Kuyperian, Author at Kuyperian Commentary

On March 8, 2014 By Kuyperian In Culture, Family and Children Like

Adopted & Adopting

By Marc Hays

Before adopting the triplets, we only had one daughter. Our solitary little girl, being surrounded by adults twenty-four hours a day, often acted more like an adult in a little body than a four-year-old. She wasn’t perfect, but she was an easy child to be around. Then, we adopted. Three 7-week-old babies entered our world in one day; our peaceful world of a single-child was gone; and things have been rocking ever since. Also, contributing to this was the fact that three years after adopting the triplets, my wife conceived and bore twins. In a period of three years, my household increased by 5 munchkins. So, there are eight of us: one dad, one mom, three boys, and three girls.

A couple of the things I have learned about myself as a father through the years since the adoption: 1.) I am a man, for good or for ill, and 2.) I am only one man, never more, never less.

I am a man, for good or for ill. When God placed the triplets before us, my wife and I raised the question, “Are we ready to make a decision that will last a lifetime?” Thankfully, as Christians, we were already used to making decisions that last much more than a lifetime. We could say, “yes,” and mean it. My “yea” had habitually been my “yea,” and my “nay,” my “nay.” I am a fallen man, but I have been redeemed, and in Christ, I can actually do good in this world. To decide to adopt was to decide to make the children mine—irrevocably mine. But I am also a man for ill. As surely as I can do good, I can blow it big time. To multiply people in my home multiplied opportunities for me to show my temper, my selfishness, my moodiness, my complacency, and did I mention my selfishness? Multiplying people multiplied both the opportunities to forgive and the daily, hourly, minutely need to be forgiven. I am a man, for good or for ill.

Also, I’ve learned that I am only one man, never more, never less. God created man, took a rib and made a woman. Man really is an individual. Woman really is an individual, but in matrimony they become one. As Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy has pointed out, Two equals one. A man can never be a husband unto himself. As a man, an individual before my Creator, all my faculties and capacities as a husband always involve love for and service to my wife. I cannot be a husband apart from her, and I cannot be a godly husband apart from her thriving.

Then, the man knew the woman, and she conceived and bore sons. Two equals one equals many. A man can never be a father unto himself. As a man, an individual before my Creator, all my faculties and capacities as a father always involve love for and service to my children. I cannot be a father apart from them, and I cannot be a godly father apart from their thriving. I am never more than one man, and daren’t dream of doing more than one man can, but I am never less than one man—a man who has been recreated into more than the singular by being remade a husband and father.

Through adoption, I’ve also learned some things about my heavenly Father. I’ve learned another facet of what the love of the Father looks like. Our heavenly Father has children born unto his children, and our heavenly Father has sheep that were once not of that fold—a people that were formerly not a people. Our heavenly Father is an adoptive father. One of the greatest blessings of adopting is that I know what it feels like to forget that three of them are adopted. In fact, I often forget that the three adopted children are biracial. They are mine. I am theirs. They have always been darker skinned—not because they’re adopted, but because that’s the beauty God decided to give them. God’s children, whether Jew or Gentile, are neither Jew nor Gentile. In Christ the middle wall of partition has been removed and we are one. Christ’s bride is undoubtedly mixed race. He has promised that it will be. In fact, we have no hope except that it is. Through adoption, this reality of our heavenly Father’s love has been experimentally manifest in my home.

<>smm smo

On March 6, 2014 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

Another blow for the PCUSA

The Blaze wrote about a megachurch that will suffer a great financial loss by sticking to its orthodox roots and leaving the mainline presbyterian denomination (PCUSA):

Specifically, the church expressed concern that many Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) leaders do not believe in the deity of Jesus, nor do they embrace salvation through Christ. These are central tenets of most mainstream Christian churches, leading to a difficult ideological splintering.

The document cited a 2011 survey of pastors in the denomination who were asked for their level of agreement with the following statement: “Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”

Read the rest.

<>

On February 14, 2014 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

GKC: Seeing One Woman

by Gilbert Keith Chesterton

“I could never mix in the common murmur of that rising generation against monogamy, because no restriction on sex seemed so odd and unexpected as sex itself. To be allowed, like Endymion, to make love to the moon and then to complain that Jupiter kept his own moons in a harem seemed to me (bred on fairy tales like Endymion’s) a vulgar anti-climax. Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman. To complain that I could only be married once was like complaining that I had only been born once. It was incommensurate with the terrible excitement of which one was talking. It showed, not an exaggerated sensibility to sex, but a curious insensibility to it. A man is a fool who complains that he cannot enter Eden by five gates at once. Polygamy is a lack of the realization of sex; it is like a man plucking five pears in mere absence of mind. The aesthetes touched the last insane limits of language in their eulogy on lovely things. The thistledown made them weep; a burnished beetle brought them to their knees. Yet their emotion never impressed me for an instant, for this reason, that it never occurred to them to pay for their pleasure in any sort of symbolic sacrifice. Men (I felt) might fast forty days for the sake of hearing a blackbird sing. Men might go through fire to find a cowslip. Yet these lovers of beauty could not even keep sober for the blackbird. They would not go through common Christian marriage by way of recompense to the cowslip. Surely one might pay for extraordinary joy in ordinary morals. Oscar Wilde said that sunsets were not valued because we could not pay for sunsets. But Oscar Wilde was wrong; we can pay for sunsets. We can pay for them by not being Oscar Wilde.”

Read “The Ethics of Elfland” from Orthodoxy here.<>купить контент для а

On February 14, 2014 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Margaret Sanger – The 20th Century’s Public Enemy #1

by Marc Hays

Hitler? Nein. Stalin? Niet. Mussolini? Nope. Pol Pot? Mao Tse-tung? Not even close. This woman’s got them all beat. Her minions are responsible for more murderous, torturous, barbarous human deaths than all of those wretched men put together. Her name is Margaret Sanger. She was a villain, and the world sings her praises.

Dr. George Grant has published a biography of Margaret Sanger, Killer Angel, as well as given lectures, on the history of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. Here is an excerpt from one of those lectures:

“I wish that hindsight really were 20/20. If hindsight were really 20/20, then we would be able to look back on the late lamentable history of the twentieth century with the jaundiced eye that such a century deserves. The twentieth century was the bloodiest century of all of human history. The 20th Century saw governments kill their own people in astonishing numbers. More people died at the hands of their own governments in the 20th Century than in every other century combined. The 20th Century – the century of science and achievement; the century of unparalleled prosperity; the century of ideology; the century of fighting wars to end all wars – was an horrific disaster. I wish that hindsight were 20/20, because then we wouldn’t make the silly sorts of judgements against things like the crusades, or the so-called “Dark Ages” or the inquisition that we do standing pompously as we do on our 20th and 21st Century soapboxes and denouncing earlier generations for things that we’ve done blown up on steroids.

“On January 1st, 1900, most Americans greeted the 20th Century with the proud and certain belief that the coming century would be the greatest, the most glorious, and the most glamorous in all of human history. They were, like many Europeans of the day, infected with a sanguine spirit. Optimism was rampant. Confidence seemed to color every activity. Certainly, there was little in their experience to make them think otherwise. Never had a century changed the lives of men and women more dramatically than the one that had just passed.

“The 20th Century has moved fast and furiously, so that those of us who have lived in it sometimes feel giddy watching it spin. But the 19th Century moved faster and more furiously still. Railroads, telephones, the telegraph, electricity, mass production, automobiles, forged steel, and countless other modern discoveries had all come upon them at a dizzying pace expanding their visions and expectations far beyond anything that their grandfathers could have wildly dreamed in a fevered fit.

“My wife’s grandmother set up housekeeping in a covered wagon. At the end of her life, she sat astonished as we taught her “email.” But in the 19th Century, those kinds of comparisons were vastly expanded. We forget the fact that Napoleon moved his armies in approximately the same fashion at approximately the same pace with approximately the same obstacles as Nebuchadnezzar had, but in the span of the 19th Century things changed, and changed so dramatically, that the world seemed to be a living revolution. As a result, as Americans greeted the 20th Century, they were full of confidence and certainty. It was more than just unfounded imagination that lay behind the New York World’s new year’s prediction that the 20th Century would meet and overcome all of the perils and prove to be the best that this steadily improving planet had ever seen. Most Americans were cheerfully assured that the control of man, nature, and nations would soon lie entirely within their grasp and would bestow upon them the unfathomable millennial power to alter the destinies of societies, nations, and ethics. They were a people of manifold purpose. They were a people of manifest destiny. They were certain that, given enough time, science could conquer every ill. Theirs was a world of salvation by education; salvation by legislation; salvation by medication. It was a kind of winter witchery; a world of modern magic; and the world was intoxicated with it.

“What they did not know, of course, was that dark and malignant seeds were already germinating just beneath the surface of the century’s new soil.

“At the time, Josef Stalin was a twenty-one-year-old seminary student in Tiflis, a pious and serene community located at the crossroads of Georgia and Ukraine. Benito Mussolini was a seventeen-year-old student teacher in the quiet suburbs of Milan. Adolf Hitler was an eleven-year-old aspiring art student in the quaint upper Austrian village of Brannan. And Margaret Sanger was a twenty-year-old, out-of-sorts, nursing school/high school dropout in White Plains, New York. Who would’ve ever dreamed? Who could have ever guessed on that ebulliently auspicious New Year’s Day that those four youngsters would, over the span of the next century, spill more innocent blood than all the murderers, warlords, and tyrants of past history combined? Who could have guessed that those four youngsters would together ensure that the hopes, dreams, and the aspirations of the twentieth century would be smothered under holocaust, genocide, and triage?

“As the champion of the proletariat, Josef Stalin saw to the slaughter of at least fifteen million Russian and Ukranian kulaks. As the popularly acclaimed “Il Duce,” Mussolini massacred as many as four million Ethiopians, two million Eritreans, and a million Serbs, Croats, and Albanians. As the wildly lionized Führer, Hitler exterminated Lord knows how many Jews, two million Slavs, and a million Poles. As the founder of Planned Parenthood and the impassioned heroine of various feminist causes célébres, Margaret Sanger was responsible for the brutal elimination of more than forty million children in the United States alone and nearly two and a half billion worldwide.

“…No one in his right mind would want to rehabilitate the reputations of Stalin, Mussolini, or Hitler. Their barbarism, their treachery, and their debauchery will make their names forever live in infamy. Amazingly, though, Sanger has somehow escaped their wretched fate…In spite of the fact that her crimes against humanity were no less heinous than theirs, her place in history has effectively been sanitized and sanctified. In spite of the fact that she openly identified herself in one way or another with every one of their causes. She lauded Stalin’s Sobornostic Collectivism; she wrote eloquently in defense of Hitler’s Eugenic Racism; and she was a stalwart adherent of Mussolini’s Agathistic Fascism – Sanger’s faithful minions have managed to manufacture an entirely independent reputation for the perpetuation of her memory.”–Dr. George Grant

May the Lord use his servant, Dr. Grant, to shine the light of truth into dark places, revealing those things that ought to be put to death: lust, fornication, adultery, lewdness, covetousness, bitterness, selfishness, desertion, and murder.

Not babies. Babies shouldn’t be put to death.

Lord, have mercy.

________________________________________________

Listen to the rest of this lecture by following this link to Wordmp3.com

Read Dr. Grant’s 1995 book, Killer Angel online here.

Order a hard copy of Killer Angel here.<>

On February 8, 2014 By Kuyperian In Theology Like

Birding Theologians

Guest Post by Mark Nenadov

“[W]e have as many masters and preachers as there are little birds in the air, that put us to shame with their living example” – Luther’s commentary on the Sermon on the Mount

The Tanager Drops By

I was sick in bed one day when my wife told me about a bird she saw out the window. By the time I came down, it was gone. It soon returned for a split second, and I spied a brief orange-tinged red flash on the drab scenery out the window.

It turns out it was a Summer Tanager, a pretty rare bird over here in Essex, Ontario, Canada. Quite frankly, I’d have been excited if I found this bird at a proven birding hotspot, let alone right here on my property on a busy intersection. My feeder was empty and I didn’t even have to go outside to see the bird. I will not reveal how many prickly thickets I had to walk through to get a glimpse of my first Eastern Towhee, a much less remarkable find, though still a fascinating bird!

Such is the birder’s life. Sometimes you work hard to get skunked, other times they drop in “on a silver plate with watercress around them”, as Wodehouse might have put it.

The Birds Of The Book

I love birds. What fascinating little creatures God hath wrought! And yet, bird watching as an activity is far too often summarily discounted (at best) or ridiculed (at worst).

While bird watching as a formal activity may not be everyone’s cup of tea, or their idea of a tranquil afternoon, I would suggest that many Christians would profit from paying more attention to birds. Incidentally, many great figures in Christian history have paid meticulous attention to their feathered friends.

As we survey the Bible, we find around 300 references to birds and just over 20 species explicitly referenced. The Psalms are filled with references to our feathered friends. In Psalm 50 God says that He knows all the “birds of the hills” and in Psalm 148, the Psalmist calls on the birds to praise God.

In particular, Jesus often draws on birds for teaching illustrations. Prime examples would be: Matthew 6:26, Matthew 10:29-31, and Luke 12:4-7. In Matthew 6:26, Jesus provides the clearest Biblical exhortation towards bird watching, “Look at the birds”.

Birders Of The Book In Puritan England/America

So, it is unsurprising to find that “people of the Book” have also been, generally speaking, the sort of people people who noticed birds. Volume 5 of the complete works of John Flavel (1627-1691) contains a gem called Occasional Meditations on Birds, Beasts, Trees, Flowers, Rivers, and Other Objects. In it, Flavel can hardly conceal the glee: “Who that hears such various, ravishing, and exquisite melody, would imagine the bird that makes it, to be of so small and contemptible a body and feather? Her charming voice engaged not only mine attentive ear, but my feat also to make a nearer approach”. Flavel then goes on to refer to nightingales, hawks, blackbirds, goldfinches, sparrows, and robins, extracting spiritual lessons from each one.

When the first minister in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Francis Higginson (1588-1630), came to America, he quickly noticed the birds. There’s this lovely passage (I’ve updated some of the spelling) where he just gushes on about the birds he finds in his new surroundings:

“Fowls…are plentiful here, and of all sorts as we have in England…and a great many of strange fowls which we known not…Also here are many kinds of excellent hawks, both sea hawks and land hawks…walking in the woods with another in company, [I] sprung a partridge so big… his body could fly but a little way: They…say they are as big as our hens. Here are likewise abundance of turkeys…far greater than our English turkeys…. In the winter time I have seen flocks of pigeons…They do fly from tree to tree as other birds do, which our pigeons will not do in England: They are of all colors as ours are, but their wings and tails are far longer and therefore it is likely they fly swifter to escape the terrible hawks in this country. In winter time this country doth abound with wild geese, wild ducks, and other sea fowl”

When the American Puritan poet, Edward Taylor (1642-1729), made the seventy-day journey from England to Boston, he was also bird watching. Donald Stanford says that he made “strange and eccentric notes on his observations of fish and birds”.

Back in England, John Bunyan (1628-1688), best known for writing Pilgrim’s Progress, often made allusions to birds. In Pilgrim’s Progress, the robin makes a few appearances, both in one of the hymns that the pilgrims sing and also in a notable allegorical section:

“Then…they espied a little robin with a…spider in his mouth…Christiana said, What a disparagement is it to such a pretty little bird…that loveth to maintain a kind of sociableness with men! I had thought they had lived upon crumbs of bread, or upon other such harmless matter: I like him worse than I did. The Interpreter then replied, This robin is an emblem, very apt to set forth some professors by; for to sight they are, as this robin, pretty of note, color, and carriage. They seem also to have a very great love for professors that are sincere…to associate with them, and to be in their company, as if they could live upon the good man’s crumbs. They pretend also…that they frequent the house of the godly, and the appointments of the Lord: but when they are by themselves…they can catch and gobble up spiders; they can change their diet, drink iniquity, and swallow down sin like water.”

In this case Bunyan compares birds to folly. And, believe me, the fact that I’m saying these theologians are bird watchers does not indicate they always used them for positive illustrations!

Birders Of The Book In The 19th/20th/21st Century

Few people realize that the great Princeton theologian Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) was a poet. He wrote two books of poetry. In one of them, he included a poem, Bird Tragedy. The poem contains some keenly-observed detail on the perilous life of a bird, as is shown in this excerpt:

“Yours were the freedom of the fields,
Could ye beware the nets,
Which, to beguile your innocence,
The crafty fowler sets.

Yours is the sky up to the clouds;
But from huge birds of prey
Is no defence: they lurk and watch,
Swoop down and clutch and slay.”

And yet, perhaps the most interesting bird watcher-theologian of this period is actually John Stott (1921-2011). You’ve probably heard of him, but most likely not for his bird watching. Stott is probably one of the most prolific birder-theologians in history.

In his book The Birds Our Teachers: Biblical Lessons From A Lifelong Bird-Watcher, Stott reveals an amazing knowledge of birds and an amazing knack for photographing them. He draws out spiritual lessons from the lives of various birds and includes over 150 of his own photographs. He also reveals that he has seen about 2,500 of the world’s 9,000 (or so) bird species!

During his busy life, Stott traveled often, taking on many speaking engagements. According to his New York Times obituary, he “took his binoculars and cameras on all his travels”.

Conclusion

Other theologians could have been mentioned here. This is just a survey to whet your appetite. Amassing a list of names is not the point. What really matters is attention and watchfulness in regard to God’s creation and His wondrous works. In this case it was the variety and beauty of birds. In another case, it could be some other masterpiece.

In A Table in the Wilderness, An Altar on the Farm: Creation and Christian Formation, Phillip Jensen recently wrote: “Bird watching is one discipline that provides a new way of seeing the liturgical splendor, which is all around us”.

Bird watching requires us to slow down, watch, listen, and be silent. And yet, we are a participant, what we do matters. These are disciplines that seem to be fading in our age.

When you see birds, do you see their splendor? Are you learning the right lessons from this parade dancing before you? And, of course, are you enjoying it for enjoyment’s sake as well? Explicit “bird watching” may not be for all of us, but certainly it is an activity that many of us can and should enjoy. The birds, too, inhabit the territory that our Lord calls “mine”.

For more publications and updates on Mr. Nenadov, see Goodreads, Blog, Twitter, Linkedin, Website<>дать рекламу на авито

On February 1, 2014 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

The Tender Mercies of the Wicked

by Marc Hays

In 2008, presidential candidate Barak Obama promised that he would bring about the end of childhood hunger in America by 2015. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that these were not merely empty words aimed at winning him an election—a huge assumption, I know, but work with me here—would three meals per day, every day, for all the children in America necessarily make America a better place? In order to answer that question, one would need to know how this lofty goal was going to be accomplished. Does “ending childhood hunger in America” justify any means necessary? For example, if America invaded some other country, took all their food, brought it back here for our children, while the other country’s children starved, would that make America a better place? What if we killed all the babies under two and fed them to all the children old enough to make the cut—an immodest proposal, indeed—would that make America a better place? Certainly not. The two preceding options may appear to be more far-fetched than the current administration’s model for the redistribution of wealth; however, I assert that the current model is destroying the next generation, as well as our country, rather than improving them.

In the beginning, before any sin, cruelty, or suffering arrived on the scene, there was hunger. In the garden there were trees and these trees bore fruit, which was beautiful and good for food. In the garden was a man and this man bore an open ended digestive system, which was capable of being full and becoming empty. The fruit was designed to be eaten; the man was designed to eat. It was a match made in Eden.

But Adam had hunger pains that did not come from his belly and so do we. God created man, in His image, to work and to keep the garden; then to expand the garden by filling the earth and subduing it. Why has man—even the seed of Cain—gone out and tended gardens, flocks, and herds; invented the wheel, the tractor, and the combine; built trucks, trains, and ships? He was hungry for food. Why has man—even the seed of Cain—developed musical instruments, weaved ornate tapestries, and accomplished amazing architectural feats? He was hungry for more than food. We were not created to be merely practical, i.e., to get enough calories for the day; we were created in the image of God with the desire to create beautiful things for his glory, in response to his grace. This non-digestive “hunger” is evidenced in the beautiful things man has created.

Not only were people designed with a hunger for beauty, but also with a hunger that is only filled by finding satisfaction in the work of one’s own hands. You know that feeling you get when the work is done; you stand back, looking at it, and say to yourself, “Yeah. I did that, and it’s done.” That’s not always some sort of unbiblical pride. Your heart is not always an “idol factory.” The satisfaction you take in your work is a gift from God. He created you to work; he created you to enjoy working; and he created you to rejoice in the fruit of your hands. At the end of each day of creation, God “stood back,” assessed the work, and rendered a judgment: “That’s good.” This personal satisfaction, which can only come from personal labor, has been stamped in man’s very fabric. Perpetually giving food to those with no vested interest in its production may fill the belly, but it is a great injustice to the person, for it will strip the person of the dignity that comes from a “job well done.”

If any person, family, organization, or institution, such as the Federal government of these United States, believes that they can walk away from what God has said about man, while at the same time providing what children need to thrive, they are grievously mistaken. They imagine the child to be a creature with no Creator, therefore bearing no resemblance to that Creator. In their vain imaginations, they devise schemes which aim at seemingly noble purposes, but in the end will eliminate all hunger, including the hungers to work, to beautify, and to find satisfaction that every image-bearer of God needs to thrive. They destroy human dignity; they decay entire cultures; and they deny obeisance to their Creator. In the end, the well-intended, but ill-conceived mercies of the wicked are cruel.

For further study, check out this article by Theodore Dalrymple. It is his accounting of the real-time effects of the social welfare state in Great Britain.

<>online games биржа копирайтера

On January 30, 2014 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Dark Chocolate: A Table Fable

by Marc Hays

…..

A naked Crust once covered

In sourdough or wheat,

Post feasting had recovered,

And recently discovered

A friend who also suffered:

A Bone who once wore meat.

…..

Through suppertime attrition

They’d more than feelings hurt.

Both needing a physician,

With leery-eyed suspicion

Beheld the competition:

The final course–Dessert.

…..

She knew her mousse was fluffy

And chocolate tan was dark.

Her whipping cream was puffy;

She thought she was hot-stuffy.

To everyone rebuffy,

And friendly as a shark.

…..

The Eater poised and ready

With spoon split silken skin.

His progress slow and steady,

Reloaded, cocked, and ready,

For Dee-ssert Armageddy,

Completely did her in.

…..

So, Crust and Bone sat blinking

Without a disconcert.

Her ship–they watched it sinking;

Her beauty–watched it shrinking;

And right now they’re still thinking,

“She got her just dessert.”

<>

On January 23, 2014 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

C. S. Lewis: The Unraveling of Materialism

Click to buy on Amazon

by Marc Hays

Here’s a portion of the first paragraph of the first essay in Walter Hooper’s collection of C. S. Lewis essays, God in the Dock. This quote is a prime example of Lewisian logic–better known as common sense.

“Mechanism, like all materialist systems, breaks down at the problem of knowledge. If thought is the undesigned and irrelevant product of cerebral motions, what reason have we to trust it? As for emergent evolution, if anyone insists on using the word God to mean ‘whatever the universe happens to be going to do next’, of course we cannot prevent him. But nobody would in fact so use it unless he had a secret belief that what was coming next will be an improvement. Such a belief, besides being unwarranted, presents peculiar difficulties to an emergent evolutionist. If things can improve, this means that there must be some absolute standard of good above and outside the cosmic process to which that process can approximate. There is no sense in talking of becoming better if better means simply ‘what we are becoming’—it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination as ‘the place you have reached’. Mellontolatry, or the worship of the future, is a fuddled religion.”

–C. S. Lewis, “Evil and God”, God in the Dock<>

On January 21, 2014 By Kuyperian In Books 1

John Newton Brown: Pastor-Poet

Guest Post by Mark Nenadov

John Newton Brown (1803-1868) was an American Baptist leader. As a pastor and theologian, he authored the well-known moderately Calvinistic confession, the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith. His church covenant, or some variation thereof, is being used in many Baptist congregations to this very day.

Throughout his life, Brown pastored various congregations in New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Virginia. He produced a number of theological treatises, including a debate book in 1853 in which he defended the Christian Sabbath. He also did some work as an editor, editing the Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge and the works of John Bunyan.

It is, however, John Newton Brown the poet who captivates me most. Not only was he a poet, he was an excellent poet and it’s shameful that so few know him as such.

I would like to introduce you to Emily, and Other Poems, a book of poetry which Brown published in 1840. The book opens with an inscription to a Pastor. It could very well be a manifesto for Christian poets:

“[My Pastor] first taught me the two important lessons—that poetic talent, like every other gift of God, imposes upon its possessor a responsibility to cultivate and employ it, in obedience to His will, for the benefit of mankind;—and that, as the world will always continue to read Poetry, so the more of Christian Poetry in the world, the better”.

Are we Christians, at least those who are gifted in the area of poetry, cultivating this gift? In John Newton Brown, we have a wonderful encouragement in that regard. Christians who are Presbyterian and Reformed by conviction have no less pronounced 19^th/20^th century inspiration in the likes of pastors and theologians who were also poets to some degree, such as Gerhardus Vos and B.B. Warfield

Here are some things I’ve come to appreciate about the poetry in this book:

1. It shows incredible emotion depth and rawness. As you read the book, immediately you’ll notice that weighty subjects are not avoided. Death is repeatedly confronted. He even has a poem meditating on the viewing of a skeleton. This book is filled with elegies and tributes to deceased people, including his sister Emily, his parents, his daughter, and others.

For instance, of his sister Emily he writes:

“I bless, O, I bless Him from whom I received

Such a sister—my senior in years—

And when of my father and mother bereaved,

My guide in this valley of tears.

And though thou art silent and cold in the dust.

And Affection weeps over thee now,

I strike the loud lyre o’er the grave of the just,

For such, my dear sister, wast thou.”

Brown shows how a Christian poet can focus on death without becoming overly gloomy or morbid.

2. It is thoroughly theological and Biblical. Brown’s poetry is Bible-saturated and theologically-sound. He writes with the precision of a theologian. He delights in the Bible and exalts Jesus “the Lamb of God! The antitype divine”. You get the sense that that the poet is, at his core, an evangelist, pleading with sinners to turn to Christ!

3. It is pastoral. Brown’s poetry is deeply pastoral, pouring out sweat and tears over the people he loves and cares for. The abundance of acrostic poems addressed specifically to individuals evidences the personal care of a pastor who knows his people.

Brown’s poetry attempts to lead the reader into a closer walk with God. It exhibits the tender (and yet firm) aspect of a good pastor, or in his poems to his daughters, a loving father.

He is clearly not afraid to be frank and blunt in some cases, such as the poem “Hints To A Young Preacher“:

“Your air is too dogmatic;

Your tones are too emphatic;

Your style has too much splendor;

Your voice has nothing tender;

Your gestures are too frequent far,

And quite ungraceful many area.”

4. And yet the poetry is not overly didactic—it revels in esthetic beauty. Brown avoids a dry approach wherein poetry becomes a mere conduit for propositions. He unveils verses which reflect on the beauty of nature and his local surroundings. There is no rash or strained desire to make everything explicitly religious, and yet a deep Christian piety seeps through everything he writes.

The writing has the leisurely feel of one of Brown’s Sabbath morning walks in New York state, during which he wrote the poem “The Happy Family”.

Though Brown is often quick to instruct his reader and make the most of his teaching platform, he also seems to enjoy poetry for poetry’s sake, and in another poem, he gets lost in the wonder of the Niagara Falls:

“And I have seen thee, wonder of the world!
Unequaled cataract! my country’s pride!
With all thy weight of waters downward hurled,
As if in earth’s deep bowels thou wouldst hide
Superior, Huron, Erie’s blended tide!”

5. It achieves technical excellence. Brown’s poetry is great poetry, achieving high standards of form and esthetic value. Beside a high level of excellence in the poetry itself, Brown also shows a broad knowledge of classic literature and mastery in translation, rendering some historic Latin verses and even providing alternate renderings. His mixture of artistic talent and scholarly precision is quite remarkable and unique!

6. Though generally traditional and formal, it is also quite creative and flexible. Brown freely and naturally moves between tasteful variations in style. He generally follows traditional rhyming schemes, but is also highly experimental, eager to try acrostics and experimentation with indentation, and short poems.

7. It thoughtfully engages the world, current events, and history. Besides being infused with a sense of wonder, Brown critically engages with the thought of his day. In his poems, he interacts with the likes of Edward Gibbon, Chalmers, and even Don Juan, all through the framework of a Christian world-view. He also delves into world events, such as the fall of Turkey. Brown models how Christian artists do not necessarily need to be reclusive or mystical, but can engage with the world around them. And they can do that without turning their poetry into a mere conduit for propositions.

Christian poets have a lot to learn from John Newton Brown. I highly recommend checking out Brown’s poetry. I hope renewed interest in this neglected work of art will also inspire poets for many years to come!

To that end, since the book is out of print and only available in somewhat hard to read scans, I’ve recently transcribed it into a textual PDF file, which is available for free on Archive.org. It’s only a draft and more proofreading is needed, so there may be some minor errors. You can download it here.

You can also find a fair amount of John Newton Brown poems over at Calvinist poets.

For more publications and updates on Mr. Nenadov, see Goodreads, Blog, Twitter, Linkedin, Website<>

On January 20, 2014 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

Marc Hays: Whose Rights Are Ultimate? Who Decides?

by Marc Hays

Yesterday being “Sanctity-of-Life Sunday”, I was reminded of a quote by Canadian political philosopher, George Parkin Grant, from His book Technology and Justice:

“Behind the conflict of rights (between the mother and the fetus MH), there is unveiled in the debate about abortion an even more fundamental question about rights themselves. What is it about human beings that makes it proper that we should have any rights at all? Because of this the abortion issue involves all modern societies in basic questions of political principle.

These questions of principle were brought out into the open for Americans, when the Supreme Court of that country made it law that no legislation can be passed which prevents women from receiving abortions during the first six months of pregnancy. In laying down the reasons for that decision, the judges speak as if they were basing it on the supremacy of rights in a democratic society. But to settle the case in terms of rights, the judges say that the mother has all the rights, and that the foetus has none. Because they make this distinction, the very principle of rights is made dubious in the following way. In negating all rights to the foetuses, the court says something negative about what they are, namely that they are such as to warrant no right to continued existence. And because the foetus is of the same species as the mother, we are inevitably turned back onto the fundamental question of principle: what is it about the mother (or any human being) that makes it proper that she should have rights? Because in the laws about abortion one is forced back to the stark comparison between the rights of members of the same species (our own), the foundations of the principles behind rights are unveiled inescapably. What is it about our species that gives us rights beyond those of dogs or cattle?

The legal and political system, which was the noblest achievement of the English-speaking societies, came forth from our long tradition of free institutions and Common Law, which was itself produced and sustained by centuries of Christian belief. Ruthlessness in law and politics was limited by a system of legal and political rights which guarded the individual from the abuses of arbitrary power, both by the state and other individuals. The building of this system has depended on the struggle and courage of many, and was fundamentally founded on the Biblical assumption that human beings are the children of God. For this reason, everybody should be properly protected by carefully defined rights. Those who advocate easy abortions in the name of rights are at the same time unwittingly undermining the very basis of rights. Their complete disregard for the unborn weakens the very idea of rights itself. This weakening does not portend well for the continuing health of our system.” —George Parkin Grant, Technology & Justice 1986

“George Parkin Grant, 1918-1988, has been acknowledged as Canada’s leading political philosopher since the publication of Philosophy in the Mass Age 1959. He was the author of Lament for a Nation, Technology & Empire, and English-Speaking Justice. He taught religion and philosophy at McMaster University and Dalhousie University.” (from the back cover of Technology & Justice)

Here’s a link to it on Amazon.

<>методы продвижения а