Kuyperian, Author at Kuyperian Commentary

On October 31, 2013 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Halloween, a very Christian holiday indeed

Every year when I see signs outside of churches advertising “Fall Parties” or “Harvest Parties” as explicit or implicit “alternatives” to Halloween, I do the proverbial facepalm. This is similar, in my mind, to Christians organizing “Winter Parties” as “alternatives” to Christmas. Christmas already is a Christian holiday. Why would we need alternatives to it? Sure, it can be celebrated in an un-Christian way: with binge drinking, inappropriate clothing, tasteless jokes. The same could be said of birthdays, but nobody proposes we stop celebrating birthdays because they can be abused. The same is also true of Halloween.

Yes, Halloween is a Christian holiday. But I won’t rehearse the history of All Hallows’ E’en, the evening before All Hallows’ (All Saints’) Day on the Church calendar. I won’t rehearse the history of the Protestant Reformation, begun with a bang on Halloween 1517 by Martin Luther. I am here to talk about anthropology. Inversion holidays, to be exact.

Inversion holidays exist in many cultures: they are days for reversals, turning things inside out, practical joking, donning costumes to disguise ourselves and pretend to be what we’re not, eating weird food (green punch with eyeballs floating in it, anyone?), and other topsy-turvy things. Purim is one such festival in the Jewish tradition, and others have been observed by anthropologists. Mardi Gras is another. In our context, Halloween is the most accessible and widely observed inversion holiday. ^a

Inversion holidays are thought to serve several purposes in a society, some of which are more intriguing than others. But I want to put inversion rituals in a Christian context and ask: What better way to celebrate All Hallows’ Eve than to invert the world for a moment, laugh at the devil, make light of death for a moment, reasserting the fact that tomorrow all will be well, and all manner of things well. For all the saints have the victory, not the devil. That is why the day after Halloween (“All Hallows Eve”) is All Saints (“Hallows”) Day, the day for all the saints. Tomorrow (Nov. 1) we remember that “The saints triumphant rise in bright array,” as the hymn says.*

As C.S. Lewis remarked in his preface to the Screwtape Letters, one thing the devil cannot stand is to be laughed at, not to be taken seriously. He was channeling Martin Luther, who (it is said) expressed the idea that “The best way of getting rid of the devil, if you cannot do it with the words of Holy Scripture, is to rail and mock him. He cannot bear scorn.” This is what we do on Halloween.

Halloween is a night full of humor, and it is (abuses notwithstanding) the right kind of Christian humor. Humor exists when the potency of evil has been completely dismantled. My husband and I laugh about the stomach flu we had in November ’09 not because it was any laughing matter at the time (I assure you it was not), but because we are well beyond reach of its potency. When the horror of an evil is safely behind or beyond reach of us, horrors can turn into jokes. Just as the Lord laughs from His heavenly throne at the battle cries of those who hate Him: He is beyond being affected in the slightest. Their slings and arrows cannot reach Him. He is utterly beyond their reach. He was not laughing on the cross; but He certainly can laugh now.

We have come out the winner. I and my husband have recovered completely from that terrible flu, no harm done, and it is powerless to do us any harm now. Our laughter is that of those who stand on the other side of the lion’s cage and watch it roar with impotence. Neutered of all its ability to cause harm, the lion becomes an object of amusement. Take away the bars, and suddenly it’s no laughing matter.

Halloween is practice. True, death still has power to do us harm. Satan is defeated, but nurses his mortal wound to the end and still snaps at us in his death throes. His power is real and still brings men and women down to hell. But his power is broken and so is death’s sting. We may make fun of the devil and his ways one night per year, as a rehearsal for the deep laughter that will overtake us on the day when the dead are raised imperishable, and Christ stands on the earth, and we stand with him beyond all reach of sin, damnation, pain, or death.

Halloween is not the devil’s night. It does not belong to witches, zombies, or Wiccans, either. That is a gross misunderstanding. It belongs to all the saints. The devils, witches, et al are brought out on that night in order to be mocked. So forget all the wild drinking binges you’ve ever been invited to, the lewd or tasteless costumes, the orgy-like atmosphere of frat-style Halloween parties. They have little to do with the real holiday. If we have ears to hear it, the merry laughter of the saints can be heard echoing through the night, because it is the laughter of the resurrection.

Alleluia, and Happy Halloween.

*But lo! there breaks a yet more glorious day;
The saints triumphant rise in bright array;
The King of glory passes on His way.
Alleluia, Alleluia!

From earth’s wide bounds, from ocean’s farthest coast,
Through gates of pearl streams in the countless host,
And singing to Father, Son and Holy Ghost:
Alleluia, Alleluia!

William W. How, “For All the Saints”<>разработка визиток

For more on inversion holidays, see the Wikibooks entry or this Academia.edu article by John Morehead. (back)

On October 31, 2013 By Kuyperian In Theology Like

The Ballad of Martin Luther

Happy Reformation Day!

A couple years ago, my dad asked me to write and perform a song for the Reformation Day festival at the church he pastors in Mendota, Virginia. He wanted the song to tell the story of Martin Luther’s role in the Protestant Reformation. I wrote it, performed it, recorded it, and now, I’ve made a music video for it. Well, that may be a bit of an overstatement. There’s music. There’s video, but it’s probably more of a historical slideshow. Anyway, here it is. The world, internet premiere of The Ballad of Martin Luther.

Here’s the link:

The Ballad of Martin Luther

<>game rpg mobile seo продвижение а

On October 29, 2013 By Kuyperian In Culture, Politics, Theology, Wisdom, Worship Like

The KC Team: What’s in a Name? Abraham Kuyper

“On this day in 1907,” writes George Grant, “the entire nation of the Netherlands celebrated the seventieth birthday of Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920). A national proclamation recognized that “the history of the Netherlands, in Church, in State, in Society, in Press, in School, and in the Sciences the last forty years, cannot be written without the mention of his name on almost every page, for during this period the biography of Dr. Kuyper is to a considerable extent the history of the Netherlands.”

To celebrate the birthday of this titanic figure in history, we, Kuyperian Commentators, would like to tell you briefly what we have learned from this giant of history who called us to see the Lordship of Jesus over all things.

Kuyper turned my world upside down! Not only did he engage every sphere of life with a joyful passion, but he provided the intellectual tools to develop a compelling narrative of the Christian Gospel. —Uri Brito, Founder of Kuyperian Commentary.

Kuyper was a man who refused to abandon God’s covenantal blessings in any area of life. We are the heirs of this Kuyperian vision of incarnational theology. That by Christ’s death salvation has come to all men, giving us dominion over death, and all creation has been made new. This is the Gospel. May we live as Kuyper describes here: ” instead of monastic flight from the world the duty is now emphasized of serving God in the world, in every position in life.” — Steve Macias, Kuyperian Commentary Contributor

“The spheres of the world may each have an earthly head, but those heads are all subject to the one sovereign, the Lord Jesus Christ.” — Luke Andrew Welch, Contributor

Kuyper made me more conscious of my tendency to abstract spiritual matters, instead of applying them. A common problem, I know, but Kuyper was the kick in the pants that this guy needed. — Joffre Swait, Contributor

Abraham Kuyper’s life drives me to dream bigger than I feel I ought, and then take one step toward that goal, even if it’s a small one. And then another. And then another. He was a living, breathing, long-suffering, succeeding example of Calvinism at work: an unswerving faith in God’s good plan and an unrelenting struggle to take every thought captive to the obedience of Jesus Christ. —Marc Hays, Contributor

Some of my favorite Kuyper quotes and paraphrases:

“Never forget that all state relief for the poor is a blot on the honor of your savior. The fact that the government needs a safety net to catch those who would slip between the cracks of our economic system is evidence that I have failed t…o do God’s work. The government cannot take the place of Christian charity. A loving embrace isn’t given with food stamps. The care of a community isn’t provided with government housing. The face of our Creator can’t be seen on a welfare voucher. What the poor need is not another government program; what they need is for Christians like me to honor our savior.” ~ Abraham Kuyper, The Problem of Poverty

“If you see a thing, you are called to it.” ^a

“A Christian culture is established through the education of a Christian populace. You cannot teach mathematics apart from God because math implies order, and God is the creator of order.”

“In the midst of corruptions, your duty as an equipped disciple of Christ is to always seek to uphold that which is honorable, that which is lovely and that which is of good report among mankind.”

“Kuyper’s desire for the Netherlands was that the nation would revive and persevere in its Calvinistic heritage with its doctrine of limited government that respects the autonomy of all spheres of authority and thereby guarantees the freedom of its citizens. ” ~ James McGoldrick ^b
— Aaron W Eley, editor and contributor

What has the work of the Holy Spirit through Abraham Kuyper meant in your life?

<>в топ

On October 26, 2013 By Kuyperian In Books, Scribblings Like

Marc Hays: Lust of Flesh and Eyes & Pride of Life

In 2009, Athanasius Press published Peter Leithart’s commentary on 1 John. It is included in their “Through New Eyes” commentary series, and is entitled “From Behind the Veil.” In chapter 5, he elaborates on the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life:

“…John focuses attention on the relationship between the world and “desire.” He enumerates three evil desires, or lusts (epithumia): the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the boastful pride of life.

The desires John lists are, first of all, variations on the desires evoked by the tree of knowledge. Eve saw that the tree was good for food, a delight to the eyes, and desirable for wisdom (Gen. 3:6); she was gripped by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life. Adam and Eve took the fruit of the tree of knowledge prematurely, but the things they desired from the tree were truly desirable, and God planned eventually to fulfill the desires of Eve’s heart.

In the Old Covenant, Yahweh offered Israel the tree of knowledge in the form of three gifts, and then stored them away in the temple, hidden in the Most Holy Place, until the fullness of time, until Israel became mature enough to receive her inheritance. These are the three gifts in the Ark: a jar of manna, the gift of food and life; the tablets of the law, written with the finger of God, the gift of instruction and wisdom; and the rod of Aaron that had budded with almond blossoms, the gift of authority, the gift of glory. Israel had these gifts in part: they had life in the presence of Yahweh, they had the wisdom of God in Torah, they had a share in the glory of God. But for Israel the fulness of these gifts lay in the future, and the life of each Israelite, and the life of Israel as a nation, was to be directed by the desire for these three gifts, by the anticipation that someday the veil would be rent and the gifts would be opened and distributed freely. Yahweh promised that when he came forth from his tent, he would bring these gifts with him.

That is the gospel, which is, once again, the gospel of the rent veil. In the fulness of time, God sent these gifts not in part but in full. God sent Torah in the flesh, his Eternal Word and Wisdom; the Father sent bread from heaven, the One who is the way, the truth and the life; he exalted humanity to heavenly places to share in his authority to judge. By his death and resurrection, Jesus tore down the veil where the gifts of God had been hidden away. By his death and resurrection, Jesus made these gifts available to anyone who trusts in him. Jesus is the life of God; Jesus is the wisdom of God; Jesus is the glory of the Father, the exact representation and image of his Father. In Jesus we have life and wisdom and royal glory. In Jesus, who is the ark of God, the gifts of God are freely offered to those who are united to Jesus and follow him. He is the tree of knowledge as he is the tree of life. Under the Old Covenant these gifts were holy, taboo, unapproachable. But no longer; now, it’s holy things for holy people.”

Good gifts to be thankful for as we enter into worship tomorrow morning, as we proclaim the Preface and Sanctus together with our kin in Christ atop His holy mountain.

<>site

On October 25, 2013 By Kuyperian In Culture, Family and Children Like

As Temperatures Drop, We’re Getting Warmer

by Marc Hays

Fireplace by Clay Chapman

Three years ago, while building our house, we installed both a chimney and an electric heat pump. The heat pump was for present use. The chimney was for the future, standing cold and dormant while the heat pump did its work. For all the benefits that it does have, there is something missing from the heat pump experience; something crucial, like heat. Although a heat pump keeps the pipes from freezing, one cannot stand over the grate and actually get warm. Instead, there’s a draft– a mildly lukewarm breeze that actually sends chills down my spine just thinking about it.

Last winter, due to rising energy prices coupled with the desire to complete one of my several unfinished projects, I built a brick hearth and installed a Buck stove. My wife was very happy to see the electric bill drop, as expected. I was happy to check one thing off my chore list, as expected. The wood was happy to burn and the smoke happy to rise, but then something unexpected happened. The living room got warm. I mean, I knew it would get warm. Fire tends to do that sort of thing, but the room actually became a place where you wanted to be. The room became cozy.

Like moths to a flame, the children began to congregate around the wood stove. Puzzles, board games, books, Legos and baby dolls made their way out of the nether regions of the house and assembled in the living room. Since there’s no TV in that room, the children did things with one another, and unlike the lukewarm air that used to be forced into the rooms, the children were not. They gathered and played quite naturally.

Fireplace by Clay Chapman

Now on Saturdays we drive the crew cab into the woods, fell the trees, and cut them into pint-size pieces. My pint-size people load them into the truck and then unload them behind the house. As a family, we are together more, and more importantly, we are working together more.

As idyllic as all this sounds, however, we are not the perfect family. We bring our sin into the living room with us, and quarrels are kindled more often than the fire. We have miles and miles left to go before we reach our destination, but by the grace of God through an old Buck stove, we’re getting warmer.

Check out more of Clay Chapman’s work at periodarchitecture.com

<>site

On October 22, 2013 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

Uri Brito: The Myths of the Reformation

Over at my blog I began a short series on Reformation myths. Surely there are more, but I chose four. These are short readings. Take a look.<> продвижение а в 10 yandex

On October 19, 2013 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

Marc Hays: Your Weekly Dose of Rosenstock

I hope the owners of the copyright for Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy’s Out of Revolution don’t mind these regular quotes. If they do, I’ll send them the royalties. Maybe if some you go and buy the book, they’ll consider this an effective advertising campaign and send me a check. Hint, hint.

I’ve had the opportunity to read for several hours today, and I continue to be “blown away” by the narrative of Western Civilization’s Autobiography as told by Rosenstock-Huessy. I’m still working my way through the portion on Lenin and the 1st and 2nd Russian Revolutions. Here’s a gem from today’s reading:

“The materialistic outlook of the Marxists was much truer than they imagined. According to their own theory, changes in economic conditions create new thoughts in men; but in spite of this fact, most of the Russians believed in 1917 that the dream of a world revolution could be realized after a World War. They habitually overlooked the fact that the War itself had created new economic conditions unknown to Marx. The soldiers of the Great War, in their humble and unconscious role as soldiers, made the real revolution. Like Hamlet, they could say to any Marxian dogmatist, “our withers are unwrung.”

When the French bourgeoisie began to take the first steps toward revolt, about 1750, its leaders had in mind specific economic conditions and abuses which were recurrent for the next forty years. The Great War, on the other hand, made a complete change in the economic conditions of the world. Not until the depression of 1929 was the change taken seriously. Prophets, Cassandras, demagogues, had foretold it; but the overwhelming majority of governments and parties had tried to return to the conditions of 1914. These conditions were progress, bigger and better conditions of living, an upward trend for everything, a cheering up from year to year. In so far, the Communists in the Kremlin shared the illusions of the people who held the World Fair of a Century of Progress in Chicago as late as 1933. For had not Socialism and Marxism been born under pre-War conditions? According to the Marxian creed itself, how could a theory be workable after a change in its material government? It was a triumph of Marxism over the Marxists when the Great War, a real and substantial material fact, proved to be of more importance than any volition on the part of parties or individuals. The World War was a World Revolution: it ended Marxism as it ended liberalism.”

You’ll find the book for sale here.<>поиск ключевых слов

On October 19, 2013 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

Marc Hays: Paul Johnson on Karl Marx

In his 1988 book, Intellectuals, Paul Johnson analyzes, scrutinizes, and then shreds some of the most pivotal thinkers in modern history. In the opening essay he reveals his overall plan to the reader:

One of the most marked characteristics of the new secular intellectuals was the relish with which they subjected religion and its protagonists to critical scrutiny. How far had they benefited or harmed humanity, these great systems of faith? To what extent had these popes and pastors lived up to their precepts, of purity and truthfulness, of charity and benevolence? The verdicts pronounced on both churches and clergy were harsh. Now, after two centuries during which the influence of religion has continued to decline, and secular intellectuals have played an ever-growing role in shaping our attitudes and institutions, it is time to examine their record, both public and personal. In particular, I want to focus on the moral and judgmental credentials of intellectuals to tell mankind how to conduct itself. How did they run their own lives? With what degree of rectitude did they behave to family, friends and associates? Were they just in their sexual and financial dealings? Did they tell, and write, the truth? And how have their own systems stood up to the test of time and praxis?

In other words, this is one table of contents that you do not want to see your name in. There are 13 chapters covering the likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Henrik Ibsen, Leo Tolstoy, Ernest Hemingway, Bertrand Russell, and Jean-Paul Sartre. Each chapter is an essay about 30 pages long. The chapters cohere under the subject heading, but they also stand on their own as individual academic essays. This makes the book a good one to keep handy, in case you find yourself in need of a good, short read.

Tutoring an economics course to my 9th grade Classical Conversations students, I’ve found myself enamored with the study of Karl Marx. As I introduce the students to the virtues of the Austrian, Monetarist system, I also paint them a contrasting picture of communism: a dark picture where Marxism, in the words of John Dos Passos, “not only failed to promote human freedom, it failed to produce food.” Johnson’s brief study of Marx is, in fact, the reason that I picked up Intellectuals in the first place.

Here’s an example of Johnson’s critique from the chapter, “Karl Marx: Howling Gigantic Curses,”

What Marx could not or would not grasp, because he made no effort to understand how industry worked, was that from the very dawn of the Industrial Revolution, 1760-90, the most efficient manufacturers, who had ample access to capital, habitually favored better conditions for their workforce; they tended to support factory legislation and, what was equally important, its effective enforcement, because it eliminated what they regarded as unfair competition. So conditions improved, the workers failed to rise, as Marx predicted they would. The prophet was thus confounded. What emerges from a reading of Capital is Marx’s fundamental failure to understand capitalism. He failed precisely because he was unscientific: he would not investigate the facts himself, or use objectively the facts investigated by others. From start to finish, not just Capital but all his work reflects a disregard for truth which at times amounts to contempt. This is the primary reason why Marxism, as a system, cannot produce the results claimed for it; and to call it ‘scientific’ is preposterous.

He concludes the chapter by examining the personal aspects of Marx’s character that shaped his ‘poetic vision’: “his taste for violence, his appetite for power, his inability to handle money, and, above all, his tendency to exploit those around him.”

If you find yourself studying, or think you might one day study, any of the men or women listed in the table of contents of Intellectuals, you would do well to add this volume to your library.

You can buy it on Amazon here.

<>site

On October 17, 2013 By Kuyperian In Worship Like

Good things badly

Guest Post by Benjamin Miller

I don’t usually write about personal pet peeves, but recently one of mine got triggered, and I’m inspired to write about it, so . . . there.

I’m from the neck of the ecclesiastical woods known as “conservative” and “Reformed.” We’re known for small churches that keep to the old paths. I love the old paths; I can’t say I’m crazy about the smallness – I certainly don’t regard it as a virtue – but it depends on why we’re small. Which brings me to my pet peeve.

I hear all the time from leaders of small churches that are struggling in various ways: “Well, we don’t need to concern ourselves with results or numbers; we just need to be faithful doing what God has told us to do, and leave the outcomes to Him.”

This sounds really good. It has a nice pure ring to it. Do your duty. Be faithful at it. Let God be God. I’m down with all of that.

But one thing I almost never hear in conjunction with this is the possibility – just the possibility, mind you – that we’re doing all the right stuff, but doing it really badly. We’re preaching the Word every Sunday. That’s a good thing, but what if our preaching is just plain boring? We’re maintaining tried-and-true traditions in worship, but what if our liturgy is desultory or plodding? What if the whole atmosphere of our worship is stale, yea, even funereal? We’re not out there “peddling” the gospel with gimmicks and glamor, but what if our outreach (and our inreach, for that matter) is dull, unimaginative, uninspired, and pretty darn pessimistic (not that we expect bad things to happen; we just don’t expect much of anything to happen)? We’re Christ-centered, but what if we talk about Christ in a way that leaves Him apparently disconnected not only from the everyday life of the guy who walks in off the street, but even from the lives of most of the people nodding (take it as you will) in the pew?

I’ve sat through “faithful” Reformed sermons that were simply horrible; you didn’t have to be a communications major to figure it out. I’ve listened to sermons full of true sayings about God and the gospel that were so badly constructed, so hard to follow, so freighted with in-house jargon, so gloomy, so emotionally manipulative, so interminable, and/ or so out of touch with the real world, that all I wanted was to go stretch my legs – and I’m a pastor, for crying out loud. I’m supposed to like sermons.

Don’t even get me started on the stuff that happens before and after the sermon. I’ve been trotted at breakneck pace through liturgies without a moment to get my emotional bearings. I’ve puzzled my way through liturgies without any discernible theme or logical order. I’ve sat through good liturgies led by people who, to all appearances, couldn’t wait for it to be over. I’ve heard prayers that droned on for twenty minutes, followed by sharp admonitions about failure to stay focused. I’ve been subjected to song selections and congregational singing that would soothe the dead. It’s all “faithful.” It’s all doing our duty. It’s all – in principle – good stuff. And I think we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

Then there’s the whole outward face of the church. We small conservative Reformed folk aren’t known for caring about reaching the lost – if God wants them to come, they’ll come; and if He’s really working in their hearts, they’ll love bad sermons and boring worship as much as we do. (I exaggerate mildly for effect.) Amazingly, this is sometimes true. People do come to worship, and they do sometimes stay. I wonder, though: Why are we so bad at taking the gospel out to where everyday life happens? Why doesn’t our message seem to “connect” outside the walls of the church? Why don’t we work harder at meeting people where they actually live, talking about questions they’re actually asking, using media to which they can actually relate? Why do we think preaching the Word and administering the sacraments inside the four walls of the church is where all the action is, and fail to develop anything approximating excellence in taking the Word out into the world? What’s with all these drab, outdated websites (if we have them at all); church leaders who are social media illiterate; and “outreach” events that consist of handing out church postcards door to door? Are we trying to be ineffective? Worse, are we self-satisfied because, after all, we’re doing our duty behind closed doors every Sunday? Really?

There’s no excuse for doing good things badly. There’s no excuse for poor preaching, deadness in worship, or outreach literature that looks like it was printed twenty years ago. “At Iconium,” writes Luke, the apostles “spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed” (Acts 14:1). This isn’t a denial of God’s sovereignty; it’s a simple statement of human responsibility. Preach like Jesus really is the Logos and communication matters. Worship in a way that’s well thought-out, engaging, lively, and participatory. Act like you expect the gospel to do something, in worship and outside the walls of the church. Cultivate good ideas, stuff that will grab people’s attention. Tell great stories that lead naturally to the Great Story. Be creative: think about how to relate the gospel to the real lives of real people out in the real world who have never heard the term “effectual calling.” Speak in such a way, inside and outside the church, that people believe. Who knows? Maybe God will start to fill our small churches, and not only we but also thousands of others will have great cause to glorify His name.

Ben Miller is the organizing pastor of Trinity Church in Huntington, New York. he blogs at Relocating To Elfland.<>seo услуги продвижение ов в yandex

On October 12, 2013 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Faithful In Facial Follicles

by Marc Hays

That’s me. I’ve had a mustache and goatee for about 13 years–nonstop facial follicles. There has never been an urge to shave them because I didn’t grow them by accident. They are not merely the result of not shaving. They are a result of a principled not-shaving.

Prior to my present state of faithful, facial follicility, I was fickle. I tried on a mustache to look older and to look more “cowboyish.” The Justins, the Wranglers, and the Stetson only displayed my desire to look more cowboyish, which was not the intended effect. The accompanying mustache only made me look like I wanted to look older. It didn’t actually accomplish that either. So, I got rid of the whole look.

A few years later, the decision to grow my mustache and goatee was different. I’m not sure where I heard it, maybe Douglas Wilson, but I remember hearing someone talk about the fact that facial hair was distinctively male. Beards are distinctively male, and this is probably not news to anyone. For a man to have a beard is entirely natural, and at one level, intrinsically laudable. By that I mean that no number of effeminate, beard-donning men can change the nature of a beard from that which is masculine into something else; it will forever be a badge of the sex of the one who wears it.

However, a woman with a beard would more than likely be seeking laser hair removal. It would in no way be a badge of her femininity and would instead be source of embarrassment. So far, no amount of egalitarianism has managed to convince Madison Avenue to market Rogaine specially designed for a woman’s chin; although the day it happens, I will not be surprised. An anti-beard advocate once told me that he thought that beards made a man look feminine, and I’m still trying to figure that one out. Needless to say, he did not convince me, and I have been in the state of facially-follicled felicity ever since.

As an aside, one might ask me, “Why just the goatee? Why not the full meal deal?” Well, the Apostle Paul says that in whatever state a man finds himself, he should be content. I have zero sideburns and the cheeks are in need of some major, facial, follicle fertilizer. I’ve grown it all out before and I looked like a teenaged, Mennonite boy attempting to grow a beard and not quite yet accomplishing it. I keep it at the goatee level so that I can say I have accomplished my task rather than forever be trying to get it done. (Those of you fellas that are in that “teenaged Mennonite boy” stage but are still just letting it grow, I applaud you.)

One more thought concerning the masculine aspect of beardedness. In the face of some terribly immature behavior by some heavily-bearded men, a wise woman–a paragon of femininity, once said, “The man makes the beard. The beard does not make the man.” G. K. Chesterton could not have said it better, which means it could not have been said better.

So, as we bearded ones look in the mirror, or scratch our chins, or wipe the soup out of it when our wives give us the subtle clue, may we forever remember that we have been called to be men, which means far more than allowing the pores on our faces to do what comes by them naturally. We are called to be like the Son of Man, who was the only one to ever live up to his beard, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

<>биржа текстов