I am watching the Super Bowl as I type this, with the mute button on so that I don't have to listen to the commercials. Alas, the team I am pulling hard for is behind, 17-7, on a freak play that caused a 14 point swing. But the commercials, they are another matter.
In one, a young stubblechinned guy munches on a chip, and presto! a slinky young lady walking down the street is stripped to her black underwear. Then, presto! bills start shooting out of an ATM machine, and everybody in the street swarms around for the money, in a regular riot. A policeman steps in, but munch! his uniform falls empty to the street, and a little monkey emerges from it. So, lust -- with the added zest of violent voyeurism --, avarice, and dehumanization, to sell chips.
Another commercial has a dumb office worker with a glass snow globe, which he calls his crystal ball. He predicts there will be free chips or soda or something in the office today, and throws the ball through the glass of the vending machine, whereupon his fellow workers raid it like ravenous morons. His friend, apparently even stupider than he, uses the globe to try to predict a promotion for himself, and throws it just as a door opens and the boss steps out -- to be struck square in the crotch. The old man doubles over. The initial globe-thrower smirks and says that his pal won't be getting that promotion. Stupidity, glouttony, cruelty, and spite, to sell chips.
In another, a plain-looking female office worker is subjected to public humiliation. "No one wants to see you naked," says her enemy, another female worker. The last shot is of a badly shaved doofus (all men are badly shaved doofuses), standing over her, saying, "I want to see you naked."
In yet another, we see a series of stupid men battered by various objects -- one of them, for instance, is riding atop some vehicle and bashes his head against a low overpass. Very funny. And then there's the stallion who sees Daisy the circus mare, breaks out of his pen that night, and barrels right into the performance; at which Daisy rears up and tosses, upside down, buttocks up, a fat lady in silk panties, while a fat clown and a fat ringmaster look on in astonishment. Fat people are, of course, contemptible.
The promos for films are all of them tissues of computer-enhanced violence, bodies flying, buildings blowing up in slow motion, things such as a disturbed fifteen year old boy would enjoy, in normal times, but apparently are enjoyed by everybody now. One of the films is a piece of savage and stupid bigotry, attacking that locus of violence and evil in the world, the Vatican. But not to worry: NBC did nix a pro-life ad bought by a conservative Catholic organization.
So I am watching the Super Bowl. I am not sure why I am doing this. That is, I am not sure why Christians continue to put up with the abuse. We aren't married to the mass media, are we? It is not time for us to walk out on an exhausted fascination with self-loathing and animality; not time for us to turn our backs upon the anticulture. It was time years ago.
What, after all, do the haters of Christianity, who are also the haters of simple human decency, have to do to persuade us that we are not welcome in their midst? Do they have to go so far as to teach elementary children about sodomy? If only we were not so comfortable where we are, pretending to evangelize anticultural entities that now exist only to degrade. Some years ago, an evangelical group called for a mass Exodus by Christians from public schools. But we do get used to the taste of leeks and onions. Egypt is darned rich, and the desert is long and empty and dry.
We went to the home of the assistant pastor at our new church. Like Cheri and I, he and his wife grew up in Missouri. Unlike him, I grew up rooting for the hapless St. Louis Cardinals. It's the first time I have rooted for them in a game since the day they bolted St. Louis for Phoenix. As the game drew to an all too familiar close for a Cardinal fan (they were known as the Big Red in St. Louis to distinguish them from the real St. Louis Cardinals, the ones who win championships, but we used to call them the Big Dead), it all felt too familiar.
As to the ads, my daughter Lauren passed through the room during one of them and said, "I think that's inappropriate." We weren't paying close attention to the ads, but our host changed channels immediately. The rest of the night, he kept the clicker at ready to change the channel with necessary -- and it was necessary often.
Posted by: GL | February 02, 2009 at 02:40 AM
Mr. Esolen's comments on the crude and carnal commercials that played during the Super Bowl are indeed disturbing. They are one good reason why professing Christians should reconsider their viewing of the Super Bowl event and their participation in Super Bowl parties/gatherings. But an even more compelling reason why professing Christians should ignore the Super Bowl is the simple fact that the game always takes place on Sunday - the Lord's Day, the day of Christ's glorious resurrection. As one of those rare Christians who believes that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, I believe that Christians should not be attending, viewing, or in any other way supporting sporting events on the Lord's Day. Sunday is meant to be a joyous and festive day for rest, Divine worship, and Christian fellowship, a foretaste of the eternal rest awaiting true believers in the new heavens and the new earth, and as such the day should be focused as much as possible on God, not the game. But, alas, for many it seems that the ball game has become the modern Baal. I long for the day when professing Christians turn from this modern worship of the ball-game Baal and rediscover the joy of keeping the Lord's Day as the Lord's DAY (not merely the Lord's "hour").
Posted by: Geoff | February 02, 2009 at 03:35 AM
>>>But an even more compelling reason why professing Christians should ignore the Super Bowl is the simple fact that the game always takes place on Sunday - the Lord's Day, the day of Christ's glorious resurrection. <<<
By that standard, I am a very good Christian indeed, having never watched a Superbowl, and having no interest in football whatsoever.
>>>As one of those rare Christians who believes that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, I believe that Christians should not be attending, viewing, or in any other way supporting sporting events on the Lord's Day. <<<
Liturgically and theologically, Saturday, the Seventh Day, remains the Sabbath, the Day of Rest, the Day of Completion of the Old Creation. Sunday is the Eighth Day that stands out from time, and the First Day of the New Creation. This theology is very old, and if customarily unknown or ignored, doesn't eliminate its validity.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 02, 2009 at 05:44 AM
>>>As to the ads, my daughter Lauren passed through the room during one of them and said, "I think that's inappropriate."<<<
Or, as my daughters like to say, "Inappro, Dad, inappro".
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 02, 2009 at 05:45 AM
>As one of those rare Christians who believes that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, I believe that Christians should not be attending, viewing, or in any other way supporting sporting events on the Lord's Day.
A good point to consider We don't have too many Eric Liddell's among us. I think reasonable people can disagree on how to observe the Sabbath but most don't give it a moment's thought I'm afraid.
Posted by: David Gray | February 02, 2009 at 06:21 AM
"Liturgically and theologically, Saturday, the Seventh Day, remains the Sabbath, the Day of Rest, the Day of Completion of the Old Creation. Sunday is the Eighth Day that stands out from time, and the First Day of the New Creation. This theology is very old, and if customarily unknown or ignored, doesn't eliminate its validity."
Biblically the Sabbath is a creation ordinance (Gen. 2:3), and as such the principle of a set time (specifically one day in seven) being set apart for rest and worship is a moral law, not a mere ceremonial ordinance. That the sabbath command is a moral law universally binding upon all mankind, and not merely a ceremonial ordinance for Israel only, is also proven by its inclusion in the Decalogue, which was written by the very finger of God on tablets of stone (indicating permanence), and which is a summary of God's moral will for all mankind. As the Lord Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man (not "for Israel" - GLW), and not man for the Sabbath." (Mk. 2:27, NKJV) However, the specific day to be observed as a sabbath rest is positive command that can be changed by Divine authority. In OT times the Sabbath was Saturday. After Christ's resurrection and the bringing in of the new creation, the Sabbath was transferred to the first day of the week, and distinguished from the Jewish Sabbath by the designation "the Lord's Day." The practice in the apostolic church of believers gathering "on the first day of the week" (i.e., Sunday) for worship (as seen in the Book of Acts) attests to this change.
I believe the Westminster Confession of Faith (in ch. 21.7) summarizes well the biblical position: "As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian sabbath."
Regards,
Rev. Geoff W.
Posted by: Geoff | February 02, 2009 at 06:45 AM
"Liturgically and theologically, Saturday, the Seventh Day, remains the Sabbath, the Day of Rest, the Day of Completion of the Old Creation. Sunday is the Eighth Day that stands out from time, and the First Day of the New Creation. This theology is very old, and if customarily unknown or ignored, doesn't eliminate its validity."
Biblically the Sabbath is a creation ordinance (Gen. 2:3), and as such the principle of a set time (specifically one day in seven) being set apart for rest and worship is a moral law, not a mere ceremonial ordinance. That the sabbath command is a moral law universally binding upon all mankind, and not merely a ceremonial ordinance for Israel only, is also proven by its inclusion in the Decalogue, which was written by the very finger of God on tablets of stone (indicating permanence), and which is a summary of God's moral will for all mankind. As the Lord Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man (not "for Israel" - GLW), and not man for the Sabbath." (Mk. 2:27, NKJV) However, the specific day to be observed as a sabbath rest is positive command that can be changed by Divine authority. In OT times the Sabbath was Saturday. After Christ's resurrection and the bringing in of the new creation, the Sabbath was transferred to the first day of the week, and distinguished from the Jewish Sabbath by the designation "the Lord's Day." The practice in the apostolic church of believers gathering "on the first day of the week" (i.e., Sunday) for worship (as seen in the Book of Acts) attests to this change.
I believe the Westminster Confession of Faith (in ch. 21.7) summarizes well the biblical position: "As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian sabbath."
Regards,
Rev. Geoff W.
Posted by: Geoff | February 02, 2009 at 06:46 AM
With regards to Reverend Geoff, and Westminster Confession notwithstanding, within the Eastern Churches Saturday has always been regarded as the Sabbath, with a host of patristic writers including John Chrysostom supporting this position. Sunday gradually supplanted Saturday as a day of rest because the Emperor Constantine decreed it so (thereby allowing for the extensive liturgical observances of the time), but the lectionary of the Byzantine Churches as well as it weekly liturgical cycle recognize Saturday as the Sabbath Day, and Sunday as the Lord's Day, the Eucharistic Day, the weekly Pascha, and the Eighth and First Day.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 02, 2009 at 07:29 AM
>>>A good point to consider We don't have too many Eric Liddell's among us. <<<
Well, there was Hank Greenberg of Detroit Tigers fame, who refused to play on Saturdays. Sandy Koufax, if I remember correctly, also refused to play a World Series game that happen to fall on one of the High Holy Days.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 02, 2009 at 07:32 AM
>Well, there was Hank Greenberg of Detroit Tigers fame, who refused to play on Saturdays. Sandy Koufax, if I remember correctly, also refused to play a World Series game that happen to fall on one of the High Holy Days.
Good examples but Greenberg was in the 30s and 40s and Koufax's example is still 43 years ago.
Posted by: David Gray | February 02, 2009 at 07:44 AM
I appreciate the concern for observation of the Lord's Day. My priest has on quite a few occasions addressed this issue 'from the pulpit,' advising us to set aside the day for spiritual and/or family time, and to participate in commerce and pop culture as little as possible.
Even so, I think Tony's concerns would be just as valid were the Super Bowl held on Monday instead of Sunday. The fact that it occurs on the latter simply makes those nasty things worse.
Posted by: Rob G | February 02, 2009 at 08:08 AM
With regards to Reverend Geoff, and Westminster Confession notwithstanding, within the Eastern Churches Saturday has always been regarded as the Sabbath, with a host of patristic writers including John Chrysostom supporting this position. Sunday gradually supplanted Saturday as a day of rest because the Emperor Constantine decreed it so (thereby allowing for the extensive liturgical observances of the time), but the lectionary of the Byzantine Churches as well as it weekly liturgical cycle recognize Saturday as the Sabbath Day, and Sunday as the Lord's Day, the Eucharistic Day, the weekly Pascha, and the Eighth and First Day.
It's starting to irritate me how consistently right the Orthodox seem to be on theological issues.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | February 02, 2009 at 08:25 AM
>>>Good examples but Greenberg was in the 30s and 40s and Koufax's example is still 43 years ago.<<<
Hmm. We are getting on. My Uncle George played ball with Koufax at Lafayette High School in Brooklyn.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 02, 2009 at 08:40 AM
The near occasion for the posting was the Super Bowl, but those ads, from what little television I see, are fairly representative of what would be shown at many other times of the day. In general, the ads for the cooking and crafts shows my wife watches are less crude, but obnoxious in other ways (for instance, in the constant stoking of fear of sickness and death).
Now I wish that the occasion hadn't been the Super Bowl, because I don't want to be mistaken about this. It seems to me that humiliation, contempt, cruelty, and a kind of harsh, hate-filled lust are at the core of what is now called "funny." It is not bawdy, either, because there is not the slightest trace of merriment in it. It is Aristophanes at his most grim, mingled with Christopher Marlowe at his most nihilistic, without the genius of either, to sell chips and soda.
On playing on Sunday: many people wouldn't do it back in the 1910's. Christy Mathewson wouldn't -- he was probably the most prominent star who refused. But then, too, MLB would not schedule a lot of games on Sunday, either. I think I remember reading that the Giants when they were at home had no games on Sunday. There were, in those days, plenty of doubleheaders written into the schedule, and all the games were played during the daytime.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | February 02, 2009 at 08:44 AM
Wonders - I don't think that characteristic is restricted to the Orthodox. Have you spent any time on some of the uber-Reformed blogs lately? :)
Posted by: Bill M | February 02, 2009 at 09:13 AM
Oh, the uber-Reformed folks think they are right with supreme confidence - no question about that. I was speaking of myself being gradually convinced that they actually are more often than I would like. It's irritating, because I hate to think of Stuart as being right.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | February 02, 2009 at 09:30 AM
Rev. W,; Hebrews 4.
As to our welcome in America, apparently there is now a bill for creating civilian detention camps. This from the party that most strenuously decried that same party's creation of civilian detention camps in WWII.
Who do you suppose the new camps are for?
Posted by: labrialumn | February 02, 2009 at 09:32 AM
Oops...sorry about repeating one of my posts.
"Rev. W,; Hebrews 4."
Hebrews 4:9 - "There remains therefore a rest for the people of God." (NKJV) The Greek word for "rest" is sabbatismos, which (if memory serves me correctly) is sometimes used in the Septuagint (LXX) for the Sabbath day. I believe it could literally be translated "a sabbath keeping." Thus, "There remains, therefore, a sabbath-keeping for the people of God." I agree. I believe that sabbath keeping is the Lord's Day, which symbolizes the believer's present salvation rest in Christ and points forward to the eschatological sabbath rest beyond the consummation. So, I don't believe there is anything in the Hebrews 4 passage that would contradict the Lord's Day/Christian Sabbath position I embrace.
Regards,
Rev. Geoff
Posted by: Geoff | February 02, 2009 at 09:50 AM
>Christy Mathewson wouldn't -- he was probably the most prominent star who refused.
Great pitcher -- great man. A pity he was gassed in WWI...
Posted by: David Gray | February 02, 2009 at 09:51 AM
Wonders for Oyarsa: "It's irritating, because I hate to think of Stuart as being right."
That severely lacks intellectual integrity.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | February 02, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Geoff, I think it's a mistake to see the "Lord's Day" as a Sabbath, at least in the strict sense of a New Covenant continuation of the old Sabbath. Jesus rested in the tomb on the seventh day. He rose on the first day. And, concerning the resurrection, St. Paul says "Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain." Not, mind you, "rest easy, knowing that your Sabbath is secured". This is true. But it is not the symbolic truth of the Lord's Day - the first day of the week.
Not that I mind anyone keeping the Lord's day by taking time away from ordinary work to worship him. Sunday is a holy day of worship to Christians - certainly no ordinary day. Nor do I insist that Christians must keep the old Sabbath as the Jews do. But I think these symbols matter, and calling the Lord's Day a "Sabbath" is a misnomer. If he wanted his day to be a Sabbath, he would have rose on the Sabbath. When he takes specific care to rise on the first day of the week, and then promptly sends us out to work, I think we should pay attention to the symbolic message.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | February 02, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Wonders, there are uber-Orthodox sites too which have the same triumphalistic attitude towards things as the uber-Reformed blogs. I've learned over the years to spot them and avoid them like the plague.
Posted by: Rob G | February 02, 2009 at 10:18 AM
"That severely lacks intellectual integrity."
Only if you want to hold tongue-in-cheek backhand complements to intellectual scrutiny. But then someone might accuse you of having no sense of humor.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | February 02, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Getting back to the commercials...
Dr. Esolen, since you translated Dante, I was wondering if you were reminded of the pit in the 8th circle reserved for theives when the disturbing SoBe LifeWater ad with the lizards came on (I think it was at or near halftime) and the last image was a guy being morphed into a grinning lizard.
I know I was.
Posted by: Jake | February 02, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Much as I dislike quoting it, the CCC, 2174, 2175:
2174: Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."104 Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath,105 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:
We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead.106
2177:The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life. "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church."[110]
2175: Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107
It should also be noted that the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century) make the following claims about observing Sabbath in addition to the Lord's Day:
2.36: The Sabbath should be observed by resting and studying the Law.
6.19: The Law has not been dissolved as Simon [Magus?] claims
7.23: Keep the Sabbath and the Lord's Day festival.
The Council of Laodicea (365) formally put an end to dual observance of both the Sabbath and the Lord's day (mainly as an anti-Judaizing move), which would seem to indicate that it was common to observe Saturday as Sabbath and Sunday as the Lord's day. The acts of the same council, however, indicate that the Bible is to be read on the Sabbath (No.16); that those who rest on the Sabbath are guilty of judaizing (No.29); but that the Sabbath AND Sunday are exempt from Lenten fasting requirements (No.49, 51)--as, indeed, is still the case in the Eastern Churches (not fasting on Saturdays became a bone of contention between the Eastern and Western Churches in the 9th-10th centuries).
A couple of early Church historians report on Sabbath observance in different places. Socrates Scholasticus (5th century) writes, ". . . although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this." Sozomen, a contemporary of Socrates, wrote, "The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria."
This stratum of the Tradition in the Eastern Churches remains in its liturgical calendar and lectionaries. In the Weekly cycle of the Octoechoes, Saturday is commemorated as a day of rest and remembrance for those who have departed, while Sunday is an explicit celebration of the Resurrection; in the Eastern Traditions, every Sunday is Pascha (which is why we stand on Sundays). In the Byzantine lectionary, the readings for Saturdays and Sundays are diptyches: the periscopes for Saturday are completed on Sunday, indicative of the conjoined nature of the two days.
Wikipedia, for what it is worth, says this about the understanding of Sabbath in the Oriental Churches:
Eastern Orthodox Church distinguishes between "the Sabbath" (Saturday) and "the Lord's Day" (Sunday), and both continue to play a special role for the faithful. Many parishes and monasteries will serve the Divine Liturgy on both Saturday morning and Sunday morning. The church never allows strict fasting on any Saturday (except Holy Saturday) or Sunday, and the fasting rules on those Saturdays and Sundays which fall during one of the fasting seasons (such as Great Lent, Apostles' Fast, etc.) are always lessened to some degree. During Great Lent, when the celebration of the Liturgy is forbidden on weekdays, there is always Liturgy on Saturday as well as Sunday. The church also has a special cycle of Bible readings (Epistle and Gospel) for Saturdays and Sundays which is different from the cycle of readings allotted to weekdays. However, the Lord's Day, being a celebration of the Resurrection, is clearly given more emphasis. For instance, in the Russian Orthodox Church Sunday is always observed with an All-Night Vigil on Saturday night, and in all of the Orthodox Churches it is amplified with special hymns which are chanted only on Sunday. If a feast day falls on a Sunday it is always combined with the hymns for Sunday (unless it is a Great Feast of the Lord). Saturday is celebrated as a sort of leave-taking for the previous Sunday, on which several of the hymns from the previous Sunday are repeated.
In part, the reason Orthodox Christians continue to celebrate Saturday as the Sabbath is because of its role in the history of salvation: it was on a Saturday that Jesus "rested" in the tomb after his work on the cross. For this reason also, Saturday is a day for general commemoration of the departed, and special requiem hymns are often chanted on this day.
The Ethiopian Orthodox church (part of the Oriental Orthodox communion, having about 40 million members) observes both Saturday and Sunday as holy, but places extra emphasis on Sunday.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 02, 2009 at 11:30 AM
You kept watching them and he could not have written this with the mute button on, as you tell us. What a sacrifice you made in order file this Victorian report. Come on, did you smile just once.
Posted by: Dan Porter | February 02, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Ah, the old Sabbath debate.
Of course, it might be illuminating to some that the Greek word for "Saturday" (not Sunday) is Sabbaton. Traditional Christianity has always recognized the Sabbath as being Saturday, while the new high holy day of the week is Sunday, the Eighth Day, the Lord's Day (Kyriaki in Greek).
It's interesting to me that sort of weird Judaizing tendency some low-church Protestants have, reverse-engineering Christianity to be more like Judaism. Christian tradition, by contrast, looks at the Christian life in the terms that Christ Himself put it—the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, not its reestablishment.
Posted by: Fr. Andrew | February 02, 2009 at 11:46 AM
I guess working weekends isn't such a curse after all. It's been a long time since I've enjoyed a SuperBowl commercial. I think the last one was the one with the white kitchen, the white cat, and the tomato sauce . . .
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | February 02, 2009 at 11:53 AM
>t's interesting to me that sort of weird Judaizing tendency some low-church Protestants have
Pick the beam out of your own eye Father...
Posted by: David Gray | February 02, 2009 at 12:08 PM
"You kept watching them and he could not have written this with the mute button on, as you tell us. What a sacrifice you made in order file this Victorian report."
Like doing stool-sample testing and performing autopsies, cultural criticism sometimes involves the voluntary experiencing of unpleasantness.
Posted by: Rob G | February 02, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Dan,
Do you have small children? Do you think that those of us who do should be able to watch the Super Bowl (or the World Series or any other sporting event) on TV with our children without their being exposed to women in very scant lingerie or to men leering at said women or to scantly clad women climbing on top of men or without our having to have the remote at the ready to switch channels as soon as the ads start?
Whatever happened to the idea of common decency?
Posted by: GL | February 02, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Stuart, could you clarify something for me? I thought in the East that during ordinary time Saturdays were fast days, or rather abstention days from meat. I knew that the rules were relaxed some on Saturdays in Lent, but could not think why. Do you know the answer?
Posted by: Ranee @ Arabian Knits | February 02, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Ranee, no, ordinary Saturdays are not fast days in the East. In Lent, Saturdays and Sundays have relaxed fasting rules (wine and oil allowed).
For a representative and easy to read Orthodox fasting calendar, see http://goarch.org/chapel/calendar
Different jurisdictions will vary from that calendar in some details.
Posted by: Matthias | February 02, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Interestingly enough I have a friend who was a Seventh Day Adventist, but after having seen all of the Patristic evidence of Saturday being the Sabbath and Sunday being the Lord's Day, which contradicted what he had been taught his whole life (in addition to other things) he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. He now happily labels himself a non-sabbatarian, which is the derogatory term that Seventh Day Adventists have for, well, basically all the other Christians in the world.
Posted by: NTBH | February 02, 2009 at 02:01 PM
Dear Fr. Andrew,
"It's interesting to me that sort of weird Judaizing tendency some low-church Protestants have, reverse-engineering Christianity to be more like Judaism. Christian tradition, by contrast, looks at the Christian life in the terms that Christ Himself put it—the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, not its reestablishment."
Yes, I suppose from a non-Protestant perspective I would be regarded as a "low-church Protestant" (though personally I would actually regard myself as a "high-church Calvinist"). But while I'm sure you may regard some of my views as rather "weird," I can assure you that there is no Judaizing going on in the historic orthodox Presbyterian doctrine of the Christian sabbath. Of course we believe that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law -- which is why we no longer observe Saturday as the holy day of rest, but instead we observe Sunday, the weekly Easter celebration the NT calls "the Lord's Day." One of the things we Sunday-observing Protestants celebrate on the Christian Sabbath (i.e., Sunday, the Lord's Day) is the perfection and finality of our Savior's atonement, an atonement which actually secures the salvation of God's people, which was crowned by His glorious resurrection, and which brings assurance of salvation to all who rest upon Him alone for life eternal and salvation from sin. While I am sure that there are some sour Protestant sabbatarians who, like the Pharisees, turn the Divine gift of sabbath rest into a joyless, oppressive legalistic burden, the Christian sabbatarianism I am speaking of is a joyful, festive celebration of God's mighty saving works in Christ and the glories of the new covenant age that Christ has ushered in. So, please don't mistake the historic Presbyterian doctrine of the Christian Sabbath with a legalistic sabbatarianism of the pharisaical variety, and please don't unjustly label it as "judaizing." As for me, I wouldn't trade God's gift of the Lord's Day/Christian Sabbath for anything -- not even for the Super Bowl.
Sincerely yours,
Rev. Geoff W.
Posted by: Geoff | February 02, 2009 at 02:28 PM
Dan,
Nasty little tweak, right? Passing any moral judgment automatically qualifies one as being "Victorian," which is synonymous with prudish. Boy, wait till I tell my students and my colleagues about that one -- I who teach Aristophanes with visual aids.
I muted the commercials from about the middle of the second quarter. Sometimes I missed one, while I was stepping out of the room to get a drink, or something like that. And no, I didn't smile, not a little bit, not once. I find a whole lot of things funny, and I can work an audience with a comedy routine (and do, in my lectures, all the time). I don't find puerile sadism funny.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | February 02, 2009 at 02:28 PM
I thought it was interesting how Al Michaels described the "Steelers defensive backs (pause)are huddling" when they were obviously praying together on the sideline.
Posted by: Jim Hale | February 02, 2009 at 04:36 PM
This is from Joel Achenback in today's Washington Post:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/ (Posted at 9:35 AM ET, 02/ 2/2009)
A Smashing Super Bowl
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | February 02, 2009 at 04:36 PM
Tony Esolen: "What, after all, do the haters of Christianity, who are also the haters of simple human decency, have to do to persuade us that we are not welcome in their midst? Do they have to go so far as to teach elementary children about sodomy? If only we were not so comfortable where we are, pretending to evangelize anticultural entities that now exist only to degrade."
"What, after all, do the haters of Christianity, who are also the haters of simple human decency, have to do to persuade us that we are not welcome in their midst?"
We're still called to reach out and love those haters of Christianity... even to the point of persecution and martyrdom. (And I probably should be the last to say that since I'm not gifted with the patience to love Christ-haters.)
Do they have to go so far as to teach elementary children about sodomy?
No. But they seem intent on doing just that.
If only we were not so comfortable where we are, pretending to evangelize anticultural entities that now exist only to degrade.
I would think that God would not be pleased if we were merely pretending to evangelize.
P.S. I was rooting for the Cardinals too. The pick that Warner threw right before halftime just kills me.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | February 02, 2009 at 04:54 PM
>>>I was rooting for the Cardinals too. The pick that Warner threw right before halftime just kills me.<<<
Yes, the Big Dead. They never disappoint. It's impossible to be disappointed when you've been trained like Pavlov's dog to expect disaster at any moment.
Still, had Warner not thrown that one inexplicable pass in the closing seconds of the first half . . .
Yet another chapter in a franchise filled with a history of what ifs.
At least I hope that leading a third team to a Super Bowl will be enough to ensure his place in Canton a few years hence. Think of it: Three Super Bowl appearance for two teams which have a rather dismal history. One win and two losses, but loses to two of the most successful teams of his time in the NFL, teams led by two of the best quarterbacks of his generation. If Warner is not made a member of the Hall of Fame someday, one has to ask why not. (That is, other than his playing under the dimwitted Mike Martz during what could have been his most productive years.)
Posted by: GL | February 02, 2009 at 05:13 PM
>>>So what I learned is: we like violence, sex, explosions, anthropomorphized animals, cars and beer. <<<
Ah, continuity! What was true in 1776 is still true today. Except back then it was horses, not cars.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 02, 2009 at 06:04 PM
Joel Aschenbach! I've run into his pieces now and again. I knew the kid when he and I were kids at Princeton. My favorite Joel Aschenbach quote: "I think what everyone needs is a Faithful Indian Guide."
TUAD, sometimes you treat a gangrenous limb by cutting it off. Yes, we're called on to love the people we work with and live near. No, we're not required to watch television, to patronize movie houses, or to send our children to government schools. The only question is, "Have things gotten so bad that in most places it is irresponsible or even sinful to send your children to the government school?" I think the burden of proof is on us if we want to continue in the pseudo-cultural or anti-cultural practices of our neighbors. I'll admit I'm as guilty as anybody of trimming the corners.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | February 02, 2009 at 06:06 PM
GL: "If Warner is not made a member of the Hall of Fame someday, one has to ask why not."
If memory serves, I read a recent article by Peter King of Sports Illustrated who said that he wouldn't vote for Warner into the HOF because Warner didn't have enough longevity.
I think he said that Gale Sayers is the only person who merited an exception to that general rule.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | February 02, 2009 at 06:19 PM
"I who teach Aristophanes with visual aids."
Tony,
No - not Lysistrata!!!!!
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | February 02, 2009 at 06:40 PM
>>>I think he said that Gale Sayers is the only person who merited an exception to that general rule.<<<
Because of "Bryan's Song", right?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 02, 2009 at 06:53 PM
I have to admit to not having watched too many Super Bowls, but after NPR's hit piece on Warner I became a raging Cardinals fan and nearly screamed my kids out of the room in the second half. My poor daughter had never seen such behavior out of me before. All in good fun though and she ended up just rolling her eyes.
Posted by: Nick | February 02, 2009 at 09:06 PM
Rev Geoff, I don't know what they taught you, but they taught me to read in context, which you most assuredly did not with regards to Hebrews 4, but pulled one verse out of context to change its means.
The context shows that the Sabbath is fulfilled in the Gospel, and as other parts of the New Testament make clear, it is not permitted to judge other Christians concerning whether they keep Shabbat or high holy days or 'holy days of obligation' or not.
1Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.[a] 3Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
"So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.' "[b] And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."[c] 5And again in the passage above he says, "They shall never enter my rest."
6It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. 7Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts."[d] 8For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.
Colossians 2:16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
I didn't watch the Stupid Bowl. I didn't see the commercials. I am concerned by men of mature years who apparently have not acculturated the past 80 years of our civilization, and wonder how they can go out and evangelize, except in winter.
Posted by: labrialumn | February 02, 2009 at 11:02 PM
>I am concerned by men of mature years who apparently have not acculturated the past 80 years of our civilization
You want Christians to alter themselves and acquire characteristics of the civilization around us? I don't think you got that from Schaeffer...
Posted by: David Gray | February 03, 2009 at 04:35 AM
>>>You want Christians to alter themselves and acquire characteristics of the civilization around us? I don't think you got that from Schaeffer...<<<
Paul did. So, too, did the Cappodocian Fathers, Tertullian, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom--even Martin Luther and John Calvin. If you are not fluent in the language of the culture, then you cannot speak to the people you wish to convert. That was, I think, the point behind Protestant insistence on vernacularism.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 03, 2009 at 05:04 AM
"The context shows that the Sabbath is fulfilled in the Gospel, and as other parts of the New Testament make clear, it is not permitted to judge other Christians concerning whether they keep Shabbat or high holy days or 'holy days of obligation' or not."
These texts have to do with Christians continuing to keep Jewish holidays, the Jewish Sabbath, etc. In other words, they're in harmony with the NT idea that a Gentile didn't have to become a Jew if he wanted to be a believer. In no way, however, should they be read as going against celebration of the Lord's Day, holy days in general, etc. To argue such a thing would be an implication that the early Church got it wrong when they adapted synagogue worship and the Jewish liturgical calendar into Christian worship.
Posted by: Rob G | February 03, 2009 at 06:46 AM
"What was true in 1776 is still true today. Except back then it was horses, not cars."
Please. To paraphrase Annie Hall, if the Founding Fathers were watching that on Sunday night, they wouldn't stop throwing up.
As one of our local sports talk guys is fond of asking, "Is this what my dad went to Normandy for?"
Posted by: Rob G | February 03, 2009 at 06:52 AM
>>>Good examples but Greenberg was in the 30s and 40s and Koufax's example is still 43 years ago. <<<
Senator Joseph Lieberman does not campaign on the Jewish sabbath, from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Even when he was running for vice president he didn't.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | February 03, 2009 at 07:06 AM
>If you are not fluent in the language of the culture, then you cannot speak to the people you wish to convert.
Stuart, read more carefully. That isn't what I said. Argue with a different straw man.
Posted by: David Gray | February 03, 2009 at 07:21 AM
>Senator Joseph Lieberman does not campaign on the Jewish sabbath, from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Even when he was running for vice president he didn't.
Maybe the Yankees should sign him...
Posted by: David Gray | February 03, 2009 at 07:22 AM
>>>As one of our local sports talk guys is fond of asking, "Is this what my dad went to Normandy for?"<<<
GIs themselves were fond of saying they were fighting to make the world free for Coca Cola.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 03, 2009 at 07:39 AM
"GIs themselves were fond of saying they were fighting to make the world free for Coca Cola."
Meant with all seriousness and not a hint of irony, I'm sure.
"Maybe the Yankees should sign him..."
You ought to read Read Mark Helprin's story "Perfection," about a 15 year old Hasidic kid who's called by God to save the House of Ruth by hitting home runs for the 'Yenkiss.' It's one of the funniest stories I've ever read.
Posted by: Rob G | February 03, 2009 at 07:53 AM
Labri:
It isn't possible to live for two days in this world without learning to "speak the language," such as it is. This is the same argument we homeschoolers face all the time: that if we don't send our kids to school, they will not learn to speak the language that their peers speak. I suggest that that language is impossible not to pick up -- walk into a drug store or a shopping mall, or talk to somebody for three minutes.
Going along with the prevailing garbage doesn't help us evangelize anybody. If anything, it muddles whatever evangel we have to bring.
Nick, I'm not surprised that NPR did a hit piece on Kurt Warner. What did they say? I mean, other than that the man is a Christian with seven kids in his family (a couple of them by his wife's previous marriage)? Or that he prays a lot? Or that he is gracious in defeat? What other horrible things could they say?
Posted by: Tony Esolen | February 03, 2009 at 07:58 AM
Dear Labrialumn,
"Rev Geoff, I don't know what they taught you, but they taught me to read in context, which you most assuredly did not with regards to Hebrews 4, but pulled one verse out of context to change its means."
Thank you for bringing up the point about the importance of context. One vital principle in proper biblical exegesis is "a text without a context is a pretext." However, while I did not want to go into a full exegesis of Heb. 4 when I quoted from Heb. 4:9 in my previous post, I believe the interpretation I offered of that verse is completely compatible with its overall context. For example, when the author of Hebrews speaks of entering salvation rest in Christ, he typically uses the Greek word "katapausin" and variants of it (see, for example, references to "rest" in 4:1,3,4,5,8,10, and 11 in the Greek; all of them various forms of "katapaus -"). But in verse 9 the author suddenly shifts to using another Greek term that is also typically translated in our English versions as "rest" - "sabbatismos." Dr. Joseph A. Pipa in his book "The Lord's Day" (Christian Focus Publications, 1997) says of this word: "Although the noun form of the word used in Hebrews 4:9 is found nowhere else in the Bible, the verbal form of the word (sabbatizo) is used a number of times in the Septuagint...This idea of Sabbath-keeping is involved every time this verb is used." (p. 116) (As you probably know, the Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that was in common use during the apostolic era when Hebrews was written.) Now, why would the author of Hebrews break off all of a sudden from using "katapaus-" for "rest" to coining his own word - "sabbatismos" - a word whose verbal form ("sabbatizo") always means "sabbath-keeping" in the Greek OT? Well, I believe the best contextual explanation that has been offered is that the author of Hebrews is saying, in effect, that "Yes, we Christians too have a sabbath keeping, a Christian Sabbath - one that symbolizes our present salvation rest in Christ and which points us forward to our eternal rest at the consummation." If you are interested in a fuller exegesis of this passage, I would recommend to you Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.'s article "A Sabbath Rest Still Awaits the People of God," which can be found in the book "Pressing Toward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church" (Ed. by Charles Dennison & Richard C. Gamble; The Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, copyright 1986). You may be able to find this article online.
As for the Colossians 2:16 passage you mention in your post, I will let the late great Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert Lewis Dabney respond (Dabney is addressing passages like Rom. 14:5-6, Gal. 4:9-11, and Col. 2:16-17):
"We, however, further assert, that by the beggarly elements of "days," "months," "times," "years," "holy-days," "new moons," "Sabbath-days," the apostle means Jewish festivals, and those alone. The Christian festival, Sunday, is not here in question; because about the observance of this there was no dispute nor diversity in the Christian churches. Jewish and Gentile Christians alike consented universally to its sanctification. When Paul asserts that the regarding of a day, or the not regarding it, is a non-essential, like the eating or not eating of meats, the natural and fair interpretation is, that he means those days which were in debate, and no others. When he implies that some innocently "regarded every day alike," we should understand, every one of those days which were subjects of diversity - not the Christian's Sunday, about which there was no dispute." (p. 386 in Dabney's "Systematic Theology"; Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust)
Note: The apostolic and post-apostolic church typically avoided applying the word "Sabbath" to the Christian holy-day, in order that a clear distinction might be made between the Christian day (Sunday) and the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). However, there is good biblical reason to believe that the Christian "Lord's Day" is the application of the fourth commandment ("Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy") to our new covenant situation, so it is perfectly legitimate to call it "the Christian Sabbath" (again, to distinguish it from the "Jewish Sabbath").
Regards,
Rev. Geoff W.
Posted by: Geoff | February 03, 2009 at 08:19 AM
A view from the trenches:
I talked to three of my children (12, 15 and 17) in the car this morning about the doritos commercial where the office workers smash the vending machine (and then the boss) with the crystal ball. They don't watch a lot of tv, but are nevertheless inured to commerce culture.
They protested vigorously at the idea that the commercial promoted gluttony or instant gratification -- it's just a commercial, dad, we aren't going to act like that. They resisted the idea that they were being put in the same posture as the office worker doing anything for a salt-fat snack. They didn't like the idea that there was sadism or violence in the ball thrown at the boss: it was accidental, dad, it was slapstick, (and then pivoting and accepting that it was violent), and it's no more violent than the football game or Tom and Jerry cartoons or a thriller series (Lee Child's Jack Reacher series) that my 17 yr old son and I read. My two boys said that I was subjecting the poor commercial to the same cruel overanalysis that their English teacher does to poems. My daughter, who likes analysing poems in English class, said that it showed how some people react to salty snacks and showed the impulse toward wanting to eat thigns right now, but that you were free to do what you wanted. They were all mightily indignant at the idea that they were supposed to identify with the appetite-driven dumb office workers. Interesting. I don't think they saw the other, voyeuristic, chips commercial.
Dr. Esolen, do you plead guilty to overanalyzing poems and commercials?
Posted by: James Englert | February 03, 2009 at 08:29 AM
>>>What did they say? I mean, other than that the man is a Christian with seven kids in his family (a couple of them by his wife's previous marriage)? Or that he prays a lot? Or that he is gracious in defeat?<<<
And that's exactly the unspoken reason while he'll be denied HOF membership, if he is. Can anyone name me any quarterback who is HOF eligible who has led three teams to Super Bowls (let alone such unlikely teams as the 1999 St. Louis Rams and the 2008 Arizona Cardinals), won one Super Bowl, lost the other two in the closing minutes of the game, won two league MVPs and one Super Bowl MVP, four Pro Bowl selections, and has the stats which Warner has accumulated (e.g., passing percentage and quarterback rating higher than Peyton Manning and the all-time record for total passing yards in the Super Bowl, more than Elway, more than Montana, more than anybody)?
I saw Peter King's piece on SI.com when it was first published and I ain't buying it. If Warner is not HOF material then a number of quarterbacks need to be removed, including Broadway Joe.
Warner is an obvious first-year selection . . . unless the voters have some reason other than his performance on the field to deny him selection. That this is even the subject of debate shows that considerations other than his performance on the field are involved -- and I don't know of any accusations against him like those that have kept Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose and Mark McGwire out of baseball's HOF.
Posted by: GL | February 03, 2009 at 08:31 AM
>>>I don't think they saw the other, voyeuristic, chips commercial.<<<
James,
I was more concerned about the voyeurism than the violence.
Would it be a matter of concern to you had your children seen the women barely clothed in lingerie being leered at by men or the other examples of scantily clad women parading on the screen?
Of course, advertisers have used sex to sell since advertising was invented, but it seems to me that every year we move a little closer to outright pornography in these ads.
Posted by: GL | February 03, 2009 at 08:40 AM
>>>GIs themselves were fond of saying they were fighting to make the world free for Coca Cola.<<<
What the GIs wanted was booze, but the military was dry. Somehow or other, Coca Cola got a contract from the Army to build production and bottling plants in every theater of operations to supply the troops with a wholesome thirst quencher. The Coke was actually pretty good if you could get hold of some scotch, or better still, 190 proof alcohol used to power torpedoes. Coke not being available, torpedo fuel goes well with canned grapefruit juice.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 03, 2009 at 08:42 AM
A view from the target audience:
I talked to three of my children (12, 15 and 17) in the car this morning about the doritos commercial where the office workers smash the vending machine (and then the boss) with the crystal ball. They don't watch a lot of tv, but are nevertheless inured to commerce culture.
They protested vigorously at the idea that the commercial promoted gluttony or instant gratification -- it's just a commercial, dad, we aren't going to act like that. They resisted the idea that they were being put in the same posture as the office worker doing anything for a salt-fat snack. They didn't like the idea that there was sadism or violence in the ball thrown at the boss: it was accidental, dad, it was slapstick, (and then pivoting and accepting that it was violent), and it's no more violent than the football game or Tom and Jerry or a thriller series (Lee Child's Jack Reacher series) that my older son and I read. My two boys said that I was subjecting the poor commercial to the same cruel overanalysis that their English teacher does with poems. My daughter, who likes analysing poems in English class, said that it showed how some people react to salty snacks and showed the impulse toward wanting to eat now, but that you were free to do what you wanted. They were all mightily indignant at the idea that they were supposed to identify with the appetite-driven dumb office workers. Interesting. I don't think they saw the other, voyeuristic, chips commercial.
Dr. Esolen, do you plead guilty to overanalyzing poems and commercials?
Posted by: james englert | February 03, 2009 at 08:46 AM
Sorry about the double post. I didn't see the "next" button.
Gil, Yes, it would bother me more, probably, since it has that added voyeur element in addition to the instant gratification and violence. And I would expect them to be a little attuned, even if only in a pc way, to the demeaning-women angle. But the cruelty and appetite in the first are bad enough.
I found and wathced both commercials on youtube the day after, and saw them with with Dr Esolen's take. Not sure how I would have reacted to the office commercial without it. But the porn element is clearly present in the other even without being alerted.
Posted by: james englert | February 03, 2009 at 09:12 AM
As long as we're worrying about Sabbath, the kickoff for the Super Bowl occurred close to 6:30pm. Sunset in Tampa on Feb 1st was at 6:11 pm, and since days are counted as evening and morning, the game happened on Monday. No Sabbath violation (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) and no Lord's Day violation (Sat. sundown to Sunday sundown).
I guess a person would be forced to miss Jennifer Hudson's rendition of the National Anthem, and the other pregame "activities."
I do agree that most of the commercials were juvenile, but then, most television generally would qualify as the same.
Posted by: D H Brooks | February 03, 2009 at 09:30 AM
With regard to the Founding Fathers and "all that," read William Cowper's "The Task" (1785) and then try to disagree with Stuart that it's the same now as it was then. It's like reading any number of contemporary laments over social mores.
Posted by: Bob | February 03, 2009 at 09:35 AM
**With regard to the Founding Fathers and "all that," read William Cowper's "The Task" (1785) and then try to disagree with Stuart that it's the same now as it was then. It's like reading any number of contemporary laments over social mores.**
Really? So what they thought was so very bad back then was equal to what's out there today? You've got to be kidding.
Posted by: Rob G | February 03, 2009 at 09:59 AM
>You've got to be kidding.
Oh for that to be true...
Posted by: David Gray | February 03, 2009 at 10:18 AM
David Gray, of course I didn't write what you attributed falsely to me.
Instead, I am concerned about men who are unable to be and think Christianity in public when women wear the clothing of the era in which they live, which in that context has no immoral semiotics, due to their elevating to the level of divine authority some other period, real or imagined.
Posted by: labrialumn | February 03, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Rev. Geof, you cite what I consider to be examples of special pleading in the case of Colossians, and a failure to read in context in Hebrew 4, in both cases to try to conform the Scriptures to a sub-cultural precommitment. As far as the text itself goes, the writer of Hebrews is saying that the sabbath is fulfilled in the Gospel, and thus is no longer binding upon us as a Jewish regulation.(though it is good for us) the Colossians passage clearly teaches what it says and not what your citation twists it to mean. "Oh it -really- means something else" just as Calvinists like to say that is doesn't -really- mean is, and all doesn't -really- mean all.
Those who refuse to get used to clothing women have been wearing for 60 and more years, let alone the public breast-feeding that women have done for millenia, need to get used to it and stop trying to hypersexualize themselves, and also non-sexual contexts. The commercials doubtless were designed to get people to buy chips, by associating eating them with sexual beauty (but in a post-modern ironic way intended to be humorous, not lascivious), but calling what is reported 'pornography' is absurd. Again, the spiritual counsel I was given many years ago was 'get used to it'. This is the 'Rome' that we have been called to. As the desert fathers reported to us, even heading out into the wilderness avoiding our responsibilities as witnesses and our vocations in society, did not liberate from sexual attraction. The problem lies in the heart, not the beach.
Posted by: labrialumn | February 03, 2009 at 11:49 AM
>Instead, I am concerned about men who are unable to be and think Christianity in public when women wear the clothing of the era in which they live, which in that context has no immoral semiotics,
Then I think you are concerned about something that doesn't exist.
Posted by: David Gray | February 03, 2009 at 12:08 PM
>>>Instead, I am concerned about men who are unable to be and think Christianity in public when women wear the clothing of the era in which they live, which in that context has no immoral semiotics, due to their elevating to the level of divine authority some other period, real or imagined.<<<
A beautiful virgin should be able to walk naked carrying a bag of gold from one end of the city to the other, and emerge with both the gold and her virginity intact (to paraphrase a statement about Genghiz Khan's empire). I suspect one reason radical Muslims insist on covering their women from head to toe (an injunction found nowhere in the Quran) is cognizance of their own lack of self control.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 03, 2009 at 01:05 PM
>>>A beautiful virgin should be able to walk naked carrying a bag of gold from one end of the city to the other, and emerge with both the gold and her virginity intact (to paraphrase a statement about Genghiz Khan's empire).<<<
Unless, of course, she happened to pass by the Great Khan himself.
Posted by: GL | February 03, 2009 at 01:44 PM
>>>Unless, of course, she happened to pass by the Great Khan himself.<<<
According to geneticists, this happened quite a bit.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 03, 2009 at 02:08 PM
As to Warner and the HOF, here is what Peter King wrote today:
I think King should consider the fact that during what he calls the five-year donut hole, Warner was coached by Mike Martz, who seemed to call a pass on every play despite the fact that one of the best running backs in the league, Marshall Faulk, was in the backfield. Had the Rams run the ball more, the defense would have had to protect against the run and Warner would have been under a lot less pressure. That alone would have helped. Further, had Warner been under less pressure, perhaps he would have been injured less. As to his year with the Giants, Warner was doing very well and had the Giants in playoff contention when they decided to switch the Eli. When the switch was made, the Giants started losing. That is, Warner was doing a better job than Manning did. Of course, it may have been good for the Giants to make the move as it gave Eli seasoning which may have contributed to his winning a Super Bowl, but the fact remains that Warner was having a successful season up to that point and the team did better under him than under Manning.Posted by: GL | February 03, 2009 at 02:15 PM
If you take seriously Paul's argument in Romans about what the gift of the Holy Spirit does for man, then I think that Stuart, regarding Muslim men, is on to something. Uncontrolled lust is going to be an intractable problem for nearly all of them.
(Not that it's a cakewalk for me and I've been baptized. :-|)
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | February 03, 2009 at 02:15 PM
>>>According to geneticists, this happened quite a bit.<<<
Exactly my point. Geneticists believe that he was the most prolific man in history, with more than 10% of all men in the world alive today being his direct patrilineal descendants (and I would suppose that a similar percentage of women are also his descendants). I doubt very many beautiful virgins walked past him and still had their virginity intact afterward.
Posted by: GL | February 03, 2009 at 02:20 PM
It's even more of a problem when you're told your lust is not under your control, but is the fault of women inciting you by revealing a nose or an elbow.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | February 03, 2009 at 02:22 PM
Oops. Correction. That should have been 0.5% of all men world wide descend from the Great Khan and nearly 10% in the region which he conquered.
Posted by: GL | February 03, 2009 at 02:27 PM
Starting to get a tad irked now ....
No, I don't think I'm overanalyzing the commercials. I am merely reporting exactly what was on the screen. Did the office workers raid the vending machine like ravenous morons? Yes, they did; they were meant to appear ravenous, and they were meant to appear moronic. Did the man with the chip leer at the woman in her underwear? Yes, he did. That's what the directors intended him to do. Was the lady in the office publicly humiliated? Yes, she was.
Take away everything that is nasty and there's not much left to the commercials. And no, I don't think that there's any analogy between the commercials and the rough game of football. You're going to tell me that if you were passing by a pick-up game of tackle football you would find it offensive? You're going to tell me that if a guest in your home grabbed his crotch in your living room, or said, "I want to see you naked," you would not ask him to leave the premises?
The advertisers understand that kids are watching these games. They don't care. There used to be a little self-restraint in these matters, but that's all gone. I suspect the nastiness is just the reflex of the nihilism of the age. And no, I repeat, I don't find puerile sadism funny. I'd like to raise kids who not only would not find it funny, but would feel sorry for people who did find it funny. (The movie "Dogma" suddenly comes to mind: lots of IQ spent on what is just stupid and sick.) And again, just in case I haven't dented the wall deeply enough with my head: I don't concede that this stuff is just the same as the bawdy humor of Shakespeare or even Aristophanes, and the difference is not one of degree but of kind. It has something in common with the nihilism of Marlowe, but without Marlowe's genius.
When in the sewer, do as the rats do? How about getting out of the sewer, and inviting others to do likewise?
Posted by: Tony Esolen | February 03, 2009 at 03:11 PM
Sunday was a Roman workday. Until Constantine changed the civil laws, no Christian except the rich or the self-employed could have observed Sunday as a Sabbath. They were lucky to be able to go to pre-dawn Mass before work.
Saturday as the Sabbath, OTOH, was protected by Roman law because Jews were an officially recognized religion with members who were skilled freemen workers for the Empire (including many imperial bureaucrats).
Posted by: Maureen | February 03, 2009 at 07:29 PM
Perhaps some of you might want to try watching a different sport? I like to watch tennis and, the ubiquitous erectile dysfunction commercials aside, the ads seem generally innoccuous (although I usually channel surf during commercials, so I can't speak for all of them.) Many of the commercials are for Rolex watches and tennis equipment. One, apparently targeted at children, is for Oreo cookies. I haven't seen any that are disturbing or unpleasant.
Posted by: Francesca | February 03, 2009 at 09:35 PM
Don't worry about it Tony, you're right. The commercials didn't need to be there. I have to admit I missed everyone as I was playing on my computer during halftime and on the commercials. But the problem isn't just the SuperBowl, ads in general are pretty bad. My dear mother-in-law, dear woman that she is, isn't nearly as conservative as I am and I've had to read the riot act to her a couple of times about policing the commercials especially when the kids are in the room.
The NPR piece can be found here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100073991) and I admit to having been harsh but I disagreed with what seemed to be the insistence that religion was tearing the team apart. I am not a fan of football but it was a great game (oh if only they had fencing on TV!) that was marred by silly ads.
Posted by: Nick | February 03, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Dr. Esolen, and where on this Earth or off it would you suggest we flee to? How shall we get there? '
Shall we avoid preaching in Corinth because of the sexual immorality, or shall we follow Paul's example, and his advice to the Corinthians?
I'm not defending the sad state of society. But we are called to be *in* the world, while remaining not of it. It is also the case that attributing sexual enticement where none is intended will create more problems, not fewer. Some comments, I do not recall by whom, seemed to suggest the dangerous and unhelpful situation of hypersexualizing situations and clothing that are not intended to be sexually enticing. It is better by far to accept what *is* meant as being what is meant, and thereby reducing the power of temptation. Wishing for the clothing of particular periods in history (which were intersperced with periods of more revealing clothing) and judging everything as if the semiotics of clothing of the Victorian era (for example) (but not the 1920s!) were in fact still in force today is not helpful, it is harmful.
At least they didn't show the PETA ad, if what I've read is true, it *was* pornographic.
Posted by: labrialumn | February 03, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Tony: "How about getting out of the sewer, and inviting others to do likewise?"
Labrialumn: "Dr. Esolen, and where on this Earth or off it would you suggest we flee to? How shall we get there?"
Labrialumn, are you implying that the whole Earth is a sewer? Or do you think that Dr. Esolen believes the whole Earth is a sewer?
This type of lack of understanding is what occurs when one is part of a strain of Christianity that jettisons asceticism wholesale.
Posted by: Rob G | February 04, 2009 at 06:41 AM
Actually, I understand Labrialumn's point. I know a significant number of very conservative Catholics (both Latin and Byzantine) who live around Front Royal and are associated with Christendom College. The home-school their kids, associate mainly with other people who also home-school their kids, have very little contact with the general culture, and are extremely pious and devout. Most are among the nicest people you could hope to meet (though some are pretty scary, like the guy who tried to browbeat me into sending my kids to an Opus Dei high school). They have, for the most part, turned their back on the world and have minimized their contact with it. But, one has to ask, what are they doing to make the world a better place, other than following Voltaire's injunction to "tend their gardens"? Other than plastering their cars with anti-abortion bumper stickers and going to Right to Life rallies, their impact on people outside of their own circle of like-minded believers is minimal. They are close to becoming the "Catholic Amish". And, admirable as the Amish are, there can be little doubt that they are not implementing the Great Commission. It is easy to avoid the pollution of the popular culture if you turn your back on the world. But I don't think that is quite what Christ had in mind, and it's interesting that this topic should come up during the week of the Publican and the Pharisee.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 04, 2009 at 07:30 AM
"It is easy to avoid the pollution of the popular culture if you turn your back on the world. But I don't think that is quite what Christ had in mind."
Neither is it what Dr. Esolen has in mind if his academic career is any indication. What it is is a Labrialumn straw man.
Posted by: Rob G | February 04, 2009 at 07:56 AM
Labri, the sexual content was intended. That was a small part of the general nastiness, which was also intended.
In the world, but not of it ... Engaging the culture ... what culture? There isn't any culture. Engaging the community ... what community? There isn't any community. I don't think that becoming "Catholic Amish" is the ideal, but at least you remain recognizably different and Catholic. I believe you are underestimating the effect you have on others by living out an example of a sane and decent life. Nobody is implying that people who observe simple decencies are better in the eyes of God than anybody else. But decency isn't to be sniffed at, either; it may be on the threshold of virtue.
We've homeschooled our kids all their lives. We also know hundreds of other homeschoolers in this state. Other than providing our children with something approaching a natural childhood, our effects, I'd say, upon people around us are considerable. They notice children whose company they enjoy. They see that adolescent snottiness is not inevitable. They see large families on a single income, and wonder how that can be done. They see, in the young men and young ladies, an innocence that is really attractive. People have spoken to me about this for 17 years now -- waiters and waitresses, musicians, teachers, debate judges, politicians at the state house, basically everybody who has met groups of homeschoolers doing anything.
And then there's the power of refusing to go along with stupidity. Last year my wife bought my daughter a mink stole as a gag gift. It cost her $10. The price is low because nobody buys those things anymore, apparently. Well, I can think of some other things that should be torpedoed by refusal to go along: public schools such as they are, television, and Hollywood movies among them.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | February 04, 2009 at 08:01 AM
"Starting to get a tad irked now ...."
Dr Esolen,
I suppose my post was very clumsy indeed. As someone who owns your edition of Inferno, I don't think you overanalyse poems (or commercials). I shared your sentiments, and didn't think, when talking to my children and making more or less the same points in your original post, that I was overanalysing. And I argued against my children's analogy to the violence in football. I thought it interesting and a bit dismaying that decent children with a degree of virtue nevertheless resisted the idea that the cruelty and gluttony plainly before them should be perceived as something other than it was because, I would guess, of the genre in which it appeared. Clearly something to work on in future conversations.
Posted by: james englert | February 04, 2009 at 08:17 AM
I agree with Labri and Stuart that we need to be salt and light and fulfill the Great Commission. But the good professor is certainly right that children should be protected from the world. You don't send 6 year olds against Panzers in wartime. My young children aren't ready to face the unmediated world. There are plenty of temptations inherent in being a human being in a family with other people. Let the child develop in that milieu, learning charity and self-discipline among people who love him. As they get older they get more freedoms and responsibility and room to maneuver in the world. By the time they are 16 or so, they should be able to handle most things the world and the flesh can dish out and have a decent facsimile of the mind of Christ. By the time they are 18, they should be ready to leave and start a family. My oldest is 16 and he's pretty much ready--just a little more coaching necessary. His 14 year old brother is heading in the right direction and I (mostly) trust his approach to problems.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | February 04, 2009 at 09:24 AM
Excellent comment, Gene. I can only pray and hope that I can say the same about my children when they are nearing adulthood.
Posted by: GL | February 04, 2009 at 09:40 AM
James,
Thanks for those kind words. I apologize for getting a bit nettled. I'm dealing with a materialist atheist in a faculty seminar these days, and the possibility of hiring a thorough ideologue in my department, with no interest in literature. So the general static of nastiness -- when all I'm trying to do is watch a football game -- is exasperating.
Somebody said I should watch tennis instead. If I thought tennis was as interesting as football, I would watch tennis. It isn't to the point.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | February 04, 2009 at 09:46 AM
>>>Somebody said I should watch tennis instead. If I thought tennis was as interesting as football, I would watch tennis. It isn't to the point.<<<
Tennis ceased to be interesting when Rod Laver retired. When John McEnroe is considered an "elder statesman", you know a sport is over the hill. Cultivate more interesting ones. Try Crew--not only is it fun to watch, but it is great exercise and you can do it until you are well into your sixties (my daughter coxes "classic"--read "geezer"--boats in the summer). Fencing is good, too, for the same reasons. I fenced in college, still dabble. Thanks to the miracle of cable television, you can actually find both sports on the multiplicity of ESPN channels.
Oh, and who would have thought curling could be so exciting?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 05, 2009 at 07:06 AM
I'm with Tony. I didn't watch the Super Bowl this year. Last year I watched with large gathering of church friends. Commercials were usually blocked--- the host's daughter put a book in front of the screen during each commercial break, and turned the sound off. But I think she got tired of the tedium of her job so we ended up seeing some commercials.
On one slot, a man with a white, fluffy cat was busily, lovingly preparing pasta in his home for his date (and she was modestly dressed). On the penultimate shot, the cat stepped in the red pasta sauce and splattered it all across the kitchen floor. When the lady opened the door, she sees the man with a long, sharp knife (that he had been using to carefully dice vegetables) in one hand, catching a "bloody" "tortured" cat in the other (but it's not blood it's pasta sauce dripping all over the cat and the floor). My friends rolled on the floor and roared with laughter as one man. I thought it was me.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | February 05, 2009 at 05:18 PM
Dear Labrialumn,
"Rev. Geof, you cite what I consider to be examples of special pleading in the case of Colossians, and a failure to read in context in Hebrew 4, in both cases to try to conform the Scriptures to a sub-cultural precommitment. As far as the text itself goes, the writer of Hebrews is saying that the sabbath is fulfilled in the Gospel, and thus is no longer binding upon us as a Jewish regulation.(though it is good for us) the Colossians passage clearly teaches what it says and not what your citation twists it to mean.
Certainly Christ alone is the salvation-rest of believers, and he fulfills the sabbath rest that was symbolized by the Jewish (Old Covenant/Mosaic administration) seventh-day Sabbath. But the moral requirement that a certain set time (one day in seven) be set apart for rest and worship has been binding on mankind evere since the creation (the creational, pre-Mosaic sabbath of Gen. 2:3), and it continues on under the New Covenant through the observation of the first day of the week (the day of Christ's resurrection), typically called "the Lord's Day," which is the Christian Sabbath, and which which serves as a sign pointing believers forward to the eternal sabbath rest they will enjoy when Christ returns and ushers in the new heavens and the new earth.
Regarding the Hebrews passage, I offered clear contextual and grammatical reasons for the interpretation that I was arguing for -- an interpretation that is expounded by men of much greater scholarly acumen than myself (Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Dr. Joseph Pipa, A.W. Pink, etc.). As for Dr. R.L. Dabney's interpretation of passages like the Colossians one in question, a fair reading of his comments makes it clear that Dabney was urging us to interpret those passages within their biblical and cultural contexts. He not engaging in "special pleading" or Scripture-twisting or anti-contextual exegesis. (Again, I would urge you to read the Gaffin article and the Pipa book on the subject that I referred to in an earlier post. You will discover in their writings the work of skilled and sober-minded exegetes.) May I humbly suggest that it is perhaps you, not me, who is reading his own traditions on this particular subject into these particular texts.
""Oh it -really- means something else" just as Calvinists like to say that is doesn't -really- mean is, and all doesn't -really- mean all."
No, like the passages on the issue of the Sabbath we have been discussing, the "all" passages must be read in their full biblical, historical, and original cultural context. "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered." (Luke 2:1, NKJV) Now, the assumption in your anti-Calvinist jab above seems to be that "all" always means "every last individual on the face of planet earth who ever has and ever will live." Well, try applying that to the context of a passage like Luke 2:1, which tells us that Augustus sent a decree to "all the world" to be registered. It must have been quite a journey for the servants of Caesar to travel the globe and dispense the knowledge of this decree to every human being then alive on planet earth (including the Chinese and the Indians and the inhabitants of the Americas and the Aborigines of Australia, etc., etc.). The point here is that on the "all" question, the sabbath question, or any other question of Bible interpretation, the "context" determines the meaning of the terms. As I argued for in a previous post: "A text without a context is a pretext" -- even cherished texts like John 3:16.
Regards,
Pastor Geoff W.
Posted by: Geoff | February 06, 2009 at 02:12 PM
Labrialumn seems to be hoist with his own petard. If you argue that the historical-grammatical method is the only proper way to exegete Scripture, you fall to the mercy of the "better" exegete(s). Then what if a third exegete comes along who is "better" than both you and your opponent? Oh, what a world, what a world!
Posted by: Rob G | February 06, 2009 at 03:05 PM
>>>Thanks to the miracle of cable television, you can actually find both sports on the multiplicity of ESPN channels.<<<
Yes, indeed. Thanks to the "miracle of cable television," you can actually find just about anything on a multiplicity of channels -- including much you could have never imagined before and not a little which you wish you could unimagine once you've seen it. I realized just how desperate folks were for something to show and for something to watch when I found a darts tournament on one of the "multiplicity of ESPN channels" while eating pizza at a sports bar a couple of years ago. Now that is a "sport" that requires a great deal of athletic skill. The ability to still hit the board after quaffing a few rounds of beer between each round of darts requires years of training and practice. Whatever happened to real sports . . . life the WWF.
Thank goodness for the miracle of cable television. ;-)
Posted by: GL | February 06, 2009 at 04:11 PM
>>>Now that is a "sport" that requires a great deal of athletic skill.<<<
Actually, I remember the first time I saw darts televised on Auntie Beeb in the UK. I had never before seen a sport one not only could play, but was practically required to play, with a pint in one hand.
By the way, though they did not have cable, our ancestors were quite fond of interesting "sports" like rat catching, bear baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting, bull fighting--killing just about anything in as many ways as one can imagine, except human beings, the gladiatorial arena having been abolished (bare knuckles boxing being an exception). On the other hand, they did like a good hanging, Drawing and quartering was a special treat.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | February 06, 2009 at 04:42 PM
Oh, and who would have thought curling could be so exciting?
We're known as Canadians. Welcome!
Posted by: David R. | February 06, 2009 at 06:08 PM