"Good news" for the eager
Many people have asked for podcasts recommendations or preachers who are our “go to’s” for good information. Everyone at remnant put their heads together and came up with two lists that will hopefully be helpful.
Podcasts
1.) Tim Mackie (Bible Project podcast) . The creators of BibleProject have in-depth conversations about the Bible and theology. It is a good companion podcast to the videos they produce. If you have not seen any of these videos my question to you is have you been living under a rock or Did 2020 take your internet? So see them at BibleProject videos.
2.) The Thinking Fellows Lutheran Podcast - The Thinking Fellows is a 45 minute podcast published weekly. It is hosted by Caleb Keith and Drs. Rod Rosenbladt, Scott Keith, and Adam Francisco. The Thinking Fellows have lay-level conversations about Christian doctrine, apologetics, and church history.
3.) Theocast - The primary focus at Theocast is to encourage christian to rest in Christ. We facilitate simple conversations about the Christian life from a reformed perspective through our weekly podcast. Their website is found HERE.
4.) Naked Bible Podcast - A good place to Dig Deeper into the bible. Dr. Michael Heiser discusses Biblical theology, stripped bare of denominational confessions and theological systems by exposing context and focusing on grammatical historical exegesis. also found on Here.
5.) Just and Sinner Podcast - Jordan Cooper's podcast is a good way to broadening your theological horizons with a different stream. His website is foudn HERE.
6.) Mike Winger on Youtube, a pastor who has served in ministry for over 20 years in the local church (Christ Chapel Background). He is great at covering the breath and deepth of an issue. Appoching issues with a pastor's heart and clear headed common sense, Winger dives into stubjects like apologetics, cults/fringe Christianity, as well as, ethical issues and, book studies. Great for specific questions /episodes.
7.) The Bridgeway Podcast Weekly conversations out of Bridgeway Church in Oklahoma City pastored by 'THE' Sam Storms. The podcast is hosted by David Bowden, with regular contribution from from Lead Pastor, Author, and Theologian, Sam Storms. They touch on topics related to preaching, worship, missions, children's ministry, reaching college students, engaging culture, and more.
Preachers
Everybody has their favorite preacher. The guy you don’t mind hearing for 6 hours on a car ride across four states. (Word of advice; your spouse or roodtrip mate may not feel the same, so be open to changing it up a bit). Like I said, we all have our favorites. Here are a few of our favorites they may or may not be “your jam” but we can assure you, they all speak the truth!
1.) Dr. Sam Storms - The man, them myth, the theologian! His sermons are meaty like a Texas BBQ with a good helping of continuationism on the side. He has a great BLOG too.
2.) Martyn Lloyd Jones - Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a Welsh Protestant minister (Wesleyan-Calvinist) and medical doctor who was influential in the Reformed wing of the British evangelical and charismatic movement in the 20th century. He is one reason British charismatics are so dang balanced. He was the pastor of Westminster Chapel in London for over 30 years and most of his sermons were recorded or in transcript. He was known as the prince of preachers. Lets just say for a 'Brit' the old man can bring it! Josh loves him!
3.) Voddie Baucham sermons - Voddie Baucham has been a professor, conference speaker, church planter and theological ninja (No joke, In 2014, He won the Pan American Championship in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu). Formerly a Pastor in Dallas Texas, He currently serves as Dean of Theology at African Christian University in Lusaka, Zambia. He is a clear and forthright biblical voice on many cultural issues. Michael describes his sermons in two words "expositional glory". Search Youtube, 'Voddie Baucham' or go to his sermon podcast and you will hear the glory to which Michael refers.
4.) Peter Kreeft - Kreft is a professor of philosophy of Boston College. He’s considered one of the top Christian thinkers in the world. He is an author of over 75 books. A devout Christian, former Lutheran now Charismatic Catholic, yet remains highly respected among most protestants thinkers. If you enjoy literature (CS Lewis or Tolkien) Christian philosophy, or discussions of moral theology you will enjoy him. Kreeft may be old but he is a beast when it comes to moral theology. Also He has some great articles and lectures at his website, find it HERE.
5.) C. J. Mahaney - If I (Dawson) were stuck on a desert island with an infinitely charged iPod but only one preacher on it, that preacher would be 'Paul the apostle' but this guy would come in second, distant second. Mahaney is a Reformed Charismatic (sum might say much like Paul..??..). He is the senior pastor of Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville.
Doctrine matters. What you believe about God, the gospel, the nature of man, the bible and even the Spirit's role when we read the bible has profound effect on our lives. Every major truth addressed in Scripture filters down to every area of your life.
In this post i want to point out a problematic doctrine taught i many churchs and show how it leads to biblical illiteracy and even helps support an anti-intellectual spirit in the church. The problematic doctrine is the doctrine of illumination.
The doctrine of illumination attempts to explains What the Holy Spirit is doing when we read scripture. It attempts to answer the question, “What is the Holy Spirit's role in biblical interpretation?” How we view the relationship between the Spirit, the reader and the text is an important issue to get right. In many ways it drives how we approach the text as a whole. Further, If we get it wrong it will drive us to conclusion that will stunt a christian's growth and move them into the murky waters of anti-intellectualism.
Problematic understanding of a key doctrine
A commonly taught version of the doctrine has laid the ground work for much of the anti-intellectualism in the church today. This Common articulation states that it is the Holy Spirit's role to function for the believer as their Bible Commentary. In the academic world, it is called the cognitive illumination view. The key text in the debate is 1 Corinthians 2:14.
"the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him and he's not able to know them because they are spiritually appraised"
The cognitive illumination view holds that a person can't even intellectually comprehend the meaning of a Biblical text without being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is necessary to supply this true and saving comprehension. This may surprise most people but the majority of conservative seminary textbook authors reject this interpretation and for excellent reasons
Greek scholar, Rob H Stein points out that there are several Greek words that Paul could have used in 1 Corinthians 2:14. When he says "the natural man doesn't accept the things of God". Paul doesn't use the common Greek term for accept which broadly and generically means "to take". Instead he uses the verb which is more nuanced and in its 56 occurrences in the New Testament always refers to the acceptance of a requested offering. In other words the natural man doesn't just fail to receive the things of the Spirit of God because he can't intellectually comprehend the message. The connotation of the Greek term is that he intellectually does receive the message but he then chooses to reject its request. Stein additionally points out the verb translated foolishness in this verse is also used repeatedly by Paul in the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians.
"Thus in the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians we have the following parallel. The unbelieving world can understand the things of the spirit, what the Bible text means but it rejects what it understands as foolishness. Similarly God understands the wisdom of this world, but rejects it as foolishness" [1]
1 Corinthians 2:14 assumes non-believers are indeed capable of mentally comprehending the Bible and that it is actually this very capacity that causes them to dislike what it says and to consciously reject its message. [2]
Roy Zuck, comments:
"the verse does not mean that an unsaved person who is devoid of the holy spirit cannot understand mentally what the Bible is saying instead it means that he does not welcome its message of redemption into his own heart" [3]
Brent Osbourne clearly states:
“The Bible does not state that an unbeliever cannot intellectually interpret it quite accurately.”[4]
Lastly Bavinck summarizes a proper view in contrast:
“The illumination of the Holy Spirit is not the cognitive source of Christian truth. It does not disclose to us any material truths that are hidden from the ‘natural’ person. It only gives us a spiritual understanding of these same things, one that is different and deeper.”[5]
As we see the cognitive illumination view is insufficient, if not just wrong. Paul is claiming that the Holy Spirit's illumination resides in the significance of the text not in the meaning. The meaning of a text can be grasped by anyone for it is derive from the cultural, historical, and linguistic evidence in the text. So anyone can understand what a text means but only a christian can value and respect it in a way that leads to faithful action in pursuit of Christ. The Holy Spirit reveals the significance of the text. His illumination conveys personal application, ethical value and the divine authority of the text.
An Alternative view of illumination
What I would call a proper view of Illumination focuses on the Spirit's work to covay the Word's value and authority to the reader. In this way, the doctrine of illumination properly understood bring the reader the Spirit and the text into communion. The Spirit enables us to perceive Scripture’s inherent goodness and to taste its inherent sweetness. Just as the physically blind cannot see the sun, the spiritually blind cannot see the glory of the Son, nore see life in light of his glory. The light of the sun does not illumine the eyes of a blind man. Nevertheless, the Spirit’s work of “illumination,” the work whereby he enables us to see and to receive Scripture as God’s word (cf. 1 Cor. 2.12, 14), does not add light to Holy Scripture any more than the healing of a blind man adds radiance to the sun. The Spirit, by his illuminating work, enables us to see the light and to savor the sweetness that belong to Scripture. We value what it has to objectively say for its value is in what it teachings.
The Holy Spirit enables us through illumination to acknowledge scriptures authority and respond to that authoritative Word (Jn 3.3, 5; 2 Cor. 3.14–18; 4.3–6; 1 Thess. 1.5; 2.13). Seeing God's word as authoritative enables us to approach it properly. As one who is under its authority. In this way, we gain a new frame of reference. The Spirit combats the noetic effects of sin (sin's effect on our mind and reason) by revealing the reality of God's authoritative word, the word takes on a gravety it did not have before. We gain a seriousness about the word equal to the greatness of the God it reveals.
Surely Paul believes God could supernaturally show you a verses meaning, just like he could supernaturally help you pass a pop quiz you haven't studied for. Such illumination would literally be a miracle and greatest life hack ever.
It would also be a miraculous exception that you shouldn't count on it, as if doing so makes you spiritual, in reality it only makes you lazy.
To be clear, I believe God speaks, but this is not that. The doctrine of illumination is not an excuse not to study, does not give you the right to read into the text whatever you want. Further, it certainly is not a justification for dismissing scholarly aids (Study Bibles and commentaries).
One reason, I think, for the proliferation of this doctrine comes from misunderstanding a common experience of many young Christian. When a Christian is still young int he faith, God will do a Special work of grace and help the young believer to understand a text. We all have likely had an aha moment when mediately grasp grasp complex passage. Without much work we gained an intuitive understanding of a text that often was a spring word to growth. The problem comes when we reflect on this experience. Many confuse this moment as normative not extraordinary. They do not take it to be the exception that proves the rule but assume it to be the normal operations of the Spirit.
The cognitive illumination view has stagnated the church's maturity and promoted anti-inellecualism. While the cognitive illumination view is very common it is also very dangerous. The widespread popularity of this belief logically forces a great deal of churches to promote intellectual illiteracy as a mark of spiritual maturity.
Here is a syllogism to explain the logic behind neglecting the role of the mind.
Premise one
it is spiritually mature to prioritize the best aids for Bible interpretation over inferior ones.
Premise two
the Holy Spirit is a superior aid for Bible interpretation and intellectual aids are inferior sources for Bible interpretation.
Conclusion
it is spiritually mature to prioritize the Holy Spirit for Bible interpretation over scholarly work.
In other words people who believe the Holy Spirit is a superior source for Bible interpretation are logically forced to view the prioritization of intellectual publications as less valuable, if not immoral. If the choice is either going with the ghost or getting help from a commentary, then choosing the latter is sin. Because of this logic many do not believe academic literature is a priority for understanding the Bible for them the Holy Spirit takes eclipsing priority. Put plainly, It is often taught that Study Bibles, technical commentaries are ok but all you really need to understand the Bible is the Ghost. Just read the Word of God and let the Holy Spirit illuminate the text, that is let the Holy Spirit comment on it.
This view of Biblical interpretation cultivates a culture of light devotional reading. A church community where no one is doing serious in-depth study because it is expected that the ghost will do the work. Interestingly this view promotes an idea that each time you read the Bible you should come away with a profound truth or interpretation and if you don’t then your time in the Word was fruitless. People read until discouragement gets the better of them and then they stop. All because their expectations were misdirected by a bad understanding of illumination. Here is why so many churches can hold a high view of scripture with many in the pew almost biblically illiterate. In such contexts, Christians can believe the Bible is God’s inerrant, infallible, all sufficient and authoritative Word and at the same time be biblically illiterate. All because they gave away the responsibility to learn by believing that it was supposed to be fed to them like mother’s milk. Learning will always be hard work but it is worth it.
The “Holy Spirit is my Bible commentary” view also promotes relativism in the church. If everybody can get the interpretation of the text from its author then what happens when Christians disagree? If Christians disagree on the interpretation of a text and both are sure the Holy Spirit gave them the interpretation. They are locked in an emotional stalemate. The result is often either flame or feather. Sometimes, flames fly, things get heated, and often divisive, to the point of breaking fellowship. Most of the time, both parties throw their hands up in the air defaulting to an evangelical subjectivism. A view which borders on relativism. Where everyone agrees the Bible is truth but confesses everyone has their own personal interpretation of the truth. They avoided the flame but made truth as light as a feather.
EndNote:
[1] Rob H. Stein "A Basic guide to interring the Bible" 2 ed. (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids 2011) 66
[2] William J Larkin Junior culture and Biblical hermeneutics: interpreting in applying the authoritative word in a relativistic age (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 289.
[3] Roy Zuck “The role of the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics" Bibliotheca Sacra Vol 141, 1984. 123-4.
[4] Brent Osbourne, The hermeneutical spiral: a comprehensive introduction to biblical interpretation 2 ed. (Downers grove: inter-varsity Press, 2006) 341
[5] Henry Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol 1: 594
Conversions are like snowflakes no one is like another. Each and every story of how Christ pulls a soul to himself is special, unique, delicately powerful. Each story is touched with redemptive beauty. Even the story of the five-year-old child who prays with his mother contains more than enough unexpected wonder and truthful beauty to make even the fattest angel dance. But the story of Israel Zolli is not about a child on bended knee. It is of a heroic rabbi caught in the maelstrom of World War II .
A Christ haunted life
Rabbi Zolli was one of the most remarkable men of the 20th century. A leading European Jewish intellectual, chief rabbi of Rome, who converted to Christianity in 1944. Not much had been written about him the Jewish community considers him a heretic to his faith, and a traitor to his race. To Jesus, he is a trophy of grace.
He was born in 1881 in what now is the Ukraine. As a young man, he worked in Florence where he also did his rabbinical studies. He became professor at the University of Padua and was named vice-rabbi of Trieste. In 1918, he became chief rabbi of the city.
During this period, Zolli led a divided life. In public, the life of a rabbi celebrating certain number of rituals and shepherding the jewish community. But alone with the Torah, he lived the life of a writer and thinker. This latter work eventually brought him onto the road leading to Christ.
Prepare the way of The Lord
Before God does a work whether in redemption history or on human soul he begins by preparing the way. The same can be said of Zolli's conversion. Before he publicly confession, the winds of providence were preparing him.
One such preparation was the slow pull of intellectual curiosity. He had always been attracted to the Gospel. As a young rabbi studying the Old Testament, he could not just stop at the end of it: so he continued, and read the New Testament. For him, it was the natural continuation of the Old.
He had always been attracted to the figure of Christ on the cross in which he saw the evidence of His being the "Suffering Servant of God" spoken of by Isaiah. Something he did not speak publicly about until after his conversion. Like Hazel Motes in Flannery O'conners' Wise Blood, who was haunted by the Compelling Christ. For Zolli like Motes, "Jesus move from tree to tree in the back of his mind, a wild ragged figure motioning him to turn around and come off into the dark where he was not sure of his footing"
In 1938, he wrote The Nazarene in which he explored the exegetical problems concerning the relations between the Old and the New Testaments. Soon after publication, he was transferred to Rome and named chief rabbi of the city. Seen as a rabbi who could build bridges and keep the peace continued his work both in public and in private where amidst his prayers and thoughts Christ moved from tree to tree in the back of his mind.
In 1942, the winds of providence began to stir again as the storms of war raged in Europe. By September 1943 the Nazis occupied Rome. The War had now come to Rome. Under Mussolini the Jews had been marginalized but not mistreated.
Now a Nazi officer named Kappler demanded 110 pounds of gold in place of the Jews. The Jews feverishly managed to collect 77 pounds. The chief Rabbi Zolli realized his helplessness. For the first time he stepped into the Vatican and begged Pope Pius XII: "The New Testament must not abandon the Old Testament!" The Pope was so moved that by that afternoon, the remaining 33 pounds of gold was collected from the parishes of Rome. But Kappler took the Jews as well as the gold as rabbi Zolli begged in vain for him to take him as a trophy instead. His life for his people. A substitution to pay a ransom and satisfy wrath but Zoolli's pleas went unheard. He was not the one to represent and redeem his people. Christ once again move from tree to tree in the back of his mind.
From the betrayal and disappointment a great courage arose in him settling into an otherworldly resolve. He walked away from that meeting determined to protect his community. Diplomacy had failed but all his cards had not yet been played. He had only began to fight.
The deportation of the Jews from Rome was fixed for 16 October 1943. Rabbi Zolli called on the Vatican once again. They began at once smuggling Jews out of Rome. Out of the 8000 Jews of Rome, they managed to get 4447 Jews hidden in over 150 monasteries and parish houses, hidden against the threat of the highest punishment from the Nazis. Till the threat was over, they were provided with all they needed for survival.
Haunted no more
The Americans freed Rome in June 1944. Yet Rabbi Zolli seemed to be caught in a deeper battle. Father Dezza, a Jesuit and friend of Zolli tells of a conversation they had on August 15, 1944. Zolli had come to him and revealed the tension of his soul : "How can I continue living in this way when I think very often of Christ and I love Him?"
In October 1944, all tension was put to rest by the living Christ. On the holy day of Yom Kippur (day of Atonement), Zolli had an extraordinary experience which would come to be decisive. He was in the synagogue in contemplation and suddenly, in a vision He saw Christ beside him. Christ said to him: "You are here for the last time: from now on you will follow Me." That was it. Zolli was profoundly moved, visibly shaken and spiritually renewed. He had went to his knees a Rabbi but rose a Christian.
At home that evening, he did not want to say anything to his family, but his wife told him that while he was in the synagogue celebrating Yom Kippur, she too had seen a figure of Christ next to him. His daughter Miriam, who was then 18, added that she had seen Jesus in a dream. For Rabbi Zolli it was the last sign he needed. He resigned from the synagogue and on 17 February 1945, Israel Zolli, the Chief Rabbi of Rome, and his wife made public confessions of faith in Christ and received a Christian baptism identifying them as a follower of Christ.
After 40 years of rabbinical studies with fingers blackened by ink from hours of study, a tired rabbi weary from war's bitter sting, and weak from protecting his flock rose from the waters to find God was already there, with him, face to face.
Epilogue: Certainty of the mountains
In an interview after his baptism the good rabbi was asked why he had given up the synagogue for the Church, he gave an answer that showed he had a keen understanding of biblical realities: "But I have not given it up. Christianity is the integration of the synagogue. The synagogue was a promise, and Christianity is the fulfillment of that promise. The synagogue pointed to Christianity: Christianity presupposes the synagogue. So you see, one cannot exist without the other. What I converted to was the living Christianity."
"Then you believe that the Messiah has come?" the interviewer asked.
"Yes, positively," replied Zolli. "I have believed it for many years. And now I am so firmly convinced of the truth of it that I can face the whole world and defend my faith with the certainty and solidity of the mountains.
One could point to the importance of the Image of God in humanity. Being made in God's image means every individual person has an inherent dignity and worth. Also the necessity of personal faith to show the importance of the individual. Personal faith imply the centrality of the individual. Converts are made voluntarily without cohesion and thus since conversion is individualistic the religion is as well.
On the other side, Christian theology also teaches that individuals are "saved" by being (to use Paul's language) "in Christ", a collective concept. Jesus died for a people, the people of God, the new humanity "in Christ" (Eph 2). This means that the convert is now numbered among the redeem, made a part of the whole, body of Christ, the church (1 Cor 11-12).
So where should a Christian begin thinking about social issues? What is the proper starting point for a biblical social theory? How do we construct a Christian view of political realities? A fundamental category needed to answer those questions is the primacy of the individual or the collective. Should Christian begin from the point of the individual or from the group? Should we think of goods in terms of the whole or of its parts? Two giants in Christian thought weigh in on the issue: J. Gresham Machen and C.S. Lewis. I will gives Machen's answer then Lewis. Quick note on Machen – the ‘liberalism’ he is speaking of is not the current, progressive liberalism, but rather the theological liberalism of the early 20th Century. [1]
"It is true that historic Christianity is in conflict at many points with the collectivism of the present day; it does emphasize, against the claims of society, the worth of the individual soul. It provides for the individual a refuge from all the fluctuating currents of human opinion, a secret place of meditation where a man can come alone into the presence of God. It does give a man courage to stand, if need be, against the world; it resolutely refuses to make of the individual a mere means to an end, a mere element in the composition of society. It rejects altogether any means of salvation which deals with men in a mass; it brings the individual face to face with his God. In that sense, it is true that Christianity is individualistic and not social.
But though Christianity is individualistic, it is not only individualistic. It provides fully for the social needs of man. In the first place, even the communion of the individual man with God is not really individualistic, but social. A man is not isolated when he is in communion with God; he can be regarded as isolated only by one who has forgotten the real existence of the supreme Person. Here again, as at many other places, the line of cleavage between liberalism and Christianity really reduces to a profound difference in the conception of God. Christianity is earnestly theistic; liberalism is at best but half-heartedly so. If a man once comes to believe in a personal God, then the wow ship of Him will not be regarded as selfish isolation, but as the chief end of man. That does not mean that on the Christian view the worship of God is ever to be carried on to the neglect of service rendered to one’s fellow-men − ”he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, is not able to love God whom he hath not seen” − but it does mean that the worship of God has a value of its own. Very different is the prevailing doctrine of modern liberalism. According to Christian belief, man exists for the sake of God; according to the liberal Church, in practice if not in theory, God exists for the sake of man. But the social element in Christianity is found not only in communion between man and God, but also in communion between man and man. Such communion appears even in institutions which are not specifically Christian."
- J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, pg. 137-138
Now batting clean-up, C.S. Lewis on the twin errors of ‘Totalitarianism’ (Collectivism) and individualism:
"The idea that the whole human race is, in a sense, one thing —one huge organism, like a tree—must not be confused with the idea that individual differences do not matter or that real people, Tom and Nobby and Kate, are somehow less important than collective things like classes, races, and so forth.
Indeed the two ideas are opposites. Things which are parts of a single organism may be very different from one another: things which are not, may be very alike. Six pennies are quite separate and very alike: my nose and my lungs are very different but they are only alive at all because they are parts of my body and share its common life. Christianity thinks of human individuals not as mere members of a group or items in a list, but as organs in a body—different from one another and each contributing what no other could. When you find yourself wanting to turn your children, or pupils, or even your neighbors, into people exactly like yourself, remember that God probably never meant them to be that. You and they are different organs, intended to do different things.
On the other hand, when you are tempted not to bother about someone else’s troubles because they are “no business of yours,” remember that though he is different from you he is part of the same organism as you. If you forget that he belongs to the same organism as yourself you will become an Individualist. If you forget that he is a different organ from you, if you want to suppress differences and make people all alike, you will become a Totalitarian. But a Christian must not be either a Totalitarian or an Individualist.
I feel a strong desire to tell you—and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me—which of these two errors is the worse. That is the devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs—pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them."
-C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Bk. 4, pg. 6
So, is Christianity collectivistic or individualistic? The two quotes above point to a more both/And answer. The theological starting point that best captures what Machen and Lewis where getting at is the Christian God. So A Christ followers reflection on social theory is God, the distinctly Christian God, revealed in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinitarian God of Christian faith gives us the proper categories for understanding a well ordered society
Only the Trinity can act as a guide for thinking about political realities. It protects from diminishing the value of the individual or the obligation to the common good. The doctrine of the Trinity as a starting point for reflection on social realities helps to join apparent unbridgeable opposites. Who said doctrine is dry and not relevant to current issues? Our God gives us a vision of how the individual and the many can be one. The analogy is helpful but not without flaws. It does brake down down at some point, a community can't be one as God is one. Yet the doctrine of the Trinity gives us a way to balance the tension between collectivism and individualism. I think that a beautiful beginning.
Footnote
[1] A precursor to the modern progressive movement, rooted more in enlightenment epistemology than postmodern thought thus different in many ways but none the less progressive for its day.