A finite god that anticipates endless improvement is terribly static, immobilized, and boring.
Nearly all of his being is in a potential state, not yet actualized. Since this finite god’s improvement is never-ending, most of his potential will never be realized. Almost the entirety of this god is static or “slow”, not yet put to full use, and not yet up to speed.
As though watching a demigod toddler learning to walk, his worshippers clap and say, “But at least he’s getting better! He’s not completely still. And we can relate to his limitations.”
But the infinite God is completely actualized. None of himself is potentially better. His whole infinite being is active, both in the inner life of the Trinity, and in the love of his creation.
He isn’t bumping up his own limitations, having to stretch himself. He doesn’t need more gas in his fuel tank. He isn’t upgrading along the way.
Since he is entirely infinite, and all of his attributes coextensive, and completely perfect, the fullness of his perfection is active.
They give one a “sense of contributing to the public good.”
The article is still relevant, as their social significance has cemented and increased. They function as a proxy or symbol now for a variety of political sensibilities.
At best, especially among those most convinced of their effectiveness, masks demonstrate neighbor-love. They are seen as a reasonable way to submit to government, express social solidarity, and show courtesy to others having a range of sensitivities and risk levels.
I can’t reliably judge random individuals over this – there are a lot of reasons a person might use a mask. But I would argue that masks also became an icon for the fear of death, a false sense of control, and acquiescence to communitarian excess.
There is another concern distinct from medical efficacy and cultural significance: natural impropriety. The face is designed to be the most visible, dignified center of attention and interpersonal communication. The face shines with a natural glory. To cover it is unnatural and requires an extenuating circumstance. It is, to some degree, dehumanizing, especially on children.
As those in the UK had to carry on during the German Blitz – maintaining a sense of life and normalcy worth saving – at some point we have to decide, with a moral calculus factoring in social significance and natural impropriety, that a mask mandate is unhealthy for the non-medical aspects of society.
Paul repeatedly insists that local pastors, particularly those devoted to preaching, be paid (1 Corinthians 9:9, 1 Timothy 5:18, Galatians 6:6). Yet he forgoes the right for himself, an apostle
Mormonism reverses this, paying its apostles and mission presidents, yet “muzzling the oxen”, the bishops, refusing to compensate those appointed as local leaders. This is unthinkable to Paul (1 Timothy 5:17). He simply assumes some of the local pastors will labor in preaching and teaching so intensely that it will be appropriate to compensate them.
The LDS Church has not here restored the normative original order of the early church. For Paul, to not pay one’s devoted pastor is not worth bragging about. Mormons “glory in their shame” and even violate their own scripture (D&C 42:71-73) when they boast about not paying their bishops. Not to pay one’s devoted shepherd is cause for embarrassment.
So if you want to “ex-Mormon even harder”, and double-down on actual new Testament Christianity, find yourself a church with a preacher that you want devoting his week to prayer and the word. And if your LDS friend accuses your pastor of gaining “filthy lucre”, cheerfully give even more. Fight against your flesh and against cynicism. Set aside an uncomfortable amount of money to give so that it stretches you. Unapologetically give to the general budget of the local church.
Aim to give your preaching pastor-shepherd a salary above the median income where he lives, so that he can buy a house for his wife, so his wife can stay home with the children, so that he can avoid being entangled in secular employment, and so that he can be hospitable and generous to others.
Ira Ransom’s Utah Christian evangelism observations on 1850-1950. Quoting “These Forty + Years”, published in 1999:
Shortly after the Mormons arrived in Utah, three denominational groups which were quite evangelical at the time (Presbyterians. Methodists, and the Baptists) began ministering in Utah. A number of Presbyterian churches were built in cities and towns such as Salt Lake City, Logan, Kaysville, Brigham City, Payson and other places. The Methodists and Presbyterians had an agreement that certain towns would be for the Presbyterians and others for the Methodists. Methodists built churches in Corinne. Tremonton, Price, and other places.
For a period of several months, [Fredrik] Fransen, the founder of The Evangelical Alliance Mission (TEAM), came to Utah and walked from home to home and farm to farm to minister to Mormons who had come from Scandinavian countries.
Early in the twentieth century, John Nutting, a Congregational minister, came to Utah to minister. He organized the Utah Gospel Mission. At first he came with a group traveling with covered wagons. He would go from town to town, and preach around camp fires and from the steps of various court houses. Later his mission groups traveled in model T trucks.
In 1929, George Cook came to Utah under Utah Gospel Mission. He later became a member of Utah Bible Mission and continued serving the Lord in Utah until his death.
In 1957, I talked with the Hansons in Brigham City who had heard John Nutting preach from the court house steps in Brigham City. Archie Yetter, of Rockmont College, told me in 1957 that he heard John Nutting pray near the end of his life that God would raise up someone to evangelize Utah.
One of the notable early Baptists serving in Utah was Rev. M. T. Lamb who, in 1887, wrote a book called THE GOLDEN BIBLE. It was a scholarly work analyzing the Book of Mormon. Reprints are available now through Utah Lighthouse Ministries.
About 1920, a Rev. Baynes established Bethel Baptist Church in Salt Lake City. In 1924, he drew quite a few Mormons to hear a special sermon which he preached on the subject “When Modernism Comes to Mormonism”. He was followed by his son, Rev. James Baynes who pastored the Bethel Baptist Church until about 1958 or perhaps 1960. Rev. James Baynes also started Anchor Baptist church, and Sandy Baptist Church (Which is pastored today by Wesley Clem). Rev. Baynes was active in the IFCA, and frequently attended the Regionals held in Colorado, and shared his burden for Utah with the men in the Rocky Mountain Regional. James Baynes passed away suddenly in 1963 and Thomas Miller succeeded him as pastor of Anchor Baptist Church.
Assuming the autonomy and independence of churches from outside interference or external governance, I see four forms of polity:
Elder-rule without consensus. Elders may build or assure consensus from congregation, but it is not principally and finally required. Pronouncements on major decisions made at the gathering may normally but not necessarily imply consensus between elders and congregation.
Elder-rule with consensus. Neither the majority of members nor the majority of elders can overrule the other on accepting/expunging members or elders. General consensus of some (at least implicit) kind is required. Voting on elders is common. Major decisions like adding new members don’t always require a congregational vote. The elders do not derive their authority from the congregation, but directly from Christ.
Elder-led congregationalism. Requires express vote for all major decisions (especially accepting/expunging members or elders). Sees the congregation as having final authority over the elders and delegating authority to the elders. Consensus between congregation and elders not principally required, but often practically secured if elders are normally the ones to bring matters to vote.
Strict congregationalism. Members can unilaterally both bring matters forward for vote and overrule elders. The church and even its elders are ruled by plurality of members and committees.
Worth a mention: Single-elder rule, deacon board rule, or a combination thereof.
This book by James M. Renihan has arrested me for the past few weeks. It was riveting to hear how my Particular Baptist brothers, with a “primitivist urge to fulfill the dictates of Scripture”, “ransacked the pages of the Bible in order to establish their deeds with a heavenly authority.” (58)
I find myself largely at home with the Particular Baptists of the late 17th century, who themselves admired their Puritan brothers. Their ecclesiological retrieval is inspiring.
The book is a running commentary and synthesis of primary sources. Renihan ended each chapter with cogent summaries without rhetorical flourish.
“As the years pass, God expands the land promise to extend beyond Canaan to eventually encompass the entire world.
“The first hint is the varying descriptions of the geographic boundaries of the Promised Land throughout the Pentateuch (cf., e.g., Genesis 15:18-21; Exodus 23:31-33; Numbers 34:1-12; Deuteronomy 1:7; 11:24; 34:1-4; Joshua 1:2-4). Such variety suggests the borders of the land are intended to expand as Israel dwells there and exercises dominion over it and the surrounding nations.
“A second indication is that God promised Abram descendants more numerous than the stars in the sky or the dust of the earth (Genesis 13:16; 15:5). Even allowing for the possibility of hyperbole, the sheer number of descendants envisioned seems to demand a larger territory than the land of Canaan.
“A third indication comes from Romans 4:13, where Paul asserts that God promised Abraham and his offspring that he “would be heir of the world.” The apostle, following the lead of the prophets, sees in nascent form a promise that encompassed all of creation. The frequent descriptions of the fertility and fecundity of the land portray it as a new Edenic Paradise where God’s original purposes for creation will be realized.”
Harmon, Matthew S.. Rebels and Exiles (Essential Studies in Biblical Theology) (p. 22). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.