Some years ago Edition Olms in Switzerland reprinted Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch's Chess Magazine from the 1920's as a single volume. Tarrasch's Schachzeitung is a pleasure to read, as Dr. Tarrasch writes with a charming sense of humor.You may observe, dear reader, a link on the right hand side of this page to a certain blog, Corrigenda Denuo, by Jeffery Meyers. Those who know me well may be a tad surprised at this because of our theological differences regarding the Federal Vision. Why the link, why this post?
I have never met nor corresponded with Rev. Meyers. I am sure he is a fine fellow, well-liked and well respected by his friends and colleagues. He has served his presbytery as moderator, so he is clearly considered capable and level-headed by his peers. My purpose is not to criticize him or to engage him in any controversy. I merely want to describe my perplexity that two men who have so much in common can have such different ideas. (Lane Keister has interacted with Rev. Meyers at his blog with more wisdom and prudence than I could muster.)
I am perplexed because we do have so much in common. We both love photography and listen to the same photography podcasts. We're both Mac-heads. Apparently he reads German, I wonder if he likes German poetry as much as I do? We read the same books, and not just theological books-- apparently we both read the same science fiction! Of course we are both officers in conservative Presbyterian denominations, Rev. Meyers in the PCA, me in the OPC. It would seem that we think alike in many ways.
Yet the Federal Vision issue shows that we think quite differently in other ways. He is for it, am against it. The relationship between ecclesiology and soteriology, the efficacy of the sacraments, views on the liturgy, are serious differences. I would argue that he is not conforming to the Westminster Standards. Rev. Meyers might say that I am misunderstanding him, the Standards, or both. Why the differences? Is it our background and outlook? No, I think it's clear our background and outlook is similar. (Both of our General Assemblies have addressed the question of the Federal Vision guys and the Standards PCA OPC.)
It has been said that we magnify the differences of those most like us. Perhaps it's because of our common investment in Reformed theology, and our hopes for the success of conservative Presbyterianism, we feel the differences most acutely. We both don't want the other to eat our lunch. Or to speak more precisely, we see the other undercutting the strengths of our movement. We would disagree as to what those strengths are, I would suspect.
I wish I had an answer. Alas, I don't. All we can do is hope for the Holy Spirit to illumine our minds from the Bible and lead us into all truth. I'm sure a little humility will go a long way in this regard.
Rev. Meyers is a great photographer, with a great eye for color and composition. The gift of seeing the final picture through the viewfinder is a precious thing. From time to time he mentions his Nikon gear, but that's superfluous. He would be a great photographer with a Brownie. To make a joke: if the ministry doesn't work out, Rev. Meyers has a great second career ahead of him.
Liz's Rose of Sharon plants are blooming, and I had hoped to get a photo of one of the blooms. However, the light was not right and I started picking up the camera and tripod to go inside.
I really like this photo of the train in Strathroy, Ontario. I've driven through this crossing many times, but I've only seen the train occasionally. One day this Spring, on my way to pick up a friend who lives near the tracks, I heard the the train. At just the right moment I managed to jump out of the car and click the shutter.There is nothing in the basic principles of liberalism to make it a stationary creed; there are no hard-and-fast rules fixed once and for all. The fundamental principle that in the ordering of our affairs we should make as much use as possible of the spontaneous forces of society, and resort as little as possible to coercion, is capable of an infinite variety of applications. There is, in particular, all the difference between deliberately creating a system within which competition will work as beneficially as possible and passively accepting institutions as they are. Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rough rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez faire. Yet, in a sense, this was necessary and unavoidable. Against the innumerable interests which could show that particular measures would confer immediate and obvious benefits on some, while the harm they caused was much more indirect and difficult to see, nothing short of some hard-and-fast rule would have been effective. And since a strong presumption in favor of industrial liberty had undoubtedly been established, the temptation to present it as a rule which knew no exceptions was too strong always to be resisted.
But, with this attitude taken by many popularizers of the liberal doctrine, it was almost inevitable that, once their position was penetrated at some points, it should soon collapse as a whole. (…)
But while the progress toward what is commonly called "positive" action was necessarily slow, and while for the immediate improvement liberalism had to rely largely on the gradual increase of wealth which freedom brought about, it had constantly to fight proposals which threatened this progress. It came to be regarded as a "negative" creed because it could offer to particular individuals little more than a share in the common progress -- a progress which came to be taken more and more for granted and was no longer recognized as the result of the policy of freedom. It might even be said that the very success of liberalism became the cause of its decline. Because of the success already achieved, man became increasingly unwilling to tolerate the evils still with him which now appeared both unbearable and unnecessary."
