. The protagonists in these works are men (or women) who are to be feared indeed. Not willing to discipline their own bodies for some higher purpose, our men live vicariously through these characters who have.

I thought about our young men today when I came across this quote from book 5, section 19 of Augustine's City of God:

But it was Nero Caesar who was the first to reach the summit, and, as it were, the citadel, of this vice; for so great was his luxuiriousnes, that one would have thought there was nothing manly to be dreaded in him, and such his cruelty, that, had not the contrary been known, no one would have thought there was anything effeminate in his character.

Does that not perfectly describe who we are? We watch vampire movies, so we're accustomed to cruelty and vice, but we're also effeminate, lacking the male principle.

We are a nation of little Neros.

I signed up for Google+ as soon as I could, mostly just to see what it was like. While there were a number of things that I immedilately liked about it, this article explains exactly why I never went back to it after a few days of experimenting with it. I can't bear the thought of having to categorize every single one of my online relationships. Yuck:

What the ad has so effectively demonstrated is the incredible amount of work it involves to constantly qualify our interpersonal relationships. To be fair, neither Facebook nor Google+ have gotten this 100% right. Friendships aren’t binary (friend or not) as they are by default Facebook, but they’re also not meant to be obsessively organized into groups like they are on Google+. Relationships change. They’re dynamic. And herein lies the problem with this aspect of the Google+ value proposition: Circles don’t work.

This passage from Calvin's Institutes was very strengthening to me. Congregants often oppose their pastor by saying things like, "It's your job to preach, but you need to let the Holy Spirit do the convicting." Well, yes, of course, it is the Holy Spirit that will do the convicting, no doubt about that. But the issue is never really about whether or not the Holy Spirit has the ability to convict men. Instead, the challenge is simply a thinly-veiled attempt to silence a pastor who is speaking directly to your conscience.

But that's precisely what a pastor is supposed to do.

Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 6:

In our own day there has been great controversy over the efficacy of the ministry. Some exaggerate its dignity beyond measure. Others contend that what belongs to the Holy Spirit is wrongly transferred to mortal men-if we suppose that ministers and teachers penetrate into minds and hearts and so correct both blindness of mind and hardness of heart. We must therefore correctly assess this controversy.

The points in dispute on both sides will be readily and easily resolved by expressly noting (1) the passages in which God as the author of preaching, joining his Spirit with it, promises benefits from it; (2) the passages in which God, separating himself from outward helps, claims for himself alone both the beginnings of faith and its entire course.

1. The task of the second Elijah was, according to Malachi, to enlighten the minds and "to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the unbelievers to the wisdom of the just" [Luke 1:17; Malachi 4:5-6]. Christ declares that he sends the apostles to bring forth fruit from their labor [John 15:16]. Peter briefly defines what that fruit is, saying that we are "born anew... of incorruptible seed" [1 Peter 1:23 p.]. Paul therefore boasts that he "begat" the Corinthians "through the gospel" [1 Corinthians 4:15], and that they are the "seal" of his "apostleship" [1 Corinthians 9:2], nay, that he was no minister of the letter who only smote upon ears with the sound of his voice, but that the working of the Spirit was given him in order that his teaching might not be unprofitable [2 Corinthians 3:6]. In this same sense he elsewhere denies that his gospel was so much in words as in power [1 Corinthians 2:4]. He also affirms that the Galatians "received... the Spirit... by the hearing of faith" [Galatians 3:2]. Briefly, in many passages he not only makes himself a co-worker of God but also assigns himself the function of imparting salvation [1 Corinthians 3:9 ff.].

2. In mentioning all these things Paul did not intend to credit to himself even a particle apart from God. This he briefly explains elsewhere: "Our labor in the Lord was not in vain" [1 Thessalonians 3:5 p.], "with... the might which he mightily inspires within me" [Colossians 1:29]. Likewise: "He who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles" [Galatians 2:8]. Moreover, it is clear from other passages how he leaves nothing to ministers by themselves. "Neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but it is God alone who gives the growth" [1 Corinthians 3:7]. Likewise: "I worked more than all; not I, but the grace of God which was with me" [1 Corinthians 15:10 p.]. Surely we ought to remember those statements in which God, ascribing to himself illumination of mind and renewal of heart, warns that it is sacrilege for man to claim any part of either for himself. Meanwhile, anyone who presents himself in a teachable spirit to the ministers ordained by God shall know by the result that with good reason this way of teaching was pleasing to God, and also that with good reason this yoke of moderation was imposed on believers.

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor."

Augustine, City of God - Book IV, Section 4