Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Respect and Restraint

Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

It was Peter’s message, given to “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem…”  His message was the Resurrection.   I don’t believe that there is an instance of even Jesus drawing so many at one time; this is the power of the Resurrection.  The entirety of Christianity hinges on this event; it is the one thing on which Christians of all denominations agree.  Unfortunately, there is not much else.

At this blog, I explore topics that underlie liberty – these topics include the culture and tradition of the West – call it Christendom.  I write on these with a focus on how this culture and tradition affected the governance of the time as well as how it was necessary in developing whatever positive aspects we see in liberty.

As regular readers know, I try to stay out of the doctrinal and theological aspects of Christianity, and I encourage those who wish to provide comments to also do the same.  Beyond the Resurrection, things start fraying at the edges – and some of this fraying is rather personal (as it should be) to many. 

Why do I bring this up now, especially when – for the most part – this community has been considerate of my request? 

I have started reading this book.  It is going to be difficult for us to work through it and still stick to my desired ground rules.  But it will be a worthwhile endeavor, I believe.  Many relevant topics can be explored through this book:

·        If the decentralized governance of the medieval period offered reasonably libertarian law, it will be helpful to understand why this crumbled.
·        It is worth understanding the costs and benefits to entrenched power in the face of criticism.
·        In a most divisive circumstance, how effective was the decentralized nature of early sixteenth century Europe?  How beneficial?
·        Was such a division of Christendom inevitable, given the realities of the time?

There will be more.  What I will do my best to stay out of are issues that will drive us to want to defend doctrine and theology; to the extent I introduce any such issues, my intent is to limit these only to where I believe these could be helpful in giving color to the governance issues that are my focus here.


As we work together through this book, whenever you feel your blood boil just remember the Resurrection.


  1. I would like to believe that we all believe in the resurrection but as to what that was, there are a lot of different opinions.

    I suppose we should agree that He was resurrected, regardless of what we think that means, and leave it there.

    1. As others have said here, absent the physical, bodily resurrection we have some other religion. I would not refer to it as "Christianity."

  2. How about we just agree that Resurrection means what it plainly says in Scripture? With multiple appearances, eating and drinking on more than one occasion, and physical touch Jesus demonstrated what happened to the disciples.

    Anything else is deconstructionism and purposeful obfuscation.

    Or at that point just be honest and admit you are not a Christian but of some other world view.

  3. Jesus resurrected bodily. The New Testament is clear; ask Doubting Thomas, ask the men in the road to Emmaus, ask Mary, ...
    Good Grief!
    If Jesus did not bodily resurrected believe in a lie.
    There is no room for disagreement.

    Luke 24

    Jesus is risen indeed.


  4. Good Grief!
    If Jesus did not bodily resurrect, Christians believe a lie. There is no room for disagreement.
    Jesus is risen indeed.
    Luke 24