Announcing the ClearNote Fellowship blog...

(Tim) Today, the ClearNote Fellowship Blog is up with its first post by Josh Congrove titled, Why Study Church History: The Myopia of the Modern. If you like Baylyblog, you'll want to add the ClearNote Blog to your bookmarks or RSS feeds. We'll have posts by people involved with ClearNote, posts by women for women, and posts by a number of pastors. I'll be posting there, too.

To whet your appetite, here are a couple paragraphs from Josh's piece posted today, the first day of 2010. We hope the work of ClearNote Fellowship will be a great encouragement to you and that you'll join with us in any way you're able. May God bless your new year!

* * *

...Understanding Church history shows us that the most incredible, most sophisticated discoveries in the Christian faith were made long ago. It shows us that our great need today is not to let postmodernism inform the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather to proclaim its doctrine, already discovered, to a world that needs old truth explained, not new truth uncovered. Church history shows us that most of the new perspectives we think we've opened today are really little more than rehashing of old heresy. Open theism is nothing more than the posterity of Pelagianism; and its adherents, if more sophisticated, are only the degraded descendants of the man St. Augustine defeated 1,600 years ago. Feminism is nothing but...

ancient goddess worship revived, and abortion nothing but ancient child-slaughter dressed up in American language. And so Church history shows us in detail what we already should have known from Scripture, that there is "nothing new under the sun" (Eccl. 1:9), no temptation but such as is common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13), and that those who ignore the lessons of God’s Church reveal a desire for self-imposed darkness.

But lest I end this brief defense on a negative note, consider also how Church history is a constant testimony to the faithfulness of God among His people. For 1,900 years after the apostles' passing, the Chief Shepherd has safeguarded His sheep, allowing sinful men still to serve as defenders of the truth, and His Church still to show itself as the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). And so those who ignore this history deprive themselves of the blessings of 2,000 years of God's working in ways that even the Apostles likely never imagined. Upon closing the last book of Scripture, did the Apostle John see how wondrously God would provide for the Church he had served so faithfully? Could he see how it would endure, protected from Arianism, from Pelagianism, from Islam? Could he also see how God would protect it from itself, even? How the innocent purity of the Apostolic message would be corrupted in the coming centuries by sacramentalism, indulgences, and Mariolatry? And how God would use His servants in recovering the truth of the Gospel but without disregarding the truth that had endured?

Continue reading Why Study Church History: The Myopia of the Modern.

Comments

Following it on Google Reader... looking forward to it.

There will be new post on every Mon, Weds, and Fri. The Ladies' blog launches next Wed and will be updated weekly.

This may be a dumb question, but I'm wondering if there is an expectation that ladies will refrain their comments to the ladies blog, etc.?

No. The main blog is open to everyone. However, the ladies blog is just for the sisters and men will not be aloud to comment on those posts.

Hahaha... I meant allowed.

>The main blog is open to everyone. However, the ladies blog is just for the sisters and men will not be aloud to comment on those posts.

Why?

>Why?

Some rooms in the house are for everybody. Some aren’t. The main reason men need to refrain from commenting is simply because we said so. That room is ladies only. Thanks!

>Some rooms in the house are for everybody. Some aren’t.

That's fine, I was wondering why there is nowhere for men to have discussions as men without a feminine presence. Sorry I wasn't clear.

We don't think it is necessary at this time. The main blog will serve this purpose for now.

>The main blog will serve this purpose for now.

Women won't post there? They already are...

I mean it is up to you folks, I just don't understand the reasoning.

>Women won't post there? They already are...

Sorry. Let me be clearer. The women will be writing solely to women and not to men on the ladies' blog. The men can make due with the main blog even know it is open to everyone. I know, I know but what about the 14th Amendment. Oh well... ;)

Reasoning is simple. The conversations women have tend to change more when a man is present than a mens' conversation does when a woman is present.

Unless, of course, the men are talking about something really despicable, in which case it's a GOOD thing that a lady happens by. :^)

And good luck with this; sermon at my church yesterday was on the old paths. Too often, we forget.

>The conversations women have tend to change more when a man is present than a mens' conversation does when a woman is present.

I've not found that to be true.

A better way of explaining it may be that Godly older women are explicitly commanded by the Holy Spirit to "teach the younger women," but not to teach or exercise authority over men. Does this mean a man should never listen to a woman or read a woman?

No.

But does this mean a blog explicitly given over to the purpose of older women teaching younger women should explain to men the purpose of the blog, also asking them to refrain from reading or commenting among those women? Yes, we think so.

This does not mean officers of Christ's Church will not read or comment on the women's blog. Male authority is such that it is not wrong when it is exercised among women, whereas female authority is something different. Officers of Christ's Church and their designees will have the ability to step in to govern commenters and content in the women's blog, should it be needed.

It may be that we will also start a men-only blog to complement our women-only as well as our men and women blogs. There is a great need for a room of one's own for both men and women, and for several years we've had such a ministry on Saturday mornings called David's Mighty Men. It's one of the highlights of our church life at Church of the Good Shepherd.

Maybe such a ministry is needed in blog form, and ClearNote Fellowship will consider that. Meanwhile, thanks for the excellent questions. We'd be interested to know what your thoughts are on these things.

Love,

This comment from Steve Hutchens on Mere Comments says it well:

"There was a time, before we became more generally known as hopeless on the matter, when a number of people told us the editorial board of Touchstone needed women on it to provide whatever it is that is missing whenever men get together to do some project without their help. Our reaction to this was to turn the hoses on anyone who made the suggestion.

I remember Fr. Reardon remarking, to everyone's agreement, that whenever a woman came into a deliberative situation, the whole atmosphere changed: something that we wanted and needed in our work was lost, not gained. We needed them to leave us alone so we could act together as men. Men understand this, and so do women who appreciate them.

Egalitarians and similar life forms do not; they reject on principle that there is positive value in anything distinctly and exclusively male, and the concept of a band of brothers, held together in a bond of loyalty and duty to a specific end either is hateful to them or means nothing. They destroy it wherever they find it simply by insisting (usually by some form of nagging) that every organization contain women or their direct influence, or is incomplete--and why should it not be for those who see no value in the male institution--a prejudice rooted hatred of the man, that is, in desire to do away with the maleness that defines him.

We need to insist on the value and importance of what is distinctively male, and to that end we need to define it fearlessly and consistently against all attempts to caricature it as brutish, stupid, mean, retrograde, and useless until feminized. Most of the ground upon which this principle stood has been lost in the last several generations. It must be aggressively retaken. "

And perhaps I should make clear I'm not saying that ClearNote Fellowship is egalitarian.

Add new comment