By this point, England was crucial to the future of the Reformation. The Reformation had broken out on the Continent, but the political pressures on the Reformed churches there made things difficult. England joined the Reformation late, but the country’s involvement in the movement during the reign of Elizabeth was vital. Whoever the titular head of England would be if the Armada surrendered, he or she would not be a Protestant.

This sentence appears on pages 131-132 of 5 Cities that Ruled the World in a section about London. It springs out of nowhere and has no connection to anything preceding it. The Spanish Armada has not been mentioned up to this point, and to be honest, very little had been said about the Tudors and what had been said was hopelessly incomplete. And now, there is a sudden introduction of the Armada.

I had to read this paragraph several times before I actually read it. Read that last sentence carefully. The author writes: …if the Armada surrendered…

Are you kidding me? How did that get past the editors? The Spanish Armada was soundly defeated in 1588!

First of all, the author should have really read through his notes and realized that he was mentioning the Armada out of thin air, and probably reorganized things to explain why he was mentioning it.

Second, the editors should have read this sentence and corrected it. It should read something like: Whoever the titular head of England would be if the Armada succeeded, he or she would not be a Protestant.

And third (while I’m at it) how incredibly Anglo-centric to assume that England was the powerful force that moved the Reformation ahead while the Continent was bogged down in politics! The only reason the English had left the Catholic Church was POLITICAL! Henry VIII wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon.

The Pope would not allow the divorce because the marriage created a strong alliance between England and the Trastamara in Spain. Catherine was the aunt of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor; and the Pope refused to let the alliance fold.

In point of fact, Charles V was probably overjoyed that Catherine was sonless since that would have given his family claim on England – to draw it into the empire. If Henry had not broken from the church, Charles’ son Philip’s marriage to Henry’s daughter Mary would have created a Catholic union of the two nations (as indeed Philip tried desperately to make happen, even after Mary’s death).

To say the English Reformation was, at its beginning, anything OTHER THAN POLITICAL is absolute balderdash!

It is true that Elizabeth I’s reign was crucial to the development of English Protestantism. The miraculous defeat of the Spanish Armada preserved Britain’s independence from the Catholic powers and, some might say, stemmed the flow of the Holy Roman Empire which had extended over most of western Europe. This set up the formalization of the English Bible under James I, which itself did more to move English Protestantism forward more than anything else.

And in Douglas Wilson’s defense, he does address these concerns; but the student of history cannot hear the things he says that are correct over the poorly constructed narrative, terrible editing, and often incorrect historical statements.

Oh Lord, please let me finish this book soon!

The big weekend is almost HERE! Our first Sunday worship service together with our sister congregation, Grace Baptist Church.

The worship service begins at 10:00am; but come early and get to know some of the awesome people from Grace!

This is going to be a family worship gathering, so we will be keeping the kids (ages 4 and up) with us. We know little ones sometimes have short attention spans and have to go to the bathroom. Families with children, choose seats that will allow you to take care of your children with minimal disruption.

Excellent, experienced child care will be provided for ages 0-3. The nursery is downstairs; and we will make sure there is someone to help you get your kids to the nursery.

There is a potluck lunch after the service. Many of you signed up to bring meals. Grace has a full kitchen and a warming unit. When you arrive, you can take your items downstairs to the kitchen and someone will help put things in the right places.

If you need directions to Grace’s facility, click here.

One of the major problems with Christians in general and pastors/missionaries in specific is the unconscious (I hope) necessity for creating alter egos. What do I mean by this?

Let’s take a Christian. A good person who loves Jesus and is faithful in their obligations as a Christian. But he/she attends a church where there are certain taboos. The message is “Christians don’t _____.” And in this case, the blank is filled with various secondary issues like drinking alcohol or listening to ’secular’ music or not wearing a shirt and tie to church.

(SIDEBAR: I have no problem with a church taking a certain position on these issues, although I do have an issue with the way many churches take the position.)

Now this Christian does not understand the nature of the taboo and in his heart does not agree with it; but to maintain respectability and to be included in the church circle, he creates an alter ego who likewise does not _____. He may even devise ways of showing that he supports this position while in his heart he does not.

Transfer this to a full-time Christian leader, for example a missionary on a foreign field. This missionary works in a culture where certain American controversies such as the three above do not exist. But when he comes home on furlough, these issues are very real. So, he takes the path of least resistance and conforms the best he can so he does not lose support or is otherwise impacted by his preferences.

I ask a lot of hard questions when I sit down with a missionary. One of the big questions I ask is, “What do you really believe?” I ask this question because I once sat across the table from a young missionary who told me he had to not talk about certain things in churches because then he would not get support. He knew that if he told pastors and churches what he really believed about one particular issue, he could not get their support; and he NEEDED their support so he was, in his words, “playing their game.”

What have we become that we force a Christian to compromise who he is, to hide thoughts that he believes God has given him, and create an alternate character to please us? That in and of itself bothers me.

But my question is this – where is he assuming the alter ego? Which person or character is the alter ego. For the missionary, is the alter ego the one here at home; or is it the one on the mission field? For the Christian, is the mask the taboo he secretly enjoys outside the church or is the mask the appearance of holiness? And can we tell the difference?

I am a big comic book fan – mostly Batman stuff – although I haven’t bought a comic book in over a decade. Most super heroes in comic books assume an alter ego as a superhero. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne’s alter ego; the Flash is Barry Allen’s alter ego. But Superman (and others who derive from him) do it the other way. Superman assumes the alter ego of Clark Kent. Superman is who he really is; and Clark Kent is the mask.

(Yes, Bill in “Kill Bill” explained this to the Bride, but every comic book geek in the world was aware of it before he explained it.)

So, for the Christian living a double standard; for the missionary being one thing on the field and another on furlough; or the pastor who does one thing in private study but preaches a different thing from the pulpit – which is the alter ego? Which is the fake you and which is the real you?

Wouldn’t you rather be the real you all the time – whether that real you is the ‘cool’ you or the ‘accepted’ you?

Back to this book again?

Yes.

I have never taken so long to read a history book. This thing is just so – awful.

Here is a portion concerning the Third Punic War:

In 149 BC Rome declared war on Carthage for the third time. Scipio was a young Roman officer who had distinguished himself in the earlier siege of Carthage…Because of his record, he was made supreme commander despite his young age and undertook a year of fierce fighting, which ended with the defeat of Carthage. At the requirement of the Senate, in 146 BC Scipio Africanus razed Carthage and sowed it with salt.

So, here are my issues with this:

• 149-146 BC does not constitute “a year of fierce fighting.” Did the editors not take basic math?
• The author makes no distinction between Scipio Aemilianus and his adopted  grandfather Scipio Africanus. This Scipio was elected consul in 147 BC so he could be named commander, which is probably what the “year of fierce fighting” implied. Would it have hurt them so much to have included that little clarification?
• While it is true that the Roman Senate ordered the razing of Carthage, Scipio did not in fact sow it with salt, despite the popular urban legend, invented in the 19th century. This is SO WELL KNOWN that even the Wikipedia article points it out.

Why, why, why do book publishers continue to publish poorly researched, badly edited pieces of junk like this? Would it really have killed them to give the manuscript to – oh, I don’t know – a HISTORY PROFESSOR to verify the statements made in this book?!?

It bothers me; really bothers me. And here’s why.

Because most people do not have my background or interest in ancient history. They read these books and nod their heads, assuming that the authors did their due diligence. And then people who are trying to TEACH these people must then UNTEACH all the garbage.

And now you know why watching the History Channel is virtually a contact sport for me.

Just a quick update for everyone so you can know what is happening.

• On November 15, the voting membership of Heritage Baptist Church approved moving forward in the merger 23-0.
• On November 17, the members of Grace Baptist Church approved the move, 24-0.

Now we move to the serious part of the merger. We have had some informal interaction of the congregations but over the next three weeks, we will have some fairly intense interaction. We will worship together on November 29, have a joint discussion of the merger on December 3, a joint Christmas party on December 5, and worship together again on December 13.

Then both congregations will vote on a motion to join together in worship and service, what we are calling a merger in principle. When this is approved by both congregations, I will be called as the pastor of Grace – effectively making me a pastor of two congregations. Heritage will then join Grace for weekly worship and all ministries. Both churches will join in signing a Unity Covenant.

Chairs in the church are wonderful things. They give us a place to set our backsides, since standing up for hours on end gets tiring.

When the chairs are all facing one direction, they force us to also face the same direction. This is good because it is easy to get distracted.

But chairs have some downsides as well. Sitting is a restful position; and sometimes it is hard to get out of sitting and go back to working.

Because we face one direction, sometimes we miss important things that happen behind or around us. Worst of all, when the chairs are turned away from the door, we do not who is coming in or not coming in. All we see is what happens in front of us.

For a church to grow together, they have to strike the balance between sitting together and working together. There are times for all of us to sit and learn, and other times when the seats should be emptied. There are times when we have to give our chairs to someone else; and other times when we need to take up a couple of chairs to rest.

How else could we use the chair as a metaphor for growing together as a body?

Currently, I am reading Douglas Wilson’s book 5 Cities that Ruled the World: How Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London and New York Shaped Global History. Eventually, I will have to do my formal review, but I did not see how I could possibly get everything I need to say about this book into one 200-word post.

Each of these posts will deal with the sections on each of these five cities and will address the topics of context, history and accuracy. Let me preface by saying that this book feels poorly researched. I do not mean that Wilson did not check his biblical references. I do mean that it appears to me that he did not consult much in the way of archaeological or historical information outside of the standard Bible college library (which, sadly, often does not contain any research more recent than the 1960’s).

The premise of the book is great – here are the five most influential cities of the Western world. The problem is that at least in the chapter on Jerusalem, the author continually makes sweeping assumptions, offers wild theories with no proof (or footnotes) and tends to adopt whatever interpretation of the Scriptures fits his theories.

Here is just one example:

In 63 BC,  these two descendants of the Hasmonean line asked Rome – in what must have seemed like a good idea at the time to arbitrate the dispute. When the Hasmoneans refused the results of the arbitration, the Roman general Pompey took advantage of the situation and easily took over…Pompey tried to rule through Hasmoneans at first, but that didn’t work too well. In 37 BC, Herod the Great came the throne.

First of all, would it have killed him to mention the ‘two descendants’ by name? Their names were Aristobulus and Hyrcanus by the way.

Second, the Hasmoneans did not refuse the arbitration. Pompey refused to give them an answer, and Aristobulus saw that as a sign that he was going to side with Hyrcanus. He entrenched himself in a fortress, but then chickened out and came running to the Roman summons, willingly handing over Jerusalem. The Jews at Jerusalem, however, refused to allow Pompey in, so he took the city by siege.

Third, Pompey placed Judea under the proconsul of Syria, who divided it into five regions. The Hasmoneans did not have a throne to rule from.

Fourth, Pompey died in 48 BC. He had nothing to do with Herod coming to the throne. Herod bought the throne, was deposed by the Scythians (in favor of Arisobulus’ son Antigonus), and then received the title “King of the Jews” by senatorial proclamation. His advocate in the Senate was none other than Marc Antony.

Needless to say, the chapter is full of these simplifications which play well in the narrative I know Wilson is building but bear only a passing resemblance to the historical record. As another example, his decision to simply consider Darius, Ahaseurus and Artaxerxes as one person would meet with considerable criticism among people who specialize in Persian history. I have studied this time period and the Bible for well over a decade now and consider myself fairly well read in the subject and I have never read such a thing.

And don’t get me started on his narrative about the House of David and the subsequent divided kingdom!

As you can probably tell, I am not particularly pleased with this book thus far. It is the kind of history book I loathe – one with a definite agenda and poor research. The combination of these two things drives me nuts because if writers would just do their diligence, they would see the absurdity of their simplifications.

This morning, we met with the family of Grace Baptist Church in Merrimack. Above is a photo of their auditorium from the platform. Of course, the church is not the space they meet in, but I am posting it because compared to our current space, it looks positively HUGE.

It was a great morning of new experiences and new friends. Ariel warmed right up to her teacher, Mrs. P. Nichole and I played with the worship band (YAH DRUMS!) and I think everyone involved was very pleased with the synergy among us.

Here was Ariel’s favorite part!

Since our current worship space has ABSOLUTELY NO exterior play area, this is a huge plus!

The expectations for the potential merger between Heritage Baptist Church and Grace Baptist Church are high on both sides.

In my experience, people often hope for the best but expect the worst. It is a self-defense mechanism built into the human brain. We want things to work out, but we often do not believe they will. Here are a couple of examples from pop culture:

HIGH HOPE, LOW EXPECTATION AND HIGH FULFILLMENT

My expectations for Batman Begins were pretty low. I hoped that the movie would be good, but my experience with the Spider-man franchise as well as the other well-known superhero movie franchises had disallusioned me. I expected the film to be sub-par, even though it was directed by Chris Nolan and had an all-star cast. When the movie turned out to be awesome, I was very pleased. I saw it three times in the theater.

HIGH HOPE, HIGH EXPECTATIONS, BUT LOW FULFILLMENT

In another situation, my expectations for Hulk (the Ang Lee directed failure from 2003) were very high. I wanted it to be fantastic. In reality, it was pretty terrible. In fact, it was probably the worst big budget superhero movie ever made.  Because my expectations were so high, I felt frustrated and even a little annoyed by the film.

HIGH HOPE, HIGH EXPECTATION AND HIGH FULFILLMENT

Here’s another situation: The Lord of the Rings trilogy, particularly Fellowship of the Ring. My expectations were very high for this franchise. I wanted the films to be incredible, and they were.

LOW HOPE, LOW EXPECTATION, BUT HIGH FULFILLMENT

Then, every once in awhile there is a film that you really don’t think will be any good and have no expectations of and it turns out to be excellent. I’ve had this happen to me a lot. Most recently, it was the TV show “Super Hero Squad” but probably the best example of this for me was 17 Again. This film had multiple strikes against it, not the least of which was that it starred Zach Ephron – of High School Musicial trilogy fame. But when I watched the film, it was funny and well-made.

My point is that we have to strike a balance whenever we come to something like the proposed merger. If we get our expectations too high, we can only fail. We need to set realistic expectations. If you are talking about Peter Jackson, the crew and cast of Lord of the Rings, then your expectations should be epic. If you are talking Zach Ephron then your expectations should be minimal.

We want to strike the balance. We do expect God to do something awesome and we hope that this is what will happen. But we cannot expect this merger to fix all of our problems or answer all of our questions. Those expectations are too high and no matter how successful the merged congregation is, you are bound to disappointed.

Here are some realistic expectations:

1. God will unite us in the transition as long as his glory is our central theme (and our glory, position or territory is not)
2. Leaders and volunteers from both congregations will work together and develop plans that will strengthen ministry all around.
3. There will be some confusion and frustration during the transition.
4. The transition will be months of hard work and hard conversations.
5. All of us will have to change and compromise somewhat.

Some realistic expectations for us. I am sure you can think of more.

This is the Fairchild A-10 “Warthog.” Designed in 1972, it remains in service with the United States Air Force. It has one job, and one job only – to utterly destroy anything threatening United States forces on the battlefield.

The Warthog is a battlefield ordinance delivery system. It can loiter over the battlefield for hours over the battlefield. The ailerons (the part that makes a plane roll) are situated at the tips of the wings, allowing the Hog to make tight rolls and turns, giving it unbelievable close combat maneuverability.

At the nose of the Warthog is a massive 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling gun. It can unleash depleted-uranium rounds at 3,900 rounds per minute (that’s 65 rounds per second!). It has enough hard point mounts on the wings to carry enough ordinance to destroy pretty much anything it encounters on a modern battlefield.

The pilot sits inside a 900 lb titanium bathtub which is resistant to rounds in excess of 25mm and has shown to be resistant to some rounds in excess of 57mm. The cockpit glass is constructed of diffusion-bonded stretched-acrylic which is bulletproof and can resist 20mm cannon fire.

It mounts two GE TF34-GE-100 Turbofan engines. Each engine produces over 9,000 lbf static thrust. This does not mean much to most of us, so let me translate that. It means the Warthog can operate at standard tolerances with one engine completely blown off.

If you haven’t noticed already, I am a geek when it comes to the Warthog. I LOVE THIS BIRD!

So, what does the Warthog have to do with the Church and merging two congregations? It lies in this fact.

The Warthog is tough, but what makes it REALLY TOUGH is that every system in it is designed with a redundant system right behind it. Some systems even have triple redundancy. You can fly the Hog with one wing, one stabilizer, one engine and half the fuselage blown away. It is one tough bird.

During the first Battle of Baghdad in 2003, then-Captain Kim Campbell was flying ground support missions when her A-10 received extensive damage from ground flack. Damage was significant enough to shut down the hydraulic system that controls her rudder.

Any other aircraft would have been downed and Captain Campbell would have found herself a guest of the Iraqi military. But not the Hog.

Capt. Campbell switched to manual reversion mode, turned the aircraft around and calmly flew the hour back to base.

People have asked whether it is a bad thing that after Grace and Heritage merge, we will have multiple people capable of handling the same tasks. The answer is a resounding and definitive NO!

Redundancy is absolutely essential to survival as a church. When you only have one group of people who can accomplish a task, if something happens to those people, you are in a ‘dead stick’ situation. You’re going in and there is nothing you can do about it.

It is awesome that Grace has musicians, and teachers, and preachers. It is awesome that Heritage has the same. Bringing the congregations together requires that we design our style of ministry around redundancy. We welcome it and we learn to operate with it in place.

Even the diversity of the redundancy is awesome. When Capt. Campbell switched to manual reversion mode, she switched to an entirely different way of handling the aircraft. Neither system was right or wrong, better or worse – they were just different. And the manual reversion system was intentionally discrete from the hydraulic system so it WOULD be different and still accomplish the same goal.