JOLLYBLOGGER

The Proper Use of the Bible

I can't say enough good things about the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation in Phildelphia and the classes I have taken and am taking from David Powlison and Paul Tripp.  It's worth selling your wife's shoes and jewelry to pay for these classes and its worth the drive if you live within a couple of hours of Philly.

In last night's class with Dr. Tripp he talked about the proper use of the Bible in Christian counseling and it was terrific.  He talked about the many ways we misuse the Bible in counseling but in all honesty I came away thinking I've pretty well misused the Bible throughout my whole Christian life.  OK, maybe not, but close.  Here's a few thoughts I gleaned.

Qualification for Ministry

I can't find much to disagree with in this quote from Doug Wilson:

"The disease has so far progressed that we now tend to assume that graduate school honors are the qualifications we should look for in a ministerial candidate. Paul's requirements for a godly ministry are set aside, and we think that it is all right to do this because the man whose marriage and family are stretcher case (and got that way while he was working his guts out in seminary) nevertheless has professional certification. He has the right papers on the wall, embossed and signed. This is nothing less than the capitulation of the evangelical church to the bureaucratic mind. Nothing good can come of it, and the sooner we find the way of repentance the better" (The Paideia of God, p. 107).

Updates at Theologica

With all of the running around I have been doing lately I haven't been giving near as much attention to Jollyblogger as I usually do and even less to Theologica.  But, this week I've had the chance to update Theologica a few times and I want to encourage you to go over there and check it out.

IMHO, one of the biggest challenges facing the Christian church today is the rise of new spiritualities.  So, I am going to be posting on this topic over at Theologica, hopefully on a regular basis.

This week I have put up two guest posts from my friend Matt Bohling.  He has done a series of posts on his own blog called "Alphabet Religious Soup" and has given permission for me to repost those at Theologica.  You can finds part 1 here and part 2 here.

I've also put up a chart at Theologica on the new spirituality vs. Christianity.  I took this from a lecture given by Dr. James Herrick, author of the book The Making of the New Spirituality. 

I'll follow up with more from Matt next week and I'll add more from other sources also.

Related Tags: Current Affairs, Religion, Christian, Christianity, Spiritual, Spirituality, New Spirituality, Weblogs

Book Review - Wicca's Charm - by Catherine Edwards Sanders

Recently I have been following the ministry of Dr. Peter Jones from Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet and have been trying to learn about some of the neo-pagan influences on contemporary culture.  In the midst of this I had the good providence to hear an interview on Mars Hill Audio with Catherine Edwards Sanders as she discussed her book Wicca's Charm. 

I will begin by asking your forgiveness for this, but I am going to be a lazy reviewer and simply share with you a blurb from the Mars Hill Audio site which gives a pretty good overall description of the book:

Sanders discusses her findings and explains why Wicca is popular with American teenagers. Many are drawn to it because they long to be deliberate about spirituality but also wish to craft their own way of practicing spirituality. Wicca, because it has no orthodoxy, allows them to do just that. Sanders notes that the increased interest in pagan spirituality should not be surprising; America's culture has "tilled the soil" for it, she says.

On Doubt as a Lifestyle

Browing the blogosphere I found this outstanding quote on doubt on the excellent blog King of Fools.

I'll be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gesthemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the cross, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.

Life of Pi by Yann Martel

Related Tags: Philosophy, Doubt, Faith, Religion, Books, Life of Pi, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Agnostic, Agnostics, Agnosticism

How Much Depravity and How Much It Applies

I have to agree with De at the Thinklings, that Jim Nicholson from the Boars Head Tavern hit a home run with this post.  Jim begins:

There are two fundamental errors we need to be careful to avoid.

The first, and more obvious one, is to disbelieve the reality of depravity.

The second, and more insidious, is to believe that "total" depravity is "utter" depravity.

A good thought, but not unique or brilliant, just a good, carefully nuanced statement about what is meant by the notion of "total depravity."   Where the post gets brilliant is in his application of the doctrine to some current issues.  In doing this I think Jim gives us one of the best examples of applied theology I have seen in quite awhile.  He says;

It is, in my view, a fundamental error to believe that depravity means that everyone is essentially selfish to the point of disregard for other people or for the rest of creation in every circumstance. This error is seen in contemporary American politics on a daily basis; the result of it is that flawed people like Bill Clinton aren't seen as just flawed people, they become monstrous predators; flawed people like George Bush aren't seen as flawed people, they become tree-eating baby killers. Dick Cheney can't just be a guy who had a hunting accident, he has to be the center of a vast duck-winged conspiracy to kill lawyers with birdshot. It never occurs to anyone anymore that those on "the other side" of the aisle, or of the question of the moment, are merely wrong, they must be either evil, or stupid, or both.  (Cf. Krauthammer's observation.)

Scott McKnight on the Emerging Church - Epistemology and Ecclesiology

I recently read Scott McKnight's article "Future or Fad: A Look at the Emerging Church Movement."  I think I've said this before, but in case I haven't I'll say again that Scott is the one to read if you want to get some of the best thoughts on the emerging movement.

This article is probably as good of a summary of the emerging movement as you will find in a short space - it's only 4 pages long.  I can't say it eased my qualms about the emerging group, but it is a good short overview which, if it doesn't motivate you to be more sympathetic to the movement, should at least help you to avoid caricatures.

There are several points of note which I would like to interact with and if I have time to do so I may.  For now, I'll just point out one comment that seems to me to be crucial in understanding the emerging church.  In response to D. A. Carson's criticisms of emerging epistemology, Scott says:

Instead of epistemology, the EM is concerned with ecclesiology—how to “do church” (to use this commonplace but inelegant phrase) in our current context.

My only question in response to this is "how do they know they should be more concerned with ecclesiology than epistemology?"

J. Mark Bertrand on Bad Worldview Thinking

I am a person who was late to the "worldview" dance in that I grew up in the faith in a the broadly evangelical subculture that was more pietistic and sometimes activistic than anything else.  So, it wasn't until my seminary days that I learned some bare rudiments of philosophy and was also exposed to the idea of worldviews.

Having been exposed to the "worldview" concept it was pretty eye opening and gave me a new way of looking at life and showing the relevance of the Christian faith to all of life.  In seminary I was exposed to the worldview thinking of Abraham Kuyper and since then I have read a bit from his followers and those in the neo-calvinistic tradition.  Al Wolters book Creation Regained and Nancy Pearcey's book Total Truth have been the most helpful things I have read in this regard and Gideon Strauss's blog has been the most helpful blog I have read in these matters.

This morning I read a post by J. Mark Bertrand on what happens when "worldview" thinking goes bad.  I have excerpted a large part of the post below.  One of the things to notice in this is that he is not criticizing worldview thinking per se, he is criticizing a flawed application of worldview thinking.  He seems to be criticizing a simplistic approach, the kind you see in some of these worldview quizzes on the internet.  I have taken those things also and have found them pretty silly, actually. You'll also notice that he has narrowed the discussion to worldview thinking applied to art, but I think his thoughts have broader application.

So, for all of you worldview warriors out there, let me encourage you to read the excerpt then read the rest of his thoughts.  And I am hoping he will follow up.

Eugene Peterson on Caring, II

Here's more from Eugene Peterson on caring, from his book Subversive Spirituality.  I am currently taking a class from Paul Tripp at Wesminster Seminary on counseling and he read a large section from Peterson's book on our first night of class to show how our efforts at caring for friends in need often go awry.  I found this very helpful so I excerpted a few paragaphs yesterday, today and may do so tomorrow.  This is from page 158:

We are created to be open.  To be open to God, to open out towards our neighbors.  We can only be whole and healthy in so far as we do this.  When we are in need, when first-hand experience documents our inability to be whole beings on our own, the first thing that can happen is that we will become more authentically human.  Need rips gashes in our self-containment and opens us to our neighbor.  Need blows holes in our roofed-in self-sufficiency and opens us to God.  But not necessarily.

For the self-willed self does not give up easily.  It makes a persistent and determined stand to use these need-generated openings not to move out, but to pull whoever is trying to help it, into its service, put the neighbors to its use. If unwary, the person providing care is co-opted into feeding selfishness, which is to say, sin.

Related Tags: Religion, relationships, care, caring, sin, need, Christian, Christianity

Eugene Peterson on Caring, I

On pp. 157-158 of his book Subversive Spirituality, Eugene Peterson says:

So, "Teach us to care."  We begin with a realization of our poverty: We do not know how to care.  What we have been prayerlessly engaged in and glibly calling care, is not care.  It is pity, it is sentimentality, it is do-goodism, it is ecclesiastical colonialism, it is religious imperialism.  Caring, noble and commendable as it seems,  is initiated by a condition that can and often does, twist it into something ugly and destructive.  That condition is need.  A child cries out, a woman weeps, a man curses, a youth, as we say, "acts out."  More often that not, one of us - a Christian who has discovered a vocation to care, either professionally or amateurly, it does not mattter is there.  We help.  So far, so good.  The child's pain, the woman's tears, the man's anger, the youth's confusion are all real enough and need to be responded to.  If someone is and willing to care it is sheer blessing.

A Consequence of the Lust for Academic Respectability

Over at Mere Comments, Russell Moore says this:

Unfortunately, Protestant colleges around the country have twitched in this web for over a century. Lusting after academic respectability, they hire faculty members who follow the repective party lines of their guilds. Often, this includes the religion faculty chasing after the dusty theories of German liberals or the faddish proposals of postmodern philosophers (thankfully, at Samford, with the exception of an orthodox divinity school faculty). But they still must be a "Christian" school, so what makes it so? Well, the same thing that makes an individual so: privatized faith, thoroughly severed from the rest of thought and life. In short, one makes up for Darwinism in biology with chapel attendance and mission trips. But without a coherent worldview vision, this ends up as so much pseudo-Gnostic spirituality reflecting on "self, community, and a personal God"  with, as this student cynic puts it, "no reason for respect."

Read the rest here.

Related Tags: Current Affairs, Education, Science, Religion, Worldview, Christian, Christianity, Faith, Evolution, Philosophy, Postmodernism, Gnostic Spirituality

How is the emerging church "post-liberal?"

This is one of those posts that is going to come off as being filled with thinly veiled hostility and antagonism.  So, I want to admit up front that though I am asking questions and thus would ostensibly positioning myself as an inquirer, this is full of my own prejudices.  Yet, I hope I can also convey that I do sincerely want to offer these questions in the spirit of dialogue with the hopes for further clarification.

That being said, I want to begin by pointing out that I have often heard the emergent movement being described as "post-. . . "  Granted, this comes mainly from reading Brian McLaren but I think it is fair to say that being "post-something" is a big part of the emergent movement.

I have heard it said that the emergent church is "post-conservative" and "post-liberal," i.e. it seeks to transcend the "modernistic" debates between conservatives and liberals.  It offers a third way which critiques both conservatives and liberals.

The "post-conservative" part I get.  It seems that, though emergent is still a movement in search of a definition and identity, it is clear in defining itself in opposition to traditional conservative evangelicalism.  In other words I often read and hear emergent types speaking of how they differ with the church that has gone before them, and the particulars of the church they are different from usually sounds like the particulars of conservative evangelical churches.  Fair enough, emergent says its "post-conservative" so they are being consistent with themselves.

What I haven't heard the emergent folks do is describe wherein they differ from liberalism.  It may be that, being a conservative, I have blinders on and am only paying attention to the things they say about my team, and am missing something.  And if so, then I would like to know in what ways the emerging church is "post-liberal?"

The Da Vinci Code Fallback Position

I haven't seen the trailer yet for the Da Vinci Code movie but someone who has told me it says something to the effect of finding the truth.  In other words, it is claiming to tell the truth about Jesus, you know, the one the church has hidden all of these years. 

But when pressed, Dan Brown and Ron Howard will say this is just a story and they hope it leads to discussion.

It won't be hard to press against the book and the movie.  All kinds of people from all kinds of places have already debunked the main tenets of the Da Vinci Code and anyone who is willing to look at the evidence should be able to see that pretty quickly.

So I think there will be a fall back position for Da Vinci Code advocates and I think we can already see what that fallback position will be.

The Gospel of Thomas and Women

In the book The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown, the characters teach that Christianity as we know it today is a bastardized version of the true Christianity that Jesus left us.  According to Brown and the scholars he relied on, Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and gave birth to children by her.  Also, it was Jesus' intention to establish Mary Magdalene as the head of the church but jealous, chauvinistic disciples prevented this.  This tradition of chauvinism continued in the church until the time of the time of Constantine and the Council of Nicea when the church decided that Jesus was divine.  Along the way, in order to maintain their control, the church altered the true saying and traditions of Jesus, vilifying women and making Mary Magdalene out to be a whore.

I am no expert on the gnostic literature as are the scholars on whom Dan Brown relies.  I do know, though, that they make much of the Gospel of Thomas.  While their entire case is not built on the Gospel of Thomas it is a significant plank in their argument.

Christians Taking a Stand Against Global Warming - Huh?

By now I am guessing that most of my readers have heard 85 of evangelicalism's prominent leaders have banded together to launch a full frontal assault on global warming.  If you haven't heard about this, you can read about it at the Evangelical Climate Initiative.   These leaders are issuing a call for us to take action against "human induced climate change," which is "a serious Christian issue."

On the other hand, at the urging of evangelical leaders like Chuck Colson, D. James Kennedy, James Dobson and Richard Land, the National Association of Evangelicals has decided not to take a stand on this because the science these other evangelical leaders are relying on is in doubt.

An Economy of Grace

I'm taking a class from Paul Tripp of the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation and am reading his book Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands as a part of the class.  In chapter 2 he talks about a couple who is having serious marital problems, their marriage has devolved into a constant power struggle.  If you have done any counseling at all you have met these people regularly. 

Paul talks about how such folks will treat the Bible as a kind of encyclopedia where they expect to go to page such and such and find an answer to such and such a problem.  What is really happening when they do this is that they are looking for ways to change the other, they aren't willing to deal with their own sin.  He has this wonderful summary of what is really going on here:

Think of our couple again.  One of the most significant problems in thier relationship is that there is no economy of grace.  With all their obvious difficulties, what is most shocking is the profound gracelessness of their marriage.  There is no willingness to look within and confess deep-seated sins, so they never find sweet forgiveness.  There is no vertical hope to carry them in dark and discouraging times.  There is no rest that comes from entrusting each other to the God of grace.  There is no faith that he will give them all they need to respond to each other in godly ways. As a result, their relationship is reduced to human demands, human performance, human failure, human judgment, and human punishment.  There is not hope or power for change.  And because they are not daily soaking in the fountain of God's grace, they do not extend it to one another.

All of their marriage books, communication skills, and attempts at reformation will fail, because their only true hope is God's heart-transforming, relationship-revolutionizing grace.  When they begin to rely on that grace and extend it to to each other, the foundations of their present economy will crumble, and a foundation of grace-infused, God-empowered love will grow.  Only in the economy of grace can the biblical principles for healthy marital relationships bear lasting fruit.

Related Tags: Relationships, Marriage, Grace, Christianity, Christian, Faith, Religion

Why We're Post- everything

Here's a quote I am shamelessly ripping off from Doug Wilson which explains the continued fascination we all have with being "post-whatever."

"It is, in fact, this assumption of an ability to move from one plateau of achievement to another that has given us a need always to be post: we feel compelled to assure ourselves that we are post-Puritan, post-Christian, and post-modern. Our world is post-industrial and post-business. Our time is post-Vietnam, post-Watergate, and post-Cold War." [David Wells, No Place for Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 60.]

Related Tags: Religion, Spirituality, Christian, Christianity, Faith, Postmodernism, David Wells

Fisking McLaren on Homosexuality

For a couple of weeks now I've been wanting to weigh in on this whole Brian McLaren - Mark Driscoll hubub over homosexuality.  But with being out of town, playing catch-up on other stuff after being out of town, then getting hit with a humdinger of a cold or flu or something I just haven't had the time to weigh in. 

Fortunately others have and I want to call your attention to some good responses to McLaren's views on homosexuality as expressed over at the Leadership Blog: Out of Ur.

If you have missed what I am talking about, Brian did a post on the issue at Leadership Blog: Out of Ur on finding a pastoral response to homosexuality.  A gentleman who has struggled with homosexuality seems to have found Brian's pastoral response wanting.  Mark Driscoll ranted about the whole thing and Brian clarified as only Brian can clarify by explaining that he was misunderstood, he didn't communicate clearly and so on and so forth. 

Now I'll give you some links to other responses and a few of my own comments.

Staff Sergeant Dan Clay's Final Letter

During the President's State of the Union Address the other evening he excerpted a letter written by Staff Sergeant Dan Clay, who was killed in action in Iraq and the President publcly honored Staff Sergeant Clay's family.  My good friend Charmaine Yoest has published the entire letter (she got it from our mutual friend Stacy Harp) and this is too good not to read.  I'll just post an excerpt to whet your appetite and then send you over to Charmaine.  But I have to tell you this is moving - this is from a man who understands honor and courage, who understands the Christian view of calling, and who, most importantly understands the hope we have in Christ.

Be thankful that God in His wisdom gives us work. Mine was to ensure that you did not have to experience what it takes to protect what we have as a family. This I am so thankful for. I know what honor is. It is not a word to be thrown around. It has been an Honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to. This is as close to Christ-like I can be. That emulation is where all honor lies. I thank you for making it worthwhile.

Here's the link to Charmaine's post and here's the link to Stacy's post, Stacy has the video from the SOTU on her site.

Related Tags: Current Affairs, News, Politics & Society, War on Terror, Iraq, Iraqi War, President, President Bush, Dan Clay, Staff Sergeant Dan Clay, Religion, Faith, Christianity, Christian, Christ, Jesus Christ, Military, Honor, Courage, Faith, God, Duty

Act Like Men from Ron Gleason

I know there are a lot of people who read me who also read Tim Challies regularly.  On Challies, some of you may have seen Tim talking about his friend Ron Gleason and sharing some of Ron's writings on his blog.  Ron has a new article out called "Act Like Men" which he has given permission to print and which I thought might be helpful.

There has been a good deal of chatter in the blogosphere about the subject of manhood.  At the Together for the Gospel Blog C. J. Mahaney did a post called Real Men, where he encouraged us to read a couple of articles by Randy Stinson and Al Mohler in the Winter 2005 issue of Southern Seminary Magazine.

At TruePravda, Jared Bridges has a very good post interacting with a current Newsweek piece on boys and Rich Lowry's (from National Review) response to the Newsweek piece.

So, I thought I would throw Ron Gleason's thoughts into the mix.  The article I am posting comes from Ron's Ethos column, which you can subscribe to here.  And if you are interested, Ron now has a blog here.  So, without further adieu, here's Ron's column.

Post DaVinci Code America

With the upcoming release of the DaVinci Code movie I figured it was time to read the book and do a little study so I can talk about intelligently about it.  The book is itself a rip roaring adventure and is offered as a work of fiction.  On his website, Dan Brown's first FAQ is this:

HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

The book and movie are, have been, and will be, catalysts for discussion, but I'm not convinced that today's evangelical/orthodox Christians are prepared to enter into this "discussion."  In reality there is more going on here than a desire for mere discussion.  There is an agenda being advanced here. 

The Myth of the Sinless Sinner

One of my longstanding soapboxes here on the blog has been that modern (or postmodern, if you will) Christianity seems to be more sociologically driven than theologically driven.  In other words, we tend to stick our finger into the wind of social trends to see which way the culture is going and adapt our doctrine and practice to fit.

There are some pluses to this.  One of the main pluses is that Christians often answer questions no one is asking and this helps us to see what is really on the minds and hearts of those we seek to reach.

Also, through the centuries we have built up a technical vocabulary related to Christian doctrine and practice which is unfamiliar to many.  At its best, this sociologically driven mindset reminds us that it is ok to find new words and expressions to communicate old truths.  This is a good thing

Further, we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves and one part of loving our neighbors is learning to empathize with them.  Our sociologically driven friends often do a great service to the church in helping us understand and empathize with the people around us.

I would also say that sociology and theology don't necessarily have to be in conflict.  The two can serve each other.  But I would say that theology must drive the bus, and sociology, to be most helpful, must trail behind and be directed by theology.  This is where I think we often go wrong.  And I want to address one example of this.

Christ Our Righteousness

In my devotional reading this morning I read from Spurgeon's "Morning and Evening," the following words which I think may be as helpful and encouraging to you as they were to me.

It will always give a Christian the greatest calm, quiet, ease, and peace, to think of the perfect righteousness of Christ. How often are the saints of God downcast and sad! I do not think they ought to be. I do not think they would if they could always see their perfection in Christ. There are some who are always talking about corruption, and the depravity of the heart, and the innate evil of the soul. This is quite true, but why not go a little further, and remember that we are “perfect in Christ Jesus.” It is no wonder that those who are dwelling upon their own corruption should wear such downcast looks; but surely if we call to mind that “Christ is made unto us righteousness,” we shall be of good cheer . . . If saved by imputed righteousness, we shall greatly value imparted righteousness.

Spurgeon, C. H. 1995. Morning and evening : Daily readings . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA

Related Tags: Religion, Faith, Jesus Christ, Christ, Christian, Christianity, Spurgeon, Righteousness

Mark Driscoll, the Emerging Church and Jolly-blogging!

Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill Church in Seattle has burst on to the blog scene and made a slash that is reminiscent of Phil's entry into the blogosphere.

I may get around to interacting with his stuff in depth later, but for now, did anyone catch this in his entry about Ravi Zacharias and the emerging church?

My fear is that these Emerging church leaders will only see their support base of new monastic community, labyrinth-walking, jolly-blogging, new kind of Christians grow as the disgruntled children of evangelicalism declare heresy to be hip.

Justin Taylor pointed that out to me.  At first glance it looks like he could be taking a swipe at me along with the emerging folks, but Justin suggested, and I agree, that he may have just seen the name of my blog somewhere and figured I was one of the emerging folks.

One of the sure signs of megalomania and/or psychosis is the assumption that people are talking and thinking about you when in fact they are not.  I probably have a little of both but I gotta figure Mark saw my blog's name somewhere along the line before dropping that in there. And it is just kind of funny that "jolly-blogging" and "emerging church" are being lumped together since I have often been quite critical of things emerging.  Of course I do have friends in the emerging movement and seek to be cordial even when disagreeable, but it still cracks me up a bit that emerging church and "jolly blogging" are used together this way.

Of course, it could be the case that some of you emerging bloggers are blogging with unauthorized jolliness, in which case my lawyers will be in contact, since I own the patent on all things jolly.

Related Tags: Religion, Church, Faith, Christian, Christianity, Emerging church, Emergent church, Mark Driscoll, Blog, Blogging, Jollyblogger, Jolly blogging

Intelligent Design, Panspermia and the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Has everyone heard of The Flying Spaghetti Monster?  If you haven't, you are missing out on a real slice of contemporary pop culture.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creation of Bobby Henderson, a 24 year old unemployed amateur pirate with a physics degree.  Oops, there I go messing things up already.  You see, where I goofed in that last sentence is in saying that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creation of Bobby Henderson, when in fact, it is more likely that Bobby (and the rest of us) are the creations of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Bobby, along with many in the scientific community, have recently become distressed at the attempts of Intelligent Design advocates to have ID taught in our public schools.  While there are professors fighting against ID on the academic front, teachers fighting ID on the educational front, and lawyers fighting ID on the legal front, Bobby is fighting ID on the satirical/farcical front.

Opponents of ID think it is ludicrous to teach intelligent design as if it were science.  The idea that there is an intelligent designer (whom some might call "God"), is so ludicrous in fact, that it is just as plausible to believe (scientifically) we were created by a flying spaghetti monster as it is to believe we were created by God.  In other words, if ID'ers want to postulate that there is an intelligent designer behind the universe then we have as much warrant to believe we were created by a flying spaghetti monster as we do to believe we were created by God.

Still Trying to Get the Gospel

Here's one more oldie-goldie for you in this week where I am in and out of blogging.  The gospel is the theme of my life, I'm still trying to understand it every day.  Here's a post I wrote on September 21, 2004 explaining a bit of my jourrney from thinking I understood the gospel, to knowing how little I knew it, to beginning to taste it again, anew and afresh.  BTW - the same journey continues today, 16 months after I first posted this.

First, a little history. I thought when I was "saved" that I understood the gospel. The gospel was encapsulated in a formula, in my case the Four Spiritual Laws, which told you how to be "saved," or how to "have a personal relationship with Jesus." In my view, and I think this is a common view in evangelical Christendom, the gospel was the means of entrance into the faith, but obedience was the means of continuance in the Christian faith.

Believing that, I became obedient, boy did I ever become obedient. I was very serious about obedience to Christ. I was faithful to Bible study and prayer, never missed a church service, did what I could to witness to people (or at least felt guilty for not witnessing!) and generally sought like crazy to live an obedient Christian life.

Some Thoughts on Godly Disputation or "How to Have a Christ-Like Argument"

As I mentioned in a prior post I am out and about this week and don't know if or when I will be able to blog, so I am running some oldie-goldies for your reading pleasure (well, I hope it's pleasure anyway).  This is one of my earliest posts, when I was a wee young blogger, having barely blogged five months.  It was posted in May of 2004 and in the few short months I had been blogging I had already seen a good deal of cantankerousness.  I was already arrogant enough that I thought I could offer suggestions on how we ought to blog so I thought I would take a stab at offering some suggestions for civil blogging.  I've seen lots of posts in recent days on how we ought to blog so I thought it might be good to bring this one up from the archives to add to current discussions on the topic.

One of the things I have enjoyed the most about blogging is the opportunity to engage in substantive debate with fellow Christians and skeptics. My short time in the blogosphere has afforded me a wonderful opportunity for continuing education and I think this is one of the strengths of blogging.

For some time now I have pondered the ins and outs of Christian debate. Some relish it, and some abhor it. In my liifetime I have wavered back and forth. There have been times when I have abhorred it and even felt that somehow it was ungodly to debate and argue within the body of Christ. After all, if we are "one in the spirit," then to debate must somehow show that the spirit isn't moving because it breaks that oneness. At other times, like lately, I have seen the value of debate for growth and sharpening one's intellectual and spiritual development.

To be sure there are great dangers in debating. Cordial debates can often turn ugly. And, often someone can win the debate and lose the person. I remember reading an account of a debate that Francis Schaeffer had with an atheist where Schaeffer humiliated his opponent. Schaeffer won the debate but was very remorseful because he apparently didn't feel that he had advanced the cause of Christ, at least not in the life of his debate opponent.

With all that in mind I thought I would humbly offer several thoughts I have had on how to engage in debate in such a way that it will further the cause of Christ.

One of the things I have enjoyed the most about blogging is the opportunity to engage in substantive debate with fellow Christians and skeptics. My short time in the blogosphere has afforded me a wonderful opportunity for continuing education and I think this is one of the strengths of blogging.

For some time now I have pondered the ins and outs of Christian debate. Some relish it, and some abhor it. In my liifetime I have wavered back and forth. There have been times when I have abhorred it and even felt that somehow it was ungodly to debate and argue within the body of Christ. After all, if we are "one in the spirit," then to debate must somehow show that the spirit isn't moving because it breaks that oneness. At other times, like lately, I have seen the value of debate for growth and sharpening one's intellectual and spiritual development.

To be sure there are great dangers in debating. Cordial debates can often turn ugly. And, often someone can win the debate and lose the person. I remember reading an account of a debate that Francis Schaeffer had with an atheist where Schaeffer humiliated his opponent. Schaeffer won the debate but was very remorseful because he apparently didn't feel that he had advanced the cause of Christ, at least not in the life of his debate opponent.

With all that in mind I thought I would humbly offer several thoughts I have had on how to engage in debate in such a way that it will further the cause of Christ.

Repentance for the Believer vs. the Unbeliever

I'll be out and about this week and I don't know how much, if any time I will have available for blogging so I'm going to rerun a few oldie-goldies for you here.  Hopefully some of the newcomers to the blog will be helped by some of this.  Today's post was originally run on April 19, 2004.

On April 13th (2004), I did a post titled John Calvin, Rick Warren, Repentance, and the Purpose Driven Life, wherein I argued that we in the evangelical church really don't understand the nature of sin and because of that we don't understand the nature of repentance. Paraphrasing John Calvin, we ascribe to habit, that which the Bible ascribes to nature. I argued that sin cannot be defined as something merely outward, an action or an attitude. Sin is often used as an adjective in the Bible to describe our nature. Thus, repentance from sin cannot merely be a change of attitude or action, it must be a change of nature. Hence, the necessity of regeneration - only God can change our nature, and only God can grant repentance. Godly repentance is a reflection of a change in our nature.

In response, Bob over at Mr. Standfast, gave the following comment: 

I'm about to embark on the PDL thing myself, as a "home host" as a matter of fact. My question for you is this: Is the issue of repentence different with regard to a believer than a non-believer? I mean, believers also need to repent, of course, but is repentence for them equally a change of nature, as in the case of the non-believer? Is the continuing life of repentence a progressive inward change? The reason I ask is, if Warren's book about faith-building, about growing in discipleship, rather than about coming to faith, does this make the absence of repentence in the book a less egregious problem? Just wondering.

That's a great question for which I have no great answer. But that's never prevented me from sharing my thoughts on other matters, so why should it stop me now. Here are a few thoughts in response to Bob's question.

Washington Post on Rick Warren

Saturday's Washington Post ran an article on Rick Warren by Paul Nussbaum, which is pretty much the same as Nussbaum's January 8 article in the Philadlphia Inquirer.  I already addressed my biggest concern about that in my January 10th post - a concern about how Rick played fast and loose with the term "fundamentalism" equating Christian (and Jewish) fundamentalism with Islamic fundamentalism (Al Mohler expressed similar concerns in a January 12th post).

So, I won't beat that one to death anymore.  What interests me to day is GetReligion's take on the Rick Warren phenomenon.  Daniel Pulliam addresses this in a post titled "America's Pastor?" where he discusses "Rick Warren the media darling," and "Rick Warren the successor to Billy Graham."  It's a good article and I think Pulliam does a good job of showing the strengths that Warren brings to the public table and warns of possible pitfalls.

The Gospel as the Foundation for Civil Society

This past week I preached a message for Right to Life Sunday, and I referenced this in a post last week called A Short HIstory of the Pro-Life Movement and Abortion.  I mentioned that I had read George Grant's book Third Time Around in preparation for this. In the book George shows that abortion and other elements of the culture of death have always been around and that Christians have always found themselves battling against these things.

One of the things I didn't mention in that post, that George points out, is that where the gospel has flourished the culture of death has been defeated and many other salutory effects have ensued.

Something clicked with me in reading this - a thing I had long thought, but hadn't articulated.  The thing that clicked for me is that the existence of a free and civil society is contingent on the spread of the gospel, not the other way around.  This is in no way a brilliant insight, and it shouldn't be startling to anyone, yet I think this is a simple truth that is often forgotten.

A Quick Word of Encouragement, and I'll See You Tomorrow

I'm out of town today and don't have time to post anything of length, so I'll hopefully be able to do so tomorrow.  Also, I wanted to let you know that I've got a ton of e-mails I haven't gotten too yet, many requesting membership in the League of Reformed Bloggers.  Don't worry, I have heard your cries and hopefully will get the LORB updated by the weekend.

Now, here's a good thought from Spurgeon to cheer, encourage and focus your day:

Why, that Lamb is heaven itself; for as good Rutherford says, “Heaven and Christ are the same thing;” to be with Christ is to be in heaven, and to be in heaven is to be with Christ. That prisoner of the Lord very sweetly writes in one of his glowing letters—“O my Lord Jesus Christ, if I could be in heaven without thee, it would be a hell; and if I could be in hell, and have thee still, it would be a heaven to me, for thou art all the heaven I want.”

Spurgeon, C. H. 1995. Morning and evening : Daily readings . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA

Related Tags: Religion, Christ, Christianity, Faith, Spurgeon, Heaven, Hell

Today's Ponderable 1-16-05

I'm now reading the book Power Failure by Albert Borgmann. This was recommended to me by my good friend Byron Borger from Hearts and Minds Booksellers. It''s tough going for me, I'm slogging through it with a bit of difficulty (which goes to show how much smarter Byron is than me.) But I did come across the following in chapter 2, which is a nugget worth chewing on a good bit.

Just as the skill of reading animal tracks will not flourish in a metropolitan setting, so calls for the virtues of courage and care will remain inconsequential in a material culture designed to procure a comfortable and individualist life.

I could spin webs for days off the thoughts in that quote, but I'll try to be brief here.

I think Borgmann is not so much talking about material things here as much as values. If an individual or a society greatly values comfort, what place will courage have in such a setting, since courage by definition requires pushing past the comfort zone. Similarly, if individualism is of high value, what place does care for one's fellow man have. In such a setting I suppose there could be a kind of courage and care, but not when push comes to shove. When your needs for the care I can provide conflict with my commitment to my indvidual goals in life, you will lose.

In other words, Borgmann is pointing out the way assumed and often unpsoken values can undermine admired virtues.

Here's a few of the webs that spun in my mind in considering this thought.

I think of Francis Schaeffer's famous words to the effect that in our world today, personal peace and affluence are the things of highest value. This is closely akin to what Borgmann says. If personal peace and affluence are of highest value, then not only do these militate against certain virtues, but they will militate against faith itself. Faith, at least of the Christian variety, calls for an abandonment of self-concern, in favor of a primary concern for the glory of God and the good of one's neighbor. These are things that will be difficult to come by if personal peace and affluence are formost in anyone's affections.

I also think of a book I started a few years ago (I don't think I finished it) called The Way of the Modern World by Craig Gay. Gay's thesis is that we moderns have constructed a world that that basically renders belief in God irrelevant. Again, this dovetails with Schaeffer and Borgmann.

And all of this seems to get back to what Os Guinness and others have described as the importance of "plausibility structures." Guinness defines them this way:

"the degree to which a belief (or disbelief) seems convincing is directly related to its "plausibility structure" - that is, the group or community which provides the social and psychological support for the beleif. If the support's structure is strong, it is easy to believe; if the support's structure is weak, it is difficult to believe. The question of whether the group's belief is actually true or not may never become an issue."

Yesterday our church celebrated "right to life" Sunday so I preached on the subject. This is a great example of how the arguments we pro-lifers offer are often dismissed out of hand because of the current plausibility structures of society.

Similar things happen in evangelism and apologetics and it's a good reminder that our calling as Christians is to engage people and cultures on deeper levels than just those of arguments. This does not mean that we quit offering arguments, but in our attempts at persuasion in any matter we need to look deeper to what values and plausibility structures (presuppositions, in Cornelius Van Til's thought) need to be engaged with the gospel.

Technorati Tags: Religion, Apologetics, Virtue, Francis Schaeffer, Os Guinness, Christianity, Values, Plausibility

A Short History of the Pro-Life Movement and Abortion

I'm doing some work on a sermon for Right to Life Sunday and am reading the book Third Time Around: A History of the Pro-Life Movement from the First Century to the Present, by George Grant.   This book is available as a free .pdf download.   

One of the surprising things in reading this book is to note that the practice of abortion has been around for a long time, and the Christian church has consistently been pro-life throughout its history.  And this pro-life orientation has not been in relation to abortion only, the church has stood for life wherever it was threatened. 

Grant begins the book by discussing an incident where he was involved in a live televised debate with an abortion advocate and his opponent expressed exasperation with the pro-life movement.

In desperation as the seconds slipped away, he made one last lunging stab: "What I don't understand about you pro-lifers is where you've been all these years. The camera moved in to capture the high drama. Passion shone from his anguished features. Beads of sweat trickled down his brow. Women have been suffering for centuries. The pro-life movement didn't even exist until 1973. You're just a bunch of extremists, opportunists, and Johnny-come latelies." 

My turn. The camera zoomed in to catch my reaction. I just smiled. "Ah, but once again, there is where you are so very wrong. The pro-life movement is not a recent phenomenon or innovation,  I said. It is two thousand years old. You see, the pro-life movement was inaugurated on a rugged old cross, on a hill called Calvary-it is best known as Christianity. Caring for the helpless, the deprived, and the unwanted is not simply what we do. It is what we are. Always has been. Always will be."

George then goes on to give a history of abortion and the history of the pro-life movement.

Actions and Reactions in Times of Crisis

I'm reading George Grant's book Third Time Around, a book on the history of the pro-life movement, and he has this great quote which applies to so much more than just the pro-life movement.

Throughout history men have reacted instead of acted in times of crisis. They have sought to ameliorate an ill on the right hand by turning immediately and entirely to the left. They have tried to solve a problem in the citadels of the present by desecrating the foundations of the past. Driven by extremism, they have failed to see the moderating application of adjustments and alternatives.

We fall into that same trap today. Instead of attempting to reform, refurbish, or. renovate, we want to rip asunder the roots of the ages and start over from scratch. The result of such ludicrous impudence is invariably disastrous.

I can think of all kinds of applications for this.  Of course, my personal whipping boy is George Barna and his call for a revolution, and this applies to all types of revolutionary thinking, not just ecclesiastical.

I'm not going to throw these words in the face of my emergent friends because some, though not all, are taking history seriously and are trying to re-establish older patterns of ecclesiastical practice.  On the other hand, there is a significant element in the emergent movement that is enamored with theological novelty and rather than helping refine and reform, they are seeking to overthrow key Christian doctrines.  So, I would urge those folks to heed Grant's words.

And I would urge anyone of any ecclesiastical, denominational, or theological stripe to keep these words in mind whhen the next new big thing comes along.

Related Tags: Pro-life, History, Revolution, Revolutionary, George Barna Revolution, Reformation, Reform, Emergent, Emergent church, Church, Christian, Christianity, Religion, Extremism

Rick Warren on Fundamentalism

Tim Challies pointed me to an "online extra" article on the Philadelphia Inquirer's website this past Sunday on Rick Warren.  It's a pretty good article and Warren says some good things.  I particularly like his concern that the church has come to be known more for what it is against than what it is for - I think he is absolutely right about that.  The church has become known as a reactionary organization.  He also has apparently been reading Nancy Pearcey, because he quotes her quote of Bill Wichterman who said that politics is downstream from culture.  He goes on to embellish that a bit, saying that he would trust the local rabbi, Imam, pastor or priest to know a community better than he would the local community.  That's a bit of an overstatement, I have known some local politicians who know their communities better than anyone else, but his point is still good - politics is not ultimate, so we'll give him that one.

But at the risk of being cranky and being known for what I am against, I have some concerns, mostly over the way he plays fast and loose with history.

Are You Saved? Good for you, because apparently Tim Challies isn't!

Word on the street is that Tim Challies isn't saved - bummer eh, Tim?

But don't worry, you won't get any flack from your ol' pal Dave here over that.  Since you and I co-moderate the League of Reformed Bloggers I just want to set your mind at ease and let you know that we  require people to be Calvinists to join the LORB, not Christians, so you are safe with me pal.

Actually, it kind of warms my heart to know that Tim isn't saved.  He has made disparaging remarks about me in the past - he once insinuated that it is tragic the way I will sometimes go days without posting to my blog.  Well Tim ol' buddy, I may be living a sad and tragic life, but at least I'm saved!

Then again, maybe I'm not saved . . .   

Theologica - Wayne Grudem, Charismatic Gifts, and Prophecy

Over the past few weeks as I have been absent from blogging I have also been absent from my post over at Theologica.  And I want to try to get Theologica going again for a new year so I have posted a response to Wayne Grudem's interview with Tim Challies over there.  So, please go by and check out my post and the others at Theologica!

Does Power Really Corrupt?

I'm currently reading (very slowly) The Calvinistic Concept of Culture by Henry R. Van Til and he has the following very provocative quote on page 34:

But culture, as such, is a gift of God to man as well as an obligation.  The Germans have a word for it Gabe und Aufgabe.  Thus man was at once servant and child.  Man stood in that relationship to his Maker, wherein he knew God as his friend, and loved him as his Father.  At the same time he had received dominion over all God's created world, to be lord and master in the name of his God.  Unto this end he was to populate the earth with his kind and to cultivate it.  This was not a matter of choice but of divine precept and it entered into the very constitution of man, so that man is essentially a cultural being.   The cultural urge, the will to rule and have power is increated.  This is not demonic, or satanic, but divine in origin.  True, men may misues and abuse power after the entrance of sin into the world, but to say with Lord Acton that all power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutlely, which is quoted promiscuously by men who ought to know the Scriptures, is not wisdom but folly and confusion.  For power belongs to man by virtue of his creation as a cultural creature.  He was made to function in the realm of power and to develop his power to its highest potency - for God, of course!  There's the rub!  Men continually forget the divine original in paradise and take the condition of Paradise lost for granted as being normative.

With the caveat that I am 35 pages into a 245 page book and that Van Til will obviously explain himself further as the book goes along, here ar ea few initial, knee jerk reactions to these statements. 

A New You For a New Year - 1

Today marks my return to blogging after a break for the holidays.  I didn't intend to not blog over the past two weeks, life was just too busy to blog except for a few personal words to and about friends of mine.  So, I thought I would jump back in today and over the next couple of days with parts of the manuscripts from my sermons for this past Sunday and next.  I am doing a series called "A New You For A New Year."  I am beginning with two sermons on Jeremiah 17:5-10 which conttrast the blessed man and the cursed man and use the metaphor of a fruitful tree compared with a bush in the desert.
David Powilson and the folks at the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation use the two trees as a metaphor for understanding one's life and as a guide to counseling so I am boldly ripping this off from them.  The two sermons on Jeremiah will set up the two trees illustration then I will move on to a study of the book of Philippians using the two trees as a paradigm.

This is part of the ministry project I had to do for the class I took last fall on The Dynamics of Biblical Change.  I'm doing this sermon series at the church and will also be sharing it with you.

So, today's post is introductory material.  I'll probably space the Jeremiah 17:5-10 material out over three or four days on the blog and if there is some interest in the comments I may continue posting as I go through Philippians.

And once again I'll issue the usual disclaimer when I post sermons.  I write my sermons to be heard, so they are very different from writing to be read.  I don't think sermons written for the ear read all that well, but hopefully there will be something worthwhile for you here.  So read on, let me know what you think and Happy New Year!

A Couple of Responses to the "Skipping Christmas" Controversy

Now that we've had several days of discussion (should I say acrimony?) over the whole Skipping Church on Christmas thing a few of the larger churches that had cancelled services have responded.  When I wrote my original post on this two weeks ago I didn't realize that Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, MD had decided to cancel their services.  A few days after I did that post I found out about it.  I was surprised but understood that their reasoning was not about caving in to the secularism of the culture. Rather there was a desire to give some much needed rest to a large and merry band of hard working volunteers, and maybe some other reasons were there also.  Among other things, this encouraged me to write a toned down and more nuanced post on the same subject, affirming the motivations of some of these megachurches while still expressing my own concerns. 

In the meantime, many of the megachurches that had cancelled Christmas Day services have now had time to digest the criticisms and approbations that came from within and without their own churches and there are a couple of interesting responses I wanted to highlight.

A Worthy Rebuttal of My Views on the Sabbath

Jeremy Pierce at Parableman has written a rebuttal to my views on the Sabbath, as they have been expressed in some recent posts.  I commend his post to you.  He says this:

What struck me in David's post is that he holds on to a view of the Sabbath that I think is extremely difficult to maintain biblically. Leave aside the assumption that if Sunday is the Sabbath then we ought to have our main time of worship on Sunday. I'm interested in whether Christians should observe the Sabbath at all. I think there's a clear biblical case against seeing Sunday or Saturday as a Sabbath for Christians.

I have the highest respect for Jeremy and generally believe that, if he says I'm wrong, I'm probably wrong.  I haven't said everything I want to say on the issue, but if you haven't read what I have said, you can find the gist of what I believe in this post.  That will give you some background for his criticisms.  For now, I'll just address a couple of things he brings up.

More on Skipping Church on Christmas

When I wrote my previous post on skipping church on Christmas I admit that I had a visceral reaction to the news that some mega-churches have decided to cancel their Sunday morning Christmas services this year.  To me it smacked of selling out.  I have a background and some presuppositions that informed my reaction to the news in the same way that these megachurches have presuppositions that guided their decision.

These presuppositions involve a high view of the Sabbath and a belief that we have a wonderful opportunity this year to actually honor Christ through corporate worship on the day that bears his name. 

And so, my very visceral reaction was guided by these presuppositions.  Having had time to cool down a bit, and read and hear from some folks who are cancelling church on Christmas I am willing to acknowledge that the tone of my prior post was unnecessarily harsh. I'm still convinced of my position on this matter, but want to tone down the rhetoric and acknowledge the concerns and positions of those on the other side of the issue.

Skipping Church on Christmas?

I really enjoyed John Grisham's book Skipping Christmas.  It's a fun, light-hearted escape for a couple of hours that tells the story of Luther Crank and his attempts to skip Christmas one year.  And it was made into a funny movie that came out last year called Christmas with The Krank's starring Tim Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis.  The comedy in the movie dealt with Luther's futile battle to avoid Christmas.

This year the body of Christ has been given a wonderful gift in that the world's celebration of Christmas falls on a Sunday.  For so many years we have been talking about the need to put Christ back in Christmas.  This year the battle has reached a fever pitch with endless debates about  "Xmas vs. Christmas, " and "Holiday Trees vs. Christmas Trees."  And so, we have a wonderful gift this year, where Christmas falls on the Lord's Day.  Christians across America have a terrific opportunity to not only worship our Lord together as a body on the day that ostensibly marks His birth, but also to make a statement in the eyes of a watching world.  This is a statement that Christmas is a day of worship!

The Christmas Invasion

After light blogging for the last two weeks I'm going to try to get back into it this week, although this week is shaping up to be as busy as the last few.  It may be after the new year before I can get back in the habit of daily blogging like I usually do, but I'll do my best to be consistent before then.

Today I thought I would share a thought with you that I preached on yesterday that resonated with some folks.

One of the things I struggle with at holidays like Christmas and Easter is how to address familiar texts and themes in a new and fresh way.  Folks who have been in the church for any length of time have heard so many Christmas and Easter sermons that they can be immune.

So, for yesterday's sermon I went back to the beginning to set some context for Christmas.  When I say "the beginning," I mean the time of the fall.  My text was Genesis 3:15:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring  and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

I titled this message "The Promise of Christmas," because in this text we see this promise.  There are four characters in this verse - a woman, her offspring, and Satan and his offspring. This passage tells of the age old conflict between the two groups. 

Sabbath Delights

This Sunday I will be preaching on Hebrews 10:25:

Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

And yes I do know what holiday weekend this is and that I should be preaching something Thanksgivingish.  But I started a sermon about three weeks ago on Hebrews 10:19-25 that I have yet to finish and this is the final thought from the text which I am bound and determined to finish before we get into December and all of the Christmas stuff. 

So, among other things I'll be talking about the significance of the Sabbath meeting for the people of God.  And I came across a few words from Laura Brumley (remember that name!!) at A Practice in Belief that I believe are some of the best I have ever heard on the delights of the Sabbath.  Read and be blessed:

I am floored by God's readiness to grant people like us free access to hearing, singing, praying, and feeding upon his Word every week. And we're told to spend the whole day celebrating this reality, keeping in mind that it is a mere foretaste? I'm convinced that there are no blessings in this life comparable to a Sunday rightly spent.

The Church as a Particular Gathering of Particular People

I'm one of those who tends to overextend myself.  I overextend myself sometimes in my schedule, I over extend myself in my expenses (usually buying books) and I overextend myself in the arguments I choose to engage in.

The last couple of weeks I have found myself involved in arguments regarding the nature of the church and spiritual gifts.  When someone brings up a new topic for me to engage in I feel like Prince Humperdink in Princess Bride when he said:

Tyrone, you know how much I love watching you work. But I've got my country's 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder, and Guilder to frame for it. I'm swamped!

I'm swamped with arguments and debates here, so if I haven't gotten involved in your personal debate please understand that its not that I don't care.

And oh by the way I do enjoy these debates and I hope that those of you who are taking the other side in these things understand that I see you as friends and these as friendly debates.

And so today I wander back into the debate on the church which started with my review of George Barna's book Revolution.  As I mentioned in that review I find it to be a completely horrid little book (how's that for friendly debate? ;-)) and downright silly in its proposal that we can leave the church to be the church. 

The Gift of Prophecy and God's Decretive Will

Theologians through the centuries have typically distinguished between two wills in God, or maybe I should say two categories of God's will.  In a context different from what I am writing about here, John Piper mentions this in his essay Are There Two Wills in God?

For example, theologians have spoken of sovereign will and moral will, efficient will and permissive will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, decretive will and preceptive will, voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure), etc.

All of those fancy terms mean roughly the same things and for this discussion I'll just use the terms "decretive" and "preceptive." 

Fallible Prophecy?

In this post, Adrian Warnock argues for his view that prophecy in the New Testament is far from infallible.  Adrian's words are:

I believe the NT is clear that prophecy is far from infallible.

To respond to that we have to ask exactly what a prophecy is.  Is it a word from God or isn't it.  I have been re-reading Richard Gaffin's book, Perspectives on Pentecost, as a result of this debate and Gaffin offers the following definition of prophecy:

It is a revelatory gift; that is it brings to the church the words of God in the primary and original sense.  Prophecy is not, at least primarily or as one of its necessary marks, the interpretation of an already existing inspired text or oral tradition but is itself the inspired, nonderivative word of God.

Now if I may have a moment of your time to explain how Gaffin writes, he is being unusually precise in this particular definition. Previously in the book he said that all Christians are prophets by definition because we are recipients of and speakers of the Word of God.  Similarly, we are all charismatics because we have all received the charisma. 

For the purposes of this discussion I'll point out Gaffin's emphasis on the fact that a prophecy is an original, primary, inspired, non-derivative Word of God.

In contrast Wayne Grudem's definition of prophecy is that it is a human report of something that God has brought spontaneously to mind.  This is not inspired in the same way that Scripture is, and is not inerrant. This is what Adrian is getting at.

From "Man in Community" to "Exalted Individualism"

My buddy Arch Van Devender is talking about the church over at Theologica. See his two excellent posts on "The Objective Reality of a True Church" here and here.  He has a good paragraph in the first post that dovetails nicely with what I have been talking about in my last two posts in regards to Christianized narcissism/solipsism/Maslowianism:

I think ecclesiology is one of the most under-valued and abused Biblical doctrines in modern day Evangelicalism. Because of the centuries long trend away from "man in community" toward "exalted individualism", Christianity has suffered greatly in its witness and influence within the social structures of recent history. As the focus of Christianity, through a variety of influences, has tended toward a spirituality which is almost exclusively understood in terms of "me and Jesus", the corporate aspects of salvation, of anthropology itself, and of God's Kingdom purposes has lost much of the power to shape and govern lives that God intends for His people to possess.

John Calvin on the Revolution

I originally posted the following on April 20, 2004 but it is a fitting follow up to my review of George Barna's book Revolution.  Barna suggests that the future will bring a revolution in Christendom where believers will be leaving the church in droves in order to be the church.  But, as you can see from these words of John Calvin, this revolution that Barna touts as future has been going on for at least 400 years or more now.

Book Review - Revolution by George Barna

Let me begin this review of George Barna's book Revolution with a few apologies.  The first is that this post is so absurdly long that it hardly deserves to be called a blog post.  If anyone makes it to the end of this post they deserve a medal.  It is just that this book touched on a lot of issues for me, so this post is my personal way of working through a number of things. 

Secondly, I apologize for the overuse of personal pronouns here.  Since George Barna wrote the book I spend a lot of time saying "he said," or "Barna says" or "he thinks" and things like that.  As such, because I disagree with so much in the book it may come off as a personal attack.  Please allow me to nip that in the bud by apologizing up front. I think of Mr. Barna as a brother and a man who has devoted his life to the cause of Christ.  Though I have never met him, from reading books and interviews regarding him I know that he is an honorable man of integrity, and is a brother whom I respect.  Yes, this book got under my skin and so I'm pretty negative about it.  But if the opportunity  were ever to arise I would welcome the chance to fellowship with and learn from Mr. Barna.

Thirdly, I'll give my usual caveat when criticizing.  I am absolutely, 100% sure I am right in my critique of Barna's book.  And I am also absolutely, 100% sure I could be wrong.  Though I state my case pretty strongly here, let me say up front that I am sure there are many ways that I am just not currently aware of where I have misunderstood Mr. Barna and the Scriptures.  Let it be said that, though it may not come across in the post, I offer this critique and enter any debate that may ensue as the chief of sinners.

The Greatest Gift of the Gospel

I haven't read all of John Piper's works - he writes so much it is hard to keep up with them.  I do like to read widely so I do need to squeeze other authors in but this puts me behind on Piper.  But I have read a fair amount of his stuff and I have to say that the first paragraph of his book God is the Gospel may be the best paragraph he has ever written.  Yeah, its hyperbole day here in Jolly-land but not by much - this is terrific and I think it's a pretty good summary of his whole corpus.  I am so enamored of this because he understands that the reward of seeking God is getting God, not just His benefits.

Today - as in every generation - it is stunning to watch the shift away from God as the all-satisfying gift of God's love.  It is stunning how seldom God himself is proclaimed as the greatest gift of the gospel.  But the Bible teaches that the best and final gift of God's love is the enjoyment of God's beauty.  "One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord and to inquire in his temple" (Ps. 27:4).  The best and final gift of the gospel is that we gain Christ.  "I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.  For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ" (Phil 3:8).  This is the all-encompassing gift of God's love through the gospel - to see and savor the glory of Christ forever.

A Radical Reorientation to Personal Salvation

Tuck Bartholomew has a good post over at Common Grounds Online called "Is That All There is to Salvation?"  Tuck speaks of a bible study he was leading:

Last week I asked them to define salvation.  They responded with the usual list of suspects. Salvation is…. forgiveness, reconciliation with God, eternal life, and so forth.

So I asked, “Is that all?”

They stared blankly.  A silent “what do you mean?” hung in the air.

I let the silence sink in a bit more and added, “You have talked about things that are primarily internal and personal, or future.” “Is this all there is?” 

The Doctrine of Providence and the Charismatic Debate

My friend Glenn Lucke has been trying to comment here and for some reason Typepad isn't taking his comments.  I suppose he has offended the typepad gods whereas I continue to be their obedient servant.  Glenn's suggestion is that someone bring Richard Gaffin's perspective from his book Perspectives on Pentecost into the debate.  It has been years since I have read that book so I am not prepared to do so, but if anyone else is familiar with Gaffin's arguments, may I gently encourage you to write a post on his perspective and post it and trackback here. 

For now though I do want to point out something that I think bears on the charismatic-cessationist discussion that I haven't seen discussed.  That is the doctrine of providence.  I don't want to make too broad a statement here because I am far from having read all of the relevant literature, but I don't believe I have seen any cessationists relate their views to the doctrine of providence.

More on the Charismatic Debate

Well, my buddy Adrian wanted to stir up some debate on the charismatic issue and he has succeeded in doing so.

The inevitable posts about the tone of the debate have come out, starting with Rob Wilkerson at  Miscellanies on the Gospel.  As best I can tell Rob is writing from the pro-charismatic perspective and he decries the way many cessationists tend to write off charismatics.  I would respond in depth but my buddy John Schroeder at Blogotional (who by the way disagrees with my position in this discussion) gives a very thoughtful response, and I'll just refer you to John, and make one or two comments of my own.

And as a personal note to Rob, this is going to come off as if I am attacking you and your ideas.  I'm really not - I agree with most of what you have written - I just think it needs to be nuanced in some areas.

Charismaticism vs. Cessationism 2.0

Way back when Adrian Warnock and I had a friendly and spirited debate on the issue of the charismatic gifts with Adrian taking the charismatic position and me taking the contrary one.

Here's a post of mine with links to all, or at least most, of the posts we exchanged in that debate.

Well, this thing is going again, this time between Adrian and Phil Johnson.  Adrian is once again taking the charismatic position and Phil is defending the biblical position ;-)

The True Revolutionary

Sometime this week I hope to post a review of George Barna's book Revolution.  I've finished reading it and just want to collect my thoughts.  I lived the ideals of Barna's book for many years and have had to repent of this kind of life just as many have.  One reason, among others, that I posted Monte Wilson's essay "Green Beret's for Jesus" was to offer an example of a repentant revolutionary.  I also remember the story of one of my seminary professors who, during his younger days was a true spiritual revolutionary, to the point of splitting a church pastored by a man who was not passionate enough about the things he was passionate about.  In God's providence and humor, this professor found himself in a professional relationship with the pastor whose church he had split, repented and later admitted that this was one of the most successful pastors he had ever met.

I offer those thoughts to say that it is not uncommon for revolutionaries of the type Barna encourages to grow up and have to repent of the things that grew out of their "revolutionary passions."  But more importantly I want to point out a couple of examples of historical revolutions that didn't follow Barna's model.

Green Berets for Jesus by Monte Wilson

Cross posted at Theologica

A few years ago I came across an essay called "Green Berets for Jesus," by Monte Wilson.  In one sense this essay set me on my heels because it was so contrary to much of what I believed. In another sense it provided a breath of fresh air because I was coming to question much of what I believed.

This essay provided a balance to so many calls we have in the church to be sold out to Jesus and give 100% for Jesus.  Of course we are to give our all to Jesus, but giving one's all to Jesus looks different to different people.  Furthermore, one of the greatest Christians of all times, the apostle Paul, admitted that he couldn't give his all for Jesus (see Romans 7).  The apostle Paul was more concerned to tell Christians about all that Jesus had given for His church than he was to tell them what they must give for him.

The beauty of this essay is that it weaves together and properly balances Biblical themes of commitment, devotion, calling and grace and I am pleased to say that Monte has given permission to reprint his essay here. 

The Gospel and the Church

I am reading George Barna's new book Revolution right now and I have to tell you that it's been a long time since I have had this negative a reaction to a book.  And I hate to be so negative about things like this because I know it kills discussion and interaction, but it is difficult in this case. 

The book's main thesis is that there is a revolution going on where people are leaving the church to be the church.  I'll just share one statement to illustrate:

Whether you become a Revolutionary immersed in, minimally involved in, or completely disassociated from a local church is irrelevant to me (and, within boundaries, to God). What matters is not whom you associate with (i.e. a local church), but who you are.

It's funny how someone can describe something that has been going on for hundreds of years as revolutionary.  Pious people have been feeling the need to "leave the church to be the church" or some variation on that theme for hundreds, maybe thousands of years.  I'll spare you any more details on that and will do a full review later, maybe.  For now though I want to bring up a matter that relates to this.

I fear that those of us who find mindset so appalling have given up the biblical, theological, and moral high ground that would enable us to critique such ideas.  The way we have done this is in making participation in the life of a local body of believers an addendum to the faith, instead of intrinsic to the faith.

Powlison on Preaching

I was blessedly chastened this evening reading an article by David Powlison, called "Who is God?"  This is in the Journal of Biblical Counseling, volume 17, number 2, winter 1999.  In it he is speaking of how we counsel from Ephesians, but his words apply equally well to preaching.  He describes two ways we might teach from Ephesians.  Method #1:

#1: The doctrine of election says that God chose a people to belong to Himself. Ephesians 1:7 teaches that sins are forgiven by the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Those who have trusted the good things promised in the indicative should then live out the implications of the imperative.

And, method #2:

#2: “God chose you to be His. In Christ we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, by the riches of His grace, that He lavished on us. I plead with you, live worthy of your calling.”

Both speak truth, one reaches hearts. 

A Reformation Day Meditation

If I have done the math right, Monday Oct. 31, 2005 marks the 488th anniversary of the day that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the chapel at Wittenburg, igniting what would come to be known as the Reformation.

And while this is the season of the year when Christians get all worked up about, and involved in, debates about Halloween, I think the most unfortunate thing about Halloween is that it has eclipsed our celebration of the Reformation. 

True, not everyone in our country is from the protestant tradition and if you are not of this tradition it will mean little to you.  If you are not of the Christian faith it will mean less.

But even the vast majority of those from protestant traditions, who believe that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone, have little, if any, appreciation for the Reformation.  Here in America these same folks will celebrate national holidays like the 4th of July or Memorial Day or Veterans Day with the gusto they deserve while neglecting to remember the Reformation.  This is a shame because the things that transpired at the time of the Reformation were world shaping events, whereas the national holidays that people from countries around the world usually have particular significance to particular nations and peoples.  The Reformation has a significance that transcends national concerns.

How Will You Deal With the Problem of Your Perfect Health?

I'm still taking my class with David Powlison from the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation.  I've missed the last two weeks, and this week I came back to a class where one topic of discussion was the influence of physiology on the heart.  Dr. Powlison's view is that physiology is influential, but we shouldn't consider it to be determinative. He talks a good deal about "heat."  "Heat" is the situations of life that put pressure on us and that reveals who we are.

This week he gave a list of physiological issues that influence our mental, emotional and spiritual lives.  Some examples he talked about are AIDS-induced dementia, hormones, thyroid problems, allergies, fatigue, genetic predispositions, and side effects of medications.  When helping people with their problems we need to address these issues.  Again, we shouldn't look at them as causative, but they are influential and are important.  They are a part of the stage on which life is lived and the stage is important.

We are All Theologians

This is the continuation of my series on the nature of theology that is a serialization of a paper I wrote called "Theological Blogging" for GodBlogCon05.

The first three parts are:

What is theology?

What is theology, part 2?

A Working Definition of Theology?

Taking this a bit farther,, everyone is a theologian because everyone applies the Scripture to life.   One of the complaints often raised about traditional theology is that it goes beyond the Scripture.  In its more formal and academic incarnations, theology culls the data of Scripture and summarizes Scriptural teaching into propositional statements that come to be known as creeds, confessions and statements of faith.

Because these creeds, confessions and statements of faith are summaries of Scriptural teaching and not always direct quotes from Scripture, it is right to point out that they do not carry the same weight or authority as Scripture.  We who are the most ardent of inerrantists gladly affirm that it is the Scripture that is authoritative, not our theological statements.

Technique and Moral Instruction

As I prepared my paper and talk on blogging and theology I looked for examples of how blogging helps and hurts in the task of theologizing.  In my search I came across the post "On Blogging and informationism," at Prosthesis (aka, the best blog you are not currently reading).  In that post Macht, the author, interacts with Quentin Schultze's book - Habits of the High Tech Heart.  We preachers are told that, in every message we should give some application of the message or something to do.  Since Macht's post was so good I responded in the most natural way possible - I went out and bought the book.

Drawing on de Toqueville, Jacques Ellul and others Schultze looks at the way the information revolution brought on by technology in general and internet in particular is impacting and even replacing our ability to reason morally.  On page 19 Schultze illustrates this:

We also naively believe that for most personal and social needs there must be largely technological solutions, such as Web-filtering software designed to protect children from cyber-pornographers.

A Working Definition of Theology

This is my third post in a series on theological method. Here are links to the first two:

What is theology?

What is theology, part 2?

That second post concluded by saying that we tend to keep think of theology mainly in terms of study and using academic categories, and that we need to broaden our understanding of it.

Today's post picks up on that and offers a working definition of theology which comes from John Frame's book The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, p. 81.

Review of "Common Grounds"

One of my pet peeves is that we often divide things that should be joined and find sharp distinctions where there is really a good deal of continuity.

In many ways, this is the result of modernity.  Among the many habits of mind that modernity has foisted upon us is the notion that things can be known best by chopping them up into their constituent parts and studying and analyzing them in the smallest possible units. Its the idea that we can understand a building by understanding bricks, or understand the human body by understanding cells.

To be sure there is much value in studying bricks and cells, but you lose something of the beauty of great architecture and the human mind and body if you focus mainly on the properties of bricks and cells.

What is Theology Part 2 - Theology as Stance, not Mere Study

This is the second post where I am taking a paper I have written on theology and blogging and serializing it.

Theology as stance, not merely study.

In response to our tendency to reduce theology to a mere academic discipline, some have broadened their definition of theology to include the idea of stance as well as study.  Please notice that I am saying stance in addition to study, not stance instead of study.   That is important to add.  In some circles there is an anti-intellectual mindset that devalues the academic. Yet, the academic is still important.

What is Theology?

In my prior post, XYZ Theology, I mentioned a paper I prepared for the GodBlogCon on theology and blogging.  As I mentioned before, my intention was to share this with the class, get feedback and maybe some editorial help, revise it and then publish it.

But in the spirit of the blogosphere I want to follow a suggestion of Tod Bolsinger's that pastor's view blogging as a kind of workshop for ideas, where they lay them on the table, get feedback and allow the community to help shape the ideas.  I am sure Tod will blog on this soon, won't you Tod (how's that for a subtle hint?)?

So, I've actually gotten a bit of feedback already and thought I would go ahead and start serializing the paper here so that everyone can help me out. 

I'll mention up front that most of my thoughts on theological method have been shaped through a class I took at RTS Orlando called "Intro to Pastoral Theological Studies," taught by Richard Pratt.  I suppose it is proper to say that Richard shouldn't be blamed for any of my misrepresentations of his views.  But then again, I had an impressionable young mind when I studied under him so, if I have become heretical in any way it's probably because he led me astray.

This post is a part of the introduction and discusses a definition of theology.

Eschatology and Ethics

On a prior post in my eschatology series at Theologica, Mark Olson asks:

Some time ago you mentioned you'd try to answer my eschatology question, that is how it bears on ethics (questions like "how then shall I live"). If you could tack that onto your series, I'd appreciate it greatly.

It seems to me that recognizing that there will be a return is sufficient, for God will take care of the details. Unless those details change my thoughts and actions today, the details aren't important.

I was thinking one way it might make a difference is if eschatology was important in how you developed your systematic theology, for once you have developed that, your ethics might fall out. Then if (post/a/pre)mils fall out differently in that context you might have a preference.

But overall, what would you say to the statement that eschatology is akin to counting angels on the heads of pins, it is best left to experts and non-professionals should steer clear.

Good one, let me take a few stabs at it.

Eschatology - Amillennialism

I'm getting back to my series on eschatology, today with some of my old notes from a class taught on amillennialism. I've posted these over at Theologica.  For those of you who may want to download the notes, you can find them here:

Download_millennial_maze_4.pdf

In reading through the notes I am a tad dissatisfied with them as they were given several years ago and I have studied a bit more on amillennialism and have refined my views. I'm dissatisfied because I see that this particular set of notes is more defensive in nature than I care to be - answering potential criticisms of amillennialism more than making a positive case for amillennialism.

Still, I think it can at least give you a bit of an intro to amillennialism and for those who are familiar with the common criticisms of it, it will point you in the direction of some answers. I am going to attempt to track down some other notes I have written on the subject, using Sam Waldron's book The End Times Made Simple. If I can find them I will post them but in the meantime I think you can do a google search for Sam Waldron on the end times or something like that and find his notes for info.

C. S. Lewis on the Reading of Old Books

This morning I read C. S. Lewis's introduction to Athanasius on the Incarnation.  I can't remember sitting down to read the whole thing before although now that I have read it it seems that I must have read it dozens of times.  I think this is because I have either read it some time in the past and just don't remember it, or that I have read so many quotes from this in so many places that it feels like I have read this before.

I'm pretty sure the latter is the case and that shows the magnificence of this short piece of work.  It is quoted so often by so many because it is a simply profound short piece of writing.  In it, Lewis makes the case that we ought to prefer primary sources to secondary, older books to newer and, for the purpose of devotional study we ought to prefer weightier theological treatises to shorter devotional kinds of books. 

This is a classic which I offer to you for your consideration delight and which I offer with thanks to Phil Johnson for posting the whole of Athanasius On the Incarnation.

Dave Hunt - Calvinists Aren't Saved, well maybe, but probably not . . .

When I started seminary at Columbia we had a wonderful Church History prof named Bill Davidson (who doesn't appear to be there anymore) who was kind of the token Arminian in a faculty that was loaded with Calvinists and calvinistic sympathizers.  I walked by a class one day and overheard a student ask him if he believed we would see Calvinists in heaven.  He gave a puzzled look and thought for a moment and finally admitted, begrudginly, that he believed there would indeed be calvinists in heaven.  He said this with a chuckle and the class understood that, in that period of deep thought and seeming reticence, he was just funnin with them.

Alas, Dr. Davidson appears to be deceived, and this is no laughing matter young man, thank you very much.  Dave Hunt has recently announced that Calvinists will not be in heaven.  In the September 2005 issue of The Berean Call, his newsletter, someone asks the following:

Question: In the July ’05 Letters section, “TF of Ireland,” a self-proclaimed “Calvinist,” acknowledged that Tom and Dave are saved. Is it possible for someone who believes only in the soteriology of Calvin to be saved? Specifically, that God has to first change a person’s heart. Then…with the gift of grace, faith and salvation in Ephesians 2:8-9, man afterwards, by God’s decree, will come to Him (John 6:37), and fulfill God’s requirement for him to believe and repent. Again, assuming that the fruits and works that follow are genuine, could this soteriology allow for
salvation, apart from attributing any part of it to man’s free will (John 1:12-13)? Can you extend a statement of being a fellow believer to TF (and other Calvinists) as he has to you?

Dave takes oodles of type to answer this simple question and comes to this conclusion:

Could someone who believes this false gospel of Calvinism be truly saved? Fortunately, many Calvinists (you among them) were saved before becoming Calvinists. They now malign God by saying that He is pleased to damn multitudes though He could save all—and that He predestines multitudes to the Lake of Fire before they are even born. But having believed the gospel before becoming Calvinists, they “shall not come into condemnation, but [have] passed from death unto life” (Jn 5:24). Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved, while those who are saved and ought to know better but teach these heresies will be judged for doing so.

So, if you are a Calvinist the best case scenario is that if you became a believer becoming a Calvinist you are only a heretic deserving of judgment (hmmm . . . a believer deserving of judgment?? Does that sound a little odd to anyone besides me). The worst case scenario is that you are not even saved.

Dang it! I wish I hadn't read that, now my day is ruined.  How will I explain to my elders that I am a heretic and may not be saved?  How will I explain this to presbytery?  Please don't tell this to Arch Van Devender of Gadfly's Muse - he and I serve on the credentials committee of our presbytery and we have a meeting next week.  When he finds out I'm a heretic I'll be the one on the hot seat.  It's much more fun to be the griller than the grillee in these things.

And how will I explain to my wife that she's been sleeping with a heretic for 18 years?  Oh the shame of it - she'll never be able to look her mother and sister in the eye again!   And what of my children?   And what do I say to those people who say they came to faith in Christ through the ministry of my "calvinistic church?"  Oops sorry we reached out to you and got you in all this trouble.

Like I said - my day is ruined . . . Good thing I've got a plate of chocolate chip cookies waiting for me when I get home, unless those heretical children of mine have eaten them . . .

HT - Calvinist Gadfly, Jared at Thinklings, and everyone's favorite heretical Canuck Tim Challies.

It's All About Aesthetics - John Calvin on Beauty

My friend Terry Pruitt and I keep getting into these discussions about truth and beauty and Terry keeps reminding me that "it's all about aesthetics" - that's become one of his favorite sayings.  These discussions are usually about the place of and relationship between truth and beauty.  Our discussions when these things come up might be on some theological topic, worship practices, church architecture and decoration, or Christian living. 

So, this post is for Terry - here's a great quote from Calvin talking about how God presents His attributes to us in a beautiful and alluring picture.

It must be acknowledged, therefore, that in each of the works of God, and more especially in the whole of them taken together, the divine perfections are delineated as in a picture, and the whole human race thereby invited and allured to acquire the knowledge of God, and, in consequence of this knowledge, true and complete felicity. Moreover, while his perfections are thus most vividly displayed, the only means of ascertaining their practical operation and tendency is to descend into ourselves, and consider how it is that the Lord there manifests his wisdom, power, and energy,—how he there displays his justice, goodness, and mercy. For although David (Psalm 92:6) justly complains of the extreme infatuation of the ungodly in not pondering the deep counsels of God, as exhibited in the government of the human race, what he elsewhere says (Psalm 40) is most true, that the wonders of the divine wisdom in this respect are more in number than the hairs of our head.

Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. 1997. Institutes of the Christian religion. Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA

So, the next step would be to meditate and brainstorm on what implications this has for our life and worship.  But, I'll leave that to you.

Ligon Duncan on Theonomy

A couple of weeks ago I did a post at Theologica on Theonomy.  For those of you who aren't familiar with that term, here's a Wikipedia definition:

Theonomy is the ethical view that God's law in the Bible must be applied to all spheres of public and private everyday life where appropriate: not only religious mandates – but also political, social, and cultural rules.

I'm not a theonomist, but I have friends who are, and I do think that most of theonomy's critics, inside and outside of the church, don't really understand it.  So, I wrote a fairly sympathetic post, trying to clear up what I believe are some misunderstandings.

That post led to some dialogue with Ligon Duncan, pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, MS, and past moderator of the PCA General Assembly.  He has written a paper called Moses Law For Modern Government, which deals with the issue of theonomy and is available on the website of First Pres of Jackson.

I would encourage you to read the paper there, but if you are like me, if there is something I really want to read, I much prefer a hard copy.  So, Dr. Duncan has graciously given me permission to put the paper in .pdf format and make it available for download.  You may download this paper here:

Download duncan_moses_law_for_modern_government.pdf

Along with being in a format that is a little easier to read, this version of the paper is footnoted, whereas the .html paper is not.  He also includes a bibliography at the end which would be helpful for those who would like to study the matter further.

As usual, opinionated bloke that I am, I have a few introductory thoughts of my own that I would like to share.

Eschatology - Intro to Postmillennialism

I have posted another set of notes on eschatology over at Theologica, which you can read here.

Long winded (fingered?) type that I am I have a fairly long introduction to the notes over there and I have reproduced it here in the post continuation.  It's mainly some personal reflections on how postmillennialism is perceived in our world.

If you are interested in a .pdf copy of the notes, here they are:

Download millennial_maze_3.pdf

We don't always have to ask questions of conscience!

For the second time in two weeks I'm writing a post expressing a disagreement with John Piper.  I'll have to come back and speak highly of him soon lest folks think I'm somehow against him.  It just happens that a couple of my buttons have been pushed lately on some things where I have a disagreement with Piper, but I want everyone to know that I still think he is one of the great Christian leaders of our day.  So please, if anyone who knows Piper or loves Piper reads this, please don't think I'm turning against him.

This push-button came from fellow Piper-lover Michael Spencer who is wrestling with Piper's views on the use of money and resources.

John Calvin on How to Know God

John Calvin has a famous saying about how we come to know God that I want to quote for you:

Hence it is obvious, that in seeking God, the most direct path and the fittest method is, not to attempt with presumptuous curiosity to pry into his essence, which is rather to be adored than minutely discussed, but to contemplate him in his works, by which he draws near, becomes familiar, and in a manner communicates himself to us.

Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. 1997. Institutes of the Christian religion. Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA

This quote is from Book 1, Chapter 5, section 9 and is helpful on several counts.   

What Gets Redeemed in Redemption?

In my sermon yesterday I preached on Hebrews 9:15:

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001. Standard Bible Society: Wheaton

Among other things I commented on the meaning of redemption in this verse and referenced Leon Morris's thoughts on the subject in The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross.

Morris gives a nice description of what first century hearers heard when they heard the word "redemption."  To them it was not a religious word.  It came from a root which meant "to loose" and this could have broad application.  One could "loose" one's clothing the way we "loosen our belts today.  One could "loose" one's armor.  Or one could "loose" an animal that was tied up.

Eschatology - Overview of Systems

I have posted another set of notes on eschatology over at theologica, which you can see here.

If you are interested in downloading a .pdf  copy of the notes you may do so here:

Download millenial_maze_2.pdf

In Memory of M. Scott Peck - "Life is Difficult"

I just saw that M. Scott Peck, author of "The Road Less Traveled" and other books has passed away.  Over at Mere Comments, S.M. Hutchens has a nice memoriam for Peck and some reflections on Peck's book "People of the Lie."

I read "The Road Less Traveled" when I was in college.  I'm not sure why, other than someone must have recommended it.  As I remember, I greatly enjoyed and profited from the book.  I also read "People of the Lie" awhile later.  I may have dabbled in some of his other writings after that but somewere along the line through reading bits and pieces of other things he had written and reviews of his stuff I got the idea that he had become a bit of a wacky-doodle with a mixture of Christian, psychological and new age influences.  So, I held off recommending him to others and really lost interest in reading his stuff.

As I became more familiar with Biblical Christianity and Biblical counseling, Peck's words became less and less attractive to me.

Objectivity, Introspection and Assurance

I am a part of a group of pastors who often discuss theological matters and one of the recent hot topics of conversation in our circles has been the "Federal Vision," or "Auburn Avenue" theology.  And I don't plan on getting into the whole debate - I just wanted to raise one issue that is a big issue for the FV/AA folks and is one that I am personally very interested in.

That issue is the role of subjectivity and introspection in our search for assurance.  One of the emphases of FV/AA proponents is on the objectivity of the covenant.  As I understand it, one  of their concerns is to free us from the morbid introspection that characterizes so many evangelicals by reminding us to rely for assurance on the objective nature of the covenant promises rather than the subjective experiences of the Christian.

That's as far as I'll go here in talking about FV/AA but I will say that it brings up a good issue, one I have struggled with and am not sure I have fully resolved.

Intro to Eschatology

Over on Theologica I have begun a series of posts on eschatology with a post called "Intro to Eschatology."  Back in 1999 I taught a class on eschatology at the church where I served as a youth minister and these posts will consist of the class notes from there.  I am posting the notes over there because Typepad here just gives me headaches when I try to copy and paste MSWord files.  Over on Theologica we are using Movable Type and the formatting is a bit easier for MS Word files.

What I am posting here though is a .pdf version of the notes in case anyone wants to download them and print them.  Feel free to do so and use them as you wish.  The only thing I care about is that, if you post or print them in toto you acknowledge where you got them from.  Here's a link to the notes.

Download millenial_maze_1.pdf

If you just want to read this in .html format you can go to the Theologica page.  And, on the Theologica page I did make some introductory comments that I am posting here in the extended entry.

The Glory of Man

If I could change one thing about the way we do evangelism and talk about man's condition it would be to encourage us to start with a description of man in his created state, rather than in his fallen state.

If you are familiar with any of the popular evangelism training programs you will see that, when they get to the part about man's condition, they immediately start talking about his sinfulness.

If you are familiar with Calvinism/Reformed theology then you will know that nearly all of our discussions of man's condition begin with total depravity/total inability/radical corruption or something like that.

The Calvinists and the evangelism program writers are all correct - man is a sinner, he is totally depraved, he is racially corrupt, he is unable to believe savingly on Christ apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

But I suggest that, in order to convey the sinfulness of sin, and the corruption of man, the best place to start is not talking about original sin, but in talking about original righteousness.

John Calvin on the Motivation for Refraining from Sin

Here's a good quote from John Calvin on what motivates us to refrain from sin.  He acknowledges the right place of fear and knowledge of judgment, but speaking of the pious mind, he says:

Even if there were no hell, it would still shudder at offending him alone.

From Calvin's Institutes, Battles translation, Book 1, chapter 2, section 2

 

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Preaching the Gospel

. . . If it is true that where sin abounded grace has much more abounded, well then, ‘shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound yet further?’

First of all, let me make a comment, to me a very important and vital comment. The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel. Let me show you what I mean.

Baptism and Church Membership at Bethlehem Baptist

Cross posted at Theologica

I think one of the biggest theological news items right now is the news that Bethlehem Baptist, pastored by John Piper, may admit paedobaptists into membership at Bethlehem. They have created an 85 page document which can be downloaded. 

At the Reformation 21 blog Justin Taylor offers a three point summary of this document.

1. The elders at Bethlehem Baptist Church are required to affirm the rigorous doctrinal standards of the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith. All elders must be baptized by immersion as believers, and hold firmly to the conviction that this is what the NT teaches, practicing and teaching only believer baptism. The elders at Bethlehem believe that belief in baptismal regeneration and not experiencing any form of baptism are incompatible with membership at Bethlehem.

2. A majority of the elders (with two dissenting votes) hold to two fundamental presuppositions: (1) the door to local church membership should be roughly the same size as the door to membership in the universal body of Christ; (2) excluding someone from membership in the local church is very serious and usually implies a warranted doubt about the validity of someone’s faith.

3. Therefore, the elders are proposing that the member of Bethlehem consist of persons who, in the judgment of Christian charity, (1) profess faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior, Lord, and supreme Treasure of their lives; (2) affirm a minimal doctrinal statement that expresses what we believe a person must not deny so as not to call the genuineness of his faith into question; (3) engage to live consistently with their profession of faith in Jesus according to our Church Covenant; and (4) are willing to receive instruction from the Scriptures by the elders of the church in according with the Elder Affirmation of Faith.

Who can call themselves a Calvinist?

I've taken this post down.

The original post was written to interact with/disagree with a brother about his definitions of some theological terms and groups.  As it turns out, several folks linked to this post, and several of those found this brother's blog from my blog.  Things turned nasty over there and he took his original post down and I'm taking mine down to hopefully give him some peace.  I misread the situation.  Some of the things he said were disagreeable to me from a terminological standpoint, but not offensive. I detected no animosity or malicious intent in what this brother said.  But his comments were offensive to others and apparently the level of nastiness got out of hand on his blog. 

This is the first time I have ever done this, but I think it is the best thing to do in deference to him and to those who were offended by his remarks.  I am leaving the comments that have already been given here up because there is a good discussion on the use of theological labels.  I have removed a couple of comments though, one that links to a blog post that is no longer available and a couple more that identify the brother who wrote the original post.

Machen's Warrior Children

A few months ago I came across John Frame's essay "Machen's Warrior Children," and greatly appreciated it, as did many others.  The site it was posted on has since gone down and it took a bit of looking to find it.  It has been reposted on the Frame-Poythress website in .html format but I wanted to make it available in a more user friendly and printable format, as I think this is an important article that many will want to read, print and ruminate over. 

Dr. Frame has graciously given his permission to reprint this essay so I am making it available here and at Theologica in .pdf format. Here's the link to download this .pdf file.

Download frame_machens_warrior_children.pdf

If you are interested in just reading this in .html format I have posted that in the extended entry along with a few of my own introductory thoughts on the matter.  Also, I need to point out that this doesn't have the footnotes which are available in the .pdf version and on the Frame-Poythress website.

Warning - extremely long post ahead!

What is Our Destination?

This week I began taking the class, Dynamics of Biblical Change at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia.  It is taught by David Powlison.  I don't plan to blog the whole class but I do hope to share some nuggets as I go through.

Today's nugget comes through a discussion of where we are going in life.  He began the class by saying that we need to begin by asking where we are going, and then let that destination shine a light backward on the process of change.   Actually, as we discussed this, it turns out he is speaking about what we are going to be like in our glorified state. So, where are we going?  The following seven points are the notes I took in class, written in the first person, and after that I will elaborate on them.

Introducing . . . Theologica

On Friday I mentioned I had a new project coming up that I would tell you about on Monday, so the time has come.

Joe Carter from Evangelical Outpost has recently taken over editing the World Magazine Blog and one of the things he has been doing is creating a family of blogs under the WorldMagBlog umbrella.

Today, we are launching Theologica, a new theology blog (hence, the catchy title!).  And, yours truly has the privilege of being the editor.  A big thanks to Joe and the folks at World for giving me this opportunity. 

John Frame on Machen's Warrior Children

When Antithesis/Christian Counterculture went down they took with them a seminal essay by John Frame called Machen's Warrior Children.  Up until this time, that was the only place I knew to find it on the internet, so I was afraid it was lost with the closing of the Antithesis site.

Good news folks - the essay has been published elsewhere - you can find it at http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2003Machen.htm

I have always been a big fan of John Frame and I think this essay is essential reading for those who want to understand, for lack of a better term, the psychology of those in the Reformed tradition that descended from Machen.

Speaking of those who followed Machen, Frame says:

Machen died of pneumonia in 1937, disappointed that his new denomination was already showing signs of division.  Machen’s children were theological battlers, and, when the battle against liberalism in the PCUSA appeared to be over, they found   other theological battles to fight. Up to the present time, these and other   battles have continued within the movement, and, in my judgment, that is the story of conservative evangelical Reformed theology in twentieth-century America.

On the Persecuted Church

Scott, from the Fat Triplets, sent me a link this week to a post on his blog with an e-mail from a young man who was arrested in China this summer.   He asked if I would consider publishing this and I am only too happy to oblige.  This e-mail is a moving reminder that we have brothers and sisters around the world who are truly suffering for Christ and they need our prayers. 

I am also reminded of the following quote that Joe Carter had on Evangelical Outpost last week:

"We [persecuted Chinese Christians], in fact, are praying that the American church might taste the same persecution, so revival would come to the American church like we have seen in China."

-- Unnamed leader in the Chinese house church movement

Also, many of you know Stacy Harp from Mind & Media - the book review blog she is doing.  She is also running a blog for Voice of the Martyrs, which focuses on the persecuted church, so let me encourage you to check that out for up to date information on the persecuted church.

Now, on to that e-mail . . .

Os Guinness - On Modern Massacres and Genocides

With Hurricane Katrina fresh on my mind I haven't thought that much about 9/11 lately.  Several weeks ago I planned to do a sermon on the subject of evil and the Christian response to it this coming Sunday, since it is 9/11.  I'm reading Os Guinness's book Unspeakable, in preparation. 

In this day and age when everyone is blaming the church and Christianity for everything you can imagine Os, has a quote on page 9 that we all need to remember.  I will be the last one to argue that the church and Christendom is now or has ever been pure and I will admit that many atrocities have been committed in God's name.  But, as Chuck Colson has well said, when these things happened they have been contrary to the Christain worldview, and there is within the Christian worldview a means to critique and correct these things.

On the other hand, far more atrocities have been committed in the name of an atheistic/secular worldview than have ever been committed in the name of Christ (or Judaism or Islam for that matter).  The question is whether or not a purely atheistic/secular worldview has the moral capital to critique and correct the evil that proceeds from it. 

In the spirit of setting the record straight, Guinness says:

An analysis of moderm massacres and genocides - from the Young Turks through Stalin and Mao Tse-tung to Pol Pot - reveals a fact that is stunning yet vital for public discussion in the West: more people in the twentieth century were killed by secularist regimes, led by secularist intellectuals and in the name of secularist ideologies, than in all the religious persecutions in Western History.

Scott McKnight on Grace Grinders

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the words I quote from Scott McKnight below.  More unfortunately I have to admit that I have been guilty of what he speaks of.

I can't put my finger on the book right now, but I remember reading a book by Gary Thomas a few years where he talked about how there are some people, whose holiness is beautiful and life-giving, and there are others who feign a kind of holiness that is condemning, harsh and that repels people from the grace of God.  I have been that second kind of person and I think Scott's words address this.

I have also heard it said that Calvinists are the only people in the world who can make the grace of God sound like bad news.  Guilty again.  I hope the following words from Scott speak to you as powerfully as they did to me.

A Follow-Up on a Personal Relationship with Jesus

Last week I did a post called "A Personal Relationship with Jesus," which included a re-post of my May 11, 2004 post - "Southern Baptists and Their Personal Relationship with Jesus."  That May 11, 2004 post was interacting with Harold Bloom's book, The American Religion.

Last week's post has generated quite a bit of traffic and discussion in the blogosphere so I thought I would go ahead and re-post my previous review of Bloom's book, just to set it in context.  A good deal of the discussion and debate on last week's post has centered on whether or not the concept of "a personal relationship" with Jesus is a valid concept or not and whether or not I had made the right connections between this and gnosticism. 

For those who are still reading about that, let me invite you to keep reading my review of Bloom's book which may give a broader context to the prior post.  Bloom contends that we have developed a uniquely "American Religion," which is individualistic to the core.  Bloom himself is a gnostic who thinks this is a good thing.  He doesn't argue for or against this on theological grounds, but rather is making a historical/sociological case that the "American Religion" has more in common with gnosticism than historic Christianity.  And again, this is a good thing in his mind.

So, for those who are interested in this discussion may I encourage you to read on and use Bloom's lenses.  I do want to affirm that Christianity is indeed a relationship, the question is "what kind of relationship," and what factors have contributed to our modern evangelical understanding of this relationship.

Glenn Lucke on Apologetics

My friend Glenn Lucke at Common Grounds Online is reconsidering what Peter meant when he said:

“But in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you,” (I Peter 3:15, ESV)

In a post called "What did Peter intend by '. . . Make a Defense'" Glenn says:

Did the Apostle Peter intend his audience to become debate whizzes, philosophical maestros, or even lords of the coffeeshop?

If you’d asked me that years ago when I was perplexing Harvard students with evidence that demanded their verdict (but instead met their yawns, shrugs and murmured ‘whatevers’), I’d have said, “Of course!” I constantly rummaged through the latest, greatest arguments designed to compel students to bow before my propositions. (yes, I am cringing, too.)

My Hardest Verse

Bill Meisheid at Beyond the Rim is trying to start a meme on "my hardest verse in the bible."  I was tagged for this by Paula at "Listen In" and by Bill himself.  This is something I haven't really thought about much and am a bit of reluctant to do, because after all, we preachers aren't supposed to have any difficulties with the Bible, now are we?

Bill's hardest verse is Matthew 7:23:

And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.”

And I concur to a great degree.  This verse raises the possibility that a person can believe they are saved when in fact they aren't.  Such a passage makes for some great theological reflection and debate, but it gets very uncomfortable when I consider that I could be the one who is deceived.

But, since I don't want to rip off Bill I'll go on admit my own struggles with the whole idea of hell.  In that respect there are probably several verses I could choose as my hardest, but I'll pick Revelation 21:15 as a representative:

If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
  The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

I really don't have an intellectual, exegetical or theological problem with this passage or the whole doctrine of hell, but I do have an emotional reaction to it.  If I were to enter into a theological debate about it I would take the position that there is a hell, a place of eternal, conscious, suffering, and I preach this.  But, emotionally, it's hard for me to deal with.  I would gladly be an annihilationist if I thought there was biblical justification for it.  I respect the little I have read of annihilationists, but the arguments I have read thus far seem based on inference that is not necessary nor necessarily good.

I understand that there are those who would chastise me for arrogance in admitting this.  The charge of arrogance would be levelled at me because, in my "emotional inability" to deal with this doctrine they would accuse me of making myself out to be more compassionate than God.   The charge of arrogance is undoubtedly true, but I think it is just due to the fact that I am a certifiable wimp who hates pain in all its forms.  And thus, the doctrine of hell becomes a hard doctrine for me to deal with.

G. K. Chesterton on Antiquated Creeds

I got this G. K. Chesterton quote off the RUF Miami website:

So far as a man may be proud of a religion rooted in humility, I am very proud of my religion; I am especially proud of those parts of it that are most commonly called superstition. I am proud of being fettered by antiquated dogmas and enslaved by dead creeds (as my journalistic friends repeat with so much pertinacity), for I know very well that it is the heretical creeds that are dead, and that it is only the reasonable dogma that lives long enough to be called antiquated. -- From Autobiography (1936) --

Getting Ready to Preach and Hear the Word Preached

It's time to rip off George Grant again.  Today he has a post called "Unction."

As I approach the "sacred desk" to teach the people of God each Lord's Day, I often read and reread this exhortation from Robert Murray McCheyne: "Speak for eternity. Above all things, cultivate your own spirit. A word spoken by you when your conscience is clear and your heart full of God's Spirit is worth ten thousand words spoken in unbelief and sin. Remember that God, and not man, must have the glory. If the veil of the world's machinery were lifted off, how much we would find is done in answer to the prayers of God's children."

McCheyne is describing, I think, that rare gift called "unction."  It is what his mentor, Thomas Chalmers, called "that indefinable, indescribable grace that is sometimes somewhat in preaching; that outpouring which cannot be ascribed either to matter or expression, and cannot be described as to what it is, or from whence it cometh, but with a sweet violence it pierceth into the heart and affections and comes immediately from the Word; but if there be any way to obtain such a thing, it is by the heavenly disposition of the speaker unto grace by the power of the Spirit."

By the way, do you pray that God would give you a similar unction to be able to properly hear the Word?

A Personal Relationship With Jesus

Awhile back I did a rather lengthy post on the subject of a "personal relationship with Jesus."  I am reposting it in the extended entry section here today to piggyback on Keith Plummer's post: Christianity American Style: Overemphasizing a Personal Relationship with Jesus?   Keith sums up a concern I share in these words:

Talk of having a personal relationship with Jesus is so deeply entrenched in evangelical discourse that calling it into question may strike us as sacrosanct. But hopefully we're willing to ask, along with Noll, whether this emphasis is due more to an attempt to be biblically faithful or to the imbibing of American cultural values (e.g., individualism).

In one sense, the idea of needing to come to Christ in order to have a personal relationship with God is misleading. Every person stands in a relationship with God. Coming to Christ changes the nature of that relationship from one of condemned criminals before a just judge to that of pardoned and accepted sinners graciously adopted into a nurturing family. So, the critical question as far as the gospel is concerned, is not so much whether one has a personal relationship with God but rather what kind of relationship one has.

In the post below I am interacting with Harold Bloom's book, The American Religion, and this is exactly what he is arguing - that American cultural values have shaped our religion more than vice versa.  And this is shown in our individualism and experientialism.

Before sending you on to my prior post I want to pick up on Keith's comment about everyone being in a relationship with God.  R. C. Sproul used to like to point out that the common view of hell is that it is a place where we are cast away from the presence of God.  Sproul demurred on this.  He said that God is absolutely present in hell - He is present in hell in his wrath and in his judgment.  Hence, the relationship with God continues in hell, but it is solely with God as judge, not merciful savior.

Brilliance on Display at the Christian Mind

My new friend Keith at The Christian Mind continues to amaze me with his post - Forcing My Religion.  First he references an article by Steve Wagner at Stand to Reason dealing with the accusation that those who contend for a particular moral position in the public square are forcing their religion on others.   Steve quotes Mary Ann Glendon as follows:

“But it took some time before growing numbers of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews stepped forward to point out that when people advance their moral viewpoints in the public square, they are not imposing anything on anyone. They are proposing. That’s what citizens do in a democracy—we propose, we give reasons, we vote. It’s a very strange doctrine that would silence only religiously grounded moral viewpoints. And it’s very unhealthy for democracy when the courts—without clear constitutional warrant—deprive citizens of the opportunity to have a say in setting the conditions under which we live, work, and raise our children.”

As Steve says, "that's beautiful," we're not imposing, we're proposing.  The accusation of "imposition" is a strong-arm tactic designed to silence opposing views and we need not cower  under this.

But what I liked the most about the post at The Christian Mind is that Keith turned the same principle on to the subject of evangelism.  I'm an advocate of the presuppositional approach to apologetics which emphasizes that all of us have presuppositions which form lenses through which we evaluate all data and evidence.  Thus, while acknowledging that evidential reasoning has some value, presuppositionalists emphasize the need to deal with people on the level of those presuppositions.

Keith posts a transcript of a conversation he had with someone who "claimed that it is wrong for 'religionists' to force their beliefs on others."  Please go read this, you'll be very glad you did.  It is a great example of practical presuppostional apologetics as Keith uncovers the relatvistic and subjectivistic worldview of his conversation partner.

Is the Early Church Experience Normative?

In his Deeper Thoughts blog, my good friend Arch takes up the issue of the normativity of the early church.  He is interacting with the idea that the early church provides a model of church which should be normative across the centuries.  This is the notion that there is a primitive and pristine era in the past which, if we could recover it, things would be made right.

I'm still young (42 is young isn't it?), but I've witnessed such things many times in my short life.  The charismatic movement is driven by this (that's not a potshot, just an observation) desire to recover the experience of the early church, the house church movement is driven by this, and to some extent the "no-church" movement is driven by this.  Aw heck, I'll admit that there is a good deal of this in the reformed movement, except that with the reformed, the desire is not so much to return to the first century as it is the 16th.   But that's a little different than what Arch is talking about.  He's getting at this idea that there was a pure church in the first century which has been corrupted through the ages.

He interacts with N. T. Wright on this matter, showing that there is no pure, primitive, pristine church of the first century that we can turn to as a model for church today.  He goes on in his post to show how we ought to view and interact with the church of the past, as well as the church of the future.  I've copied and pasted an excerpt from his post below and you can find the rest of it here.

Is Satan Bound?

A few days ago I did a post called Is Reformed Eschatology Hard to Understand? in which I dealt with a prior comment on another post to the extent that it is.  In that I contended that Reformed eschatology is actually fairly easy to understand (although I suppose I should admit that many of us have a gift for making the easy difficult).  It may be completely wrong, but I don't think it is hard to understand conceptually.

So, that post wasn't meant to be an explanation or apologetic defense of Reformed eschatology.  And really, it is hard to pin down one particular eschatological view and call it the Reformed view, as several views have been tolerated within the Reformed camp.  What all of the views have in common is that they see a unity between Israel and the church, but beyond that, it's hard to pick one as the reformed view. For my purposes I think I'll just drop that terminology for now and say that I am speaking of amillennialism, since it's my own view. 

Since that post was neither explanation nor apology I thought it wise to provide something in the way of such.  The prior post was simply to saying that amillennialism is easy to understand, I love it and makes me feel all tingly inside.  Today I want to begin what I hope can become a series of posts explaining and defending the amillennial position, but I want to interrupt this series here at the beginning to address a matter that came up in a comment.

One of the commenters objected to the way we amils twist the Scriptures and suggest that we live in a world where Satan is bound.  I want to take up the idea of Satan being bound here.

Review of "Total Truth" by Nancy Pearcey

At long last I have finished Nancy Pearcey's book, Total Truth and am posting a review.  This book was provided to me by Stacy Harp at Mind & Media and was provided to her by the generosity of the good folks at Crossway Publishing.  And in the interest of full disclosure I will mention that I am receiving no remuneration for this, thus you can rest assured that I am not a bought and paid for lackey of some evil publishing conglomerate.  There, how's that for establishing my unbiasedness (sp?)?

When biographies are written of famous or infamous people there are two broad categories those biographies can fall into.  One is in the category of "hagiography."  "Hagiography" comes from a greek word meaning "saint" or "holy," and another word meaning "writing."  Thus, it is the kind of biography that makes a saint out of its subject.  It focuses mainly on the subject's contributions and achievements and glosses over or ignores its flaws.  A second type of biography is a critical biography which allegedly takes a dispassionate look at the subject and seeks to portray the subject, warts and all.  Those who write critical biographies will often accuse the hagiographers of bias and pooh pooh their contribution to the understanding of the subject.  Of course, these critics often ignore their own biases when writing.

I bring this up because the same thing often occurs in reviewing books.  Some reviews gush and fawn over books and share how wonderful the books are, and how, well . . .  great, and wonderful, and . . . you know, inspiring and wonderful, and life-changing, and well, . . .  just how wonderful the book really is.  Such reviews are simply wonderful to read.  Others go just as overboard on the critical side.  In either case, such reviews are only marginally helpful because they come off as puff pieces for or against the book and don't interact specifically with the book.

I will admit that I often fall into the gushing/criticizing camp when reviewing books and am trying to escape that and interact critically and sympathetically with books to make my reviews more helpful.

Having said that, let me begin by saying that Total Truth is a simply wonderful book!  There I said it! Now that this is off my chest I'll try not to gush my way through the rest of the review and will proceed with what I hope will be a substantive review the rest of the way.

Is Reformed Eschatology Hard to Understand?

On a prior post, a commenter said that reformed people have done a terrible job of interpreting Revelation and the 70 weeks of Daniel and that no one can understand our positions.  I started to reply in the comments but thought this warranted a post in and of itself. 

Before getting into this let me say that I welcome dissent in the comments on this blog, so this response is not an attack on the commenter himself and I welcome him and anyone else to dissent with what I will write here.  But I also want to give a personal perspective on the broader topic of reformed eschatology.

I am amil but won't be defending amillennialism here, I want to speak to the broader range of reformed eschatology.  By that I mean that historically, the reformed camp has had room for a wide range of eschatological views.  The dominant views have been amillennialism and postmillennialism, but historical premillennialism hasn't been unheard of.   Within the postmil and amil camps there has also been room for partial preterist views.  In the last few years the full preterist view has arisen within some reformed circles, but this has been rejected by the vast majority of reformed folks and most of us don't recognize this as a valid eschatological view.

Though there are many differences among those in the reformed camp, one thing they all have in common is a rejection of the dispensational premillennial view, which is the most popular view today.   I will add a caveat that I am aware that there is a good deal of movement within the dispensational camp with the rise of progressive dispensationalism, and I think the progressive dispensationalists and traditional reformed folks are finding more common ground these days.  But it is also my understanding that, within the dispensational camp, the jury is still out on the progressive dispensationalists, i.e. progressive dispensationalism hasn't yet found widespread acceptance in the dispensational camp.  Since I am not up to speed on that I would love it if any dispensationalists or progressive dispensationalists would comment on this or do their own post and leave a trackback.

But getting back on point, I contend that reformed eschatology if you are firmly grounded in a dispensational approach to eschatology.  And I think it is fair to say that the dispensationalist would contend that dispensationalism is only difficult if you are firmly grounded in a reformed approach to eschatology.  But, since this is my blog I'll argue for my positions and let others argue for theirs in the comments or on their own blogs.   

Keith Plummer on Finding the Will of God

Keith Plummer at The Christian Mind has an excellent post on finding the will of God.  Here's an excerpt that gets to the point:

One of the people who motivates me to speak out on this subject is a young woman I met a few years ago. She was in her 20's and hadn't completed college. She was stuck in a job she hated and earnestly desired to return to school to pursue a degree in sports medicine. Her problem was that she wasn't sure if this was "just what I want to do or what God wants me to do." When she expressed her confusion to her roommates, both of whom had been Christians longer than she, they told her that when they were faced with such decisions, they prayerfully asked God what choice to make and he showed them. As this young woman related this account to me, her eyes filled with tears and she eventually asked, "What's wrong with my relationship with Jesus that I'm not hearing from him?" Things had gotten so bad that she was even doubting her salvation because she wasn't getting the personal direction others were claiming.

I witnessed her countenance change from one of despair to one of joyous relief when I shared with her what I shared with the guys last night - that when the Bible refers to God's will it does so in two senses. First, in some cases the phrase refers to God's sovereign purpose, his comprehensive and predetermined plan which cannot be frustrated. In other instances, God's will refers to his moral precepts, his commands, that which we are responsible to conform our lives to with respect to attitude, motive, and behavior. When the Bible calls us to know the will of the Lord, it is this sense that is in mind. Never are we responsible for finding out beforehand God's sovereign will so we can "obey" it. As James exhorts us, we are to seek wisdom from God, but that's not the same thing as asking him to make our decisions for us.

I posted on this subject myself on May 4, 2004 and again on May 8, 2004.  In the post continuation here I have re-posted the May 4, 2004 entry, a post titled: "Is Finding the Will of God Biblical?"

Calvinists, Arminians and Technical Terms, OH My!

Milton Stanley at Transforming Sermons warns us of the dangers of taking sides in the Calvinist/Arminian controversy by quoting a couple of other bloggers.  Jeff at Ant-Itch Meditation (great name for a blog by the way - can' t wait till a wise guy or gal names their blog "Anti-Fungal") says:

Without getting into the debate--I believe both sides are equally true as both have biblical support and both sides are equally false when they ignore handy parts of scripture. . . . The issue centers more on people than it does on Scripture, hence the names Arminianism and Calvinism--named after two guys. When you argue the issue you are threatening heroes of the faith.

And Mick Porter says:

Personally, I find it hard that we could read 1 Cor 1:12-13 and then continue to so boldly label ourselves "Calvinists" or "Arminians" or anything else:

Ah well, cantankerously curmudgeonous Calvinist that I am, I just have to respond to that.

Democrats, Values and Other Assorted Gobbledygook

This just in - LaShawn Barber is reporting that Democrats have values too.  Lashawn says this:

Dems are back on the “values” bandwagon, insisting that Republicans haven’t cornered the market on “religion.”

“I don’t think God is either a Democrat or a Republican,” said California state Sen. Jack Scott, a Democrat. “The moral values that I really care deeply about is justice for the poor and peacemaking and so that’s the reason that I wouldn’t call the Republican Party the party of religion.” (Source)

. . . Democrats insist this effort isn’t new, and that strong, godly principles have always been abundantly clear in the party platform. Party leaders add that people can expect to see that awareness reflected in future Democratic outreach efforts.

Before I go any further, I do want to mention that, altough I'm a flaming republican, I've always veered away from too much in the way of partisan politics here because I want to keep the gospel as the dominant issue on this blog, not politics.  Thus, though I'm joining Lashawn in a wee tad of snarkiness here this really isn't a "bash the democrats" post. 

Since I am deep in the throes of reading Nancy Pearcey's book Total Truth, and have that on the brain, I just found that this particular quote illustrates Nancy's main point in the book.

How to Read the Book of Revelation

Yesterday I gave some props to my pastor friend Toby Dubose down in Jacksonville, FL at Redeemer Pres, and I thought I would give him one more prop.

Toby gave a great illustration of how the book of Revelation is written that I think is helpful.  The book of Revelation is very confusing to many people, but it became much clearer to me a few years ago when I read Vern Poythress's book The Returning King.  This book introduced me to what is known as the "recapitulation theory."  That's a fancy phrase that describes the way that much prophetic literature repeats the same thing over and over again, sometimes building on the previous, and sometimes using differing imagery.

Toby's helpful illustration of this was to think of reading the book of Revelation as if the tide is coming in.  That's a great illustration.  When the tide comes in it doesn't roll in all at once.  The water comes in and goes out, comes in and goes out.  As it does this it creeps forward up the beach and over time, incrementally, it rises to high tide.

The Real Cause of Church Growth

I'm still reading Total Truth, by Nancy Pearcey.  I hope to finish it this week and have a full review up by week's end or the beginning of next week.  Just thought I would throw a nugget out for discussion.  This is on page 261 (don't know if the page numbering will be the same in the new edition) in chapter 9, titled "What's So Good About Evangelicalism."

In every historical period, the religious groups that grow most rapidly are those that set believers at odds with the surrounding culture.   As a general principle, the higher a group's tension with mainstream society, the higher its growth rate.

"Religious organizations are stronger to the degree that they impose significant costs in terms of sacrifice and even stigma upon their members," write Finke and Stark.  Why?  Because religions that demand a lot also give a lot.  A frankly supernatural religion  may demand more from adherents than a watered-down gospel of "reasonable religion" or social activism.   But in turn, it gives much greater rewards  in terms of doctrinal substance, intense spiritual experience, and a sense of direct access to God.  As Finke and Stark comment dryly, "people go to church in search of salvation, not social service."

What's your opinion on that?  Here's a few of my own knee jerk reactions.

Pornography and the Desire for Beauty

This past Sunday I attended my mom's church, Redeemer Presbyterian in Jacksonville, FL, and had one of those aha! moments where dots were connected, lights turned on and insight gained.

The pastor of Redeemer, Toby Dubose, was speaking on Revelation 17 and making some comments about beauty and he had one line which was a bit of a tangent, but which hit home.  He was speaking about our desire for beauty and said that one explanation for the prevalence of pornography is that God created us to drink in beauty.  And, because Satan seeks to counterfeit all that God does, he provides his own counterfeit beauty for us to drink in.

The dots I connected were Toby's comment and Thomas Chalmer's famous sermon on the Expulsive Power of a New Affection.

The Softer Side of God

When I was in seminary, Richard Pratt drew up this little diagram describing the attributes of God under two headings - transcendence and immanence.  God's transcendent attributes are those attributes which show how He is above us. His immanent attributes are those that describe how He is with us.

Some transcendent attributes might be things like justice, righteousness, omniscience, omnipotence, holiness, wrath and things like that.  Immanent attributes were things like love, mercy, compassion and things like that.

Dr. Pratt would joke that us young reformed zealots loved to talk about the transcendent attributes of God but not so much about the immanent attributes.  True, he would concede, God did possess those immanent attributes but the rest of the evangelical church focused so much on those things that we saw ourselves as the ones who needed to provide a balance by jumping up and down on the transcendent attributes.

Literary and Cinematic Portrayals of Evil

Christians debate how, and to what degree, evil ought to be portrayed in their books and films.  We all want stories where the good guys win and virtue wins out, but for a story to be captivating good guys need bad guys to fight and virtue needs vice to overcome.

But how bad can a bad guy be before the Christian can no longer watch or read?  How much vice is too much vice?  I don't know. I am tempted to go off on a tangent discussing the portrayal of sex and violence but don't want to get off on a tangent.  I came across a Books and Culture Review of the movie To End All Wars that had some helpful things to say on this.

Gary Thomas on Repentance and Virtue

Gary Thomas is an author I love and I was browsing his website and one of the articles I read was "Getting Your Life Back."  In a nutshell, the article says that there are two words that you need to relearn if you want to get your lif back - repentance and virtue.  We are to repent of sin and practice virtue.

Nothing new and earthshaking here, but Gary Thomas is a wordsmith and storyteller of the highest order and he paints pictures of repentance and virtue that make them seem beautiful and desirable.

Here's a few quotes.

Doug Groothius on the Morality of Images

Don't know if you have heard this yet, but Doug Groothuis is blogging at The Constructive Curmudgeon.

He has a post called Images, Words and Time that gave me pause to consider a few things.  He argues that there are certain images that shouldn't be seen.  Of course we all know that there are some images that are immoral in and of themselves and are not to be viewed.  But he is taking this a step further to talk about the images we so often see of death and people in the midst of tragedy.

I see these things in Time and other places and there is always a kind of repulsive fascination with those things that makes you want to look at them, then sorry you did.  Groothuis' post explains why it is we are repulsed and though he doesn't say it is immoral to produce them he comes pretty close, and I think he is right. 

Review of "What is Reformed Theology?" by R. C. Sproul

I was provided with a copy of this book by Tim Challies and Tim was provided with a copy through the generosity of Baker Books, the publisher.  I am not receiving any remuneration or other consideration for this review.

As a Presbyterian pastor I am always interested when a new book comes along that offers a concise explanation of reformed theology.  What is Reformed Theology? is not exactly new, it was previously published under the title "Grace Unknown."  But, now that it is in paperback and has a new title it's a good time to review it.  In many ways this book fills the bill as a book you could give to someone to explain reformed theology and in other ways it makes me think that there is another book that needs to be written.

Civil Religion in America and Canada

In the extended entry of this post I have copied and pasted the transcript of a commentary given on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by a gentleman named Bob Ferguson offering suggestions on how the Canadian government can more effectively cause the church to submit to the state.

I first read about this on Gideon Strauss's blog (link not working - his entry is called "Surely this is parody?").  As the title of Gideon's post implies, he thinks this is parody.  Gideon heard about this from David Koyzis, who seems to be taking the whole thing seriously, i.e. maybe this isn't a joke after all.

The intro to the commentary on CBC gives us the gist:

Bob Ferguson is a retired professor from the Royal Military College. He believes that Catholics are unlikely ever to see changes in policy on birth control or on the question of married or female priests. In fact, he says change won't come until the churches are forced to comply with the same human rights legislation that affects the rest of society.

Check out "Between Two Worlds" - the weblog of Justin Taylor

Many of my readers have probably seen the blog "Between Two Worlds" which is the blog of Justin Taylor, but for those of you who haven't, I wanted to call attention to it.

I've been reading it for a couple of months now and it has become a daily read for me.  Its one of the best blogs out there, in my opinion.  Justin has authored and co-authored a bunch of books, and has done a lot of work with John Piper.  His blog covers all kinds of topics - he is truly all over the map and covers a multitude of topics from a solid theological perspective.

For today I want to highlight his post on the book "Grace Based Parenting," by Tim Kimmell.  I've been toying with buying this book for awhile and after reading what he wrote I'll definitely be buying it.  Back when my kids were very small and I was a youth minister I knew all there was to know about teenagers.  Now that I have teenagers of my own I'm not nearly as smart as I used to be.  So, these words were encouraging.

Adrian Warnock Interviews Nancy Pearcey

Adrian Warnock interviews Nancy Pearcey, author of the award winning book Total Truth, in this post.  Adrian did an excellent job with the interview - he had some good questions and Nancy came through with some terrific answers.

Here's one good question and answer that I think are particularly helpful.

Another Post on Infant Baptism

I was asleep at the switch and managed to miss this post by Jeremy Pierce called "Baptism Into God's Family."  Jeremy is arguing against infant baptism and there is a lengthy section of the post that I want to quote and respond to.  First of all, in regards to the Presbyterian view that baptism is a means of grace, he says:

The extent to which they see baptism as a means of grace isn't any more than Baptists see baby dedications as a means of grace, which is pretty much equivalent to how all Christians see preaching, godly correction, Bible study, or the gift of encouragement as a means of grace.

Then, the meat of the post is:

IntolerantElle says, "I know I couldn't stand to look my newborn in the eyes and know I was the one responsible for keeping him from being part of God's family."

That's what I think is the biggest anomaly in the paedobaptist view. The idea is that baptism brings you into God's family, as if outward washings are the effective agent of who is in Christ and who isn't in Christ. I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince Paul that what brings someone into Christ is outward baptism rather than an inner work of God. Presbyterians are more likely to say that a baptized infant is now in the covenant, but it amounts to the same thing. Those in the covenant are those in God's family. What's odd to me is that they end up denying that someone in the covenant is saved, which amounts to saying that those in God's family aren't all saved. There are genuine reprobates in the new covenant and thus in the family of God, which means there are genuine reprobates who are in Christ. They won't remain in Christ, and thus they're not elect, but that doesn't stop this view from undermining the fundamental biblical divide between those in Christ and those not in Christ.

The Aggressive Nature of Forgiveness

As I mentioned in yesterday's post I often struggle with the issue of forgiveness - what it is, what it isn't, what it means, how you do it, etc.  Yesterday I argued that it is possible to be forgiving while still withholding some privileges from the one who has offended you. 

The trouble with that kind of advice is that if you say what I just said, most people want to camp out there and not discuss anything else.  When a conflict happens most folks are willing to give lip-service to the idea of forgiveness, but what they really want is justification for withholding relational privileges from the one who offended them.

Though withholding of relational privileges is allowable in some instances, it is not allowable in all instances, nor is it mandated that we must always withhold relational privileges.  When we are offended, we tend to default to a withholding mode, but the gospel tells us that we must default to a giving mode.

There is a real sense in which, when we are offended, we ought to view the offense as a gift from God. I'm not saying that we are obligated to do the dance for joy when we are offended, but I am saying that God's hand is in every offense we receive. 

God's hand is not only in every offense we receive, but He gives some directions as to how the offended can bless the offender.  And so, while we may have justification for withholding some relational privileges from an offender at times, the real issue is that the offended is called to bless the offender. 

Forgiveness is not a passive thing, it is an aggressive thing which actively seeks to bless the offender.  Hence, I contend that at the heart of forgiveness is the aggressive and gracious pursuit of the offender by the one who has been offended. Such pursuit does not always have to result in the full restoration of relationship, but it must result in blessing to the offender.

Wrestling with Forgiveness

In my line of work as a pastor there are two dominant things I deal with.  The first is the ministry of preaching and the second is dealing with relational conflict.

In dealing with relational conflict the issue of forgiveness is at the heart of the matter.  The goal of relational conflict resolution is forgiveness.

I find that most people embrace the notion of forgiveness as a wonderful concept.  As long as we deal with forgivness as a mere idea, everyone is for it.  The rub comes when you actually have someoe to forgive.

I have had occasion recently to read back over Matthew 18 and Jesus' discusion with Peter on how many times he has to forgive a brother who sins against him.  And as I have done this I am more convinced than ever that very few people are willing to take forgiveness to the level that Jesus demands.

I want to write about that in some detail, but I'll save it for another post.  What I want to address today is the relational consequences of offense and how they relate to forgiveness.

Some Good Stuff on the Dilemmas of the Christian Writer

While blogsurfing today I came across several posts by folks talking about the writing biz - more particularly about Christian fiction writers and the trials and tribulations they go through.  I think most blog readers are book readers and a fair number of them are fiction readers so I thought I would just reference a few of these posts to give you an inside track on an interesting conversation.

Let me begin with a Hat Tip to Jared at the Thinklings who had a couple of links in this post that got me mired in this conversation.

Football and Soccer, Legalism and Liberty

I guess I have football on the brain these days.  I'll be heading to Florida in a couple of weeks to see family and when I start thinking of Florida, I start thining of my beloved Florida Gators, whose football season will be starting soon.  We have less than two months now till the start of college football season.  While I'm in Florida I'll stock up on Gator t-shirts and other paraphernalia and start getting my game face on for the upcoming season.

But while thinking about these things I also was reminded of an article I read sometime ago that I have lost and would deeply appreciate if someone could tell me where to find it, after I describe it.  Someone was comparing American football to soccer and using those two sports as paradigms for understanding American culture, where football is dominant, and European and Latin cultures, where soccer is dominant.

Jonathan Edwards Institute 5 - Steve Garber: Lost in the Cosmos: Finding our True Home in a Trinitarian Universe

Steve Garber gave the final message of the Jonathan Edwards Institute Conference in Annapolis.  It was called "Lost in the Cosmos: Finding our True Home in a Trinitarian Universe."

I. Ideas Have Legs, One More Time.

A. Tom Shadyac's "Bruce Almighty."

Steve originally decided that he would not see this movie because he was sure it was blasphemous.  But, he was surprised when he watched the movie - it was different than he expected to be.  Steve had dinner with Tom Shadyac the night after he watched the movie.  He found out that Tom was not just a good man, but a godly man.  Throughout the conversation, Tom kept talking about God, calling and story.  It became clear to Steve that God was first in Tom's life.  Tom is serious about his devotional life, reading the Scriptures daily, reading the gospels, reading Augustine's Confessions. 

Tom says that when he walks into the studio they don't ask him about his devotions they ask him if he has a good story to tell.  His calling is to be the best storyteller he can be.

When asked about having a film where a couple lives together and are not married by Christian, Tom says that if you think that you shouldn't read the bible.  For example, we have the story of David and Bathsheba in adultery and David's murder of Uriah.

  Tom named Jennifer Anniston "Grace."  Jim is living with Grace.  There is a purpose in this.

Jim Carey thinks he could do a better job of being God than God. In the scene where Jim Carey lassoes the moon he does so in order to have great sex with Grace.  The next morning, when the TV shows typhoons and other disasters, it communicates that small, selfish actions have tremendous consequences.

Bruce Almighty is a funny story that tells us that our actions have consequences for all of life.

B. "Magnolia" and "13 Conversations about One Thing."

Magnolia is a very hard story of ten people whose lives seem very fragmented, and in the movie it tells their stories.  It tells the story that there are consequences to the choices we make, and they affect other people.  We do not live in a world that is governed by chance or fate.

13 Conversations about One Thing is a similar story.  Before the story is all over a tapestry has been woven showing that choices and relationships affect others.  The "one thing" in the title is the answer to the question "what is it that will make you happy?"

Jesus, Our Great High Priest, II

This is a continuation of my a serialization I am doing on my sermon this week on Hebrews 7:1-10.  This picks up right after yesterday's post.  And please remember that this is written to be heard, not read so it will read differently.

II. Two Common Maladies

By the way, when I talk about these common maladies let me say that it is really one malady, but there are two parts to it - two sides to the same coin.  I'm just splitting this up for illustration.

A. An Unwillingness to Change

These folks had come to Christ and had been offered a new way of worshiping, a new way of practicing their religion and they even tried it out, but they didn't like it. 

Even though the new way of worshipping promised them life and vitality, they preferred the old familiar ways.

Jonathan Edwards Institute 4 Steve Garber: "I Believe in MarxFreudandDarwin: The Challenge of a Trinitarian Gospel in a Pluralising World."

Steve Garber is Scholar in Residence for the Everymay Project in Washington, DC.  He is also a Senior Fellow of the C. S. Lewis Institute and the Clapham Institute.   He is also the author of The Fabric of Faithfulness, which some at the conference were saying is one of the most important books they had ever read.  Byron Borger, from Hearts and Minds Booksellers gave a little promo on the book and said that Steve wrote it after interviewing a number of people who had made it to midlife with their faith intact.  He sought to analyze what it was that enabled them to keep their faith intact and this book is the fruit of that research.  I read it about 6 or 7 years ago and remember it being very good, so I guess I'll have to re-read it.  And, if you want to buy it, don't call Amazon, call Byron or Beth Borger at Hearts and Minds.

Steve's topic for this talk was "I Believe in MarxFreudandDarwin: The Challenge of a Trinitarian Gospel in a Pluralising World."  He is speaking on the topic of the cultural meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity. 

Jesus, Our Great High Priest

This week I am preaching on Hebrews 7:1-10 and am practicing the old Puritan principle of preaching the sermon to yourself before preaching it to your congregation.  So far, this sermon is really warming my own heart so I thought I would take a shot at sharing it with you and seeing if it might warm your hearts.  I'll serialize it over the next few days so that you don't have to bite off too much in one setting. 

Before you read the sermon I'll share the text, but I also want to say that this is one of those sermons that began with an introduction and the introduction never ended.  So, the whole sermon is what would ordinarily be an introduction and I'll get into the text next week.  Here's the text of Hebrews 7:1-10:

This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, ^2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” ^3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

^4 Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! ^5 Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, their brothers—even though their brothers are descended from Abraham. ^6 This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. ^7 And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater. ^8 In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. ^9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, ^10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

I also want to mention that someone has suggested that blogging can be helpful because it can help congregations participate in sermon preparation.  As I am sharing this with you, feel free to react positively or negatively and this may help me make appropriate changes before I preach it.

Jonathan Edwards Institute 3 - Scott Hafeman: "The Trinity and Worship in the World to Come."

Scott Hafeman of Gordon Conwell Seminary was the second plenary speaker at the Jonathan Edwards Institute.  I missed his first message, so here are the notes for his second message which was based on Jude 24-25.

22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear - hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh. 24 To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.
The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

Jonathan Edwards Institute 2 - Sinclair Ferguson - "The Trinity: The Life of God in the Soul of Man"

Sinclair Ferguson's second message of the conference was titled "The Trinity: The Life of God in the Soul of Man."  His texts were John 14:15-24 and Romans 8:1-39.  My notes on his message follow.

The Trinitarianness flows through the whole of these passages.

The work of redemption in its entirety is necessary for redemption.  It takes the entire Trinity to save one soul.  It has taken nothing less than the love and power of the Triune God to bring me back into fellowship with Him and to save the church of Jesus Christ.

The whole of the Christian life is bracketed by its Trinitarian nature.  Our entrance into the Christian life is marked by the Trinitarian sacrament of baptism.

Sinclair wishes we would stop inventing benedictions and simply remember that the whole of the Christian life and the bookend of our Christiain life is that we live under the benediction of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  The benediction is the pronouncement of the blessing of the Triune God on you.  Open your eyes and see the eyes of the Triune God pursuing you from this worship service.

More on the Politicization of the Faith

Update 7-6-05:  Joel Thomas left a comment that I thought about responding to in the comments but thought it better to simply update my post accordingly.  After reading the post below he said:

You used words from someone, N.T. Wright, who is not part of the religious left to demonstrate that the religious left is more brazen than the religious right?

I do think the words I quote below are as egregious or more so than what I have seen coming out of the religious right.  But I do want to give credit where credit is due and receive criticism where criticism is due.  I think Wright's words below dovetail with an agenda that is more leftist but if I am reading Joel correctly I think he is saying or implying that Wright has not self-identified with what we would call the "religious left."   I don't know if this is true or untrue.  I had a filter when I read Wright's words that led me to put him in the category of "religious left."  So, Joel may be correct and if Wright wouldn't identify himself with the religious left then I am mistaken in identifying him as such. So, rather than rewrite the whole post let me just acknowledge Joel's comment and apologize up front if I have mistakenly identified Wright with the religious left.

Having said that, his words below about the "rich, white, Western world" reflect a sentiment that is far more true of the religious left than of the religious right, whether he chooses to identify with them or not.  And I do think these words are over the top.  My purpose in the post below is to show that the politicization of the faith is not peculiar to the religious right.  Now, on to the original post.

Jonathan Edwards Institute 1 - Sinclair Ferguson - "The Trinity: The Life of God in the World of Eternity."

This week I am attending the Jonathan Edwards Institute Conference in Annapolis and am being very well fed spiritually.  I thought I would share with you some of the notes I am taking at the conference so that you might be edified as well.

The opening session was taught by Dr. Sinclair Ferguson, professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary.  The title of his message was: "The Trinity: The Life of God in the World of Eternity." His text was John 17 - the Farewell Discourse.  What follows are the notes I took on his lecture.

In our evangelical circles there is the perception that the doctrine of the Trinity is speculative and impractical. For example, the original print run for the book Knowing God, by J. I. Packer was 2000 and the publisher wasn't sure they would be able to sell the 2000.   This is an indicator of the a move in the spirit of evangelicals.  We take it for granted that knowing God belongs at the epicenter of being a Christian, but this is not the case.

What to others may have seemed to be speculative was to our Lord Jesus Christ the very anchor of His existence. Where do you find strength for a soul that is exceedingly sorrowful unto death.  Christ finds it in the knowledge of God the Trinity and all that this means.

With death closing in Christ gives His disciples some of the most rarefied lessons on the doctrine of the Trinity in the entire New Testament.  The whole of the NT Scriptures are interlaced with the persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

A Proper Appreciation for One's Country

In view of my recent post on "The One True Christian Nation," I thought it wise and necessary to follow up with a post giving a biblical rationale and framework for patriotism and apprecitation for one's country.  So, I hope this is helpful and let me wish a Happy Fourth of July to all of my American readers.

My friend Terry commented on my post, "The One True Christian Nation," as follows:

Okay, I agree with every word in your post. Perhaps I could find something to disagree with you on but really what I would like to read is a post on what it means to be a good citizen of your country, a good public servant, a good soldier and a good public office-holder. While you are right that the church is the true holy nation, why can't a nation say that it is a nation that follows Christ. Many have in the past and some still do.

As background, Terry and I have had several discussions on these matters in the past and he brings up a good point.  I have done a good deal of writing against the politicization of the faith that I see in the religious right in particular, and have not written much, if anything, by way of positive encouragement to be a good citizen of one's own country.

So, I'd like to do that in this post.  I won't be answering his questions in particular, but will use them as a jumping off point for describing a moral and biblical justification for appreciation of, and loyalty to, one's country. 

Tim Bednar's Paper - "We Know More Than Our Pastors."

First of all, an apology is in order.  Back in November I mentioned that I intended to read Tim Bednar's paper "We Know More Than Our Pastors," and in saying that I felt like I sort of promised I would read it.  Tim has checked in with me in a comment since then to see if I had read it.  I hadn't and I also rudely didn't reply to Tim.  It was one of those things where I was embarassed, but thought I would get around to it then forgot about it, so in case you see this Tim, my apologies for not responding sooner. 
Now I've read the paper and recommend that you read it also.  I'm not saying you'll agree with what he has written and many folks won't like the implications of what he has written.  Even Tim has said that he is uncomfortable with some of the things he has written.  But, if you want to understand how the Christian blogging movement got started this is a good place to start.

The One True Christian Nation

During my sermon prep for this Sunday I had occasion to reference I Peter 2:9 on a tangential matter.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

This gives me a chance to resurrect one of my favorite soapboxes and beat one of my favorite dead horses.  That dead horse in a soapbox is the issue of what constitutes a Christian nation.

I Peter 2:9 says that the church is a holy nation and this comes from Exodus 19:3-6:

³ Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ⁴ ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. ⁵ Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, ⁶ you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

Tom Cruise, Brooke Shields, Matt Lauer, Scientology and Pseudo-Science

Isn't it a tad ironic that Tom Cruise, the scientologist who believes in space aliens believes that psychiatry is a pseudo science.  Tom has made this very clear in his recent criticisms of Brooke Shields and in his little confrontation with Matt Lauer.  Psychiatry is a pseudo science.  I didn't see the Matt Lauer interview, but have read some who think he got the better of Lauer in their little argument over psychiatry.  While it may be true that Lauer didn't know enough to argue intelligently with Cruise about psychiatry, how is it that Cruise gets away calling anyone or anything a pseudo science.

He has confessed to believing in aliens and the religion of scientology which believes in “body thetans” — aliens who inhabit the earth from a nuclear explosion 75 million years ago.  And this is the guy talking about "pseudo-science."  And with all of the media attention he has gotten out of this recently it appears that there are many who take him seriously

Oh well, the good news is that the rest of us don't take celebrities as seriously as they take themselves.

Pulling Stingers and Saving Face

I'm preaching on Hebrews 6:13-20 this Sunday and, along with all of the redemptive historical significance of the passage, it occurs to me that there are some very practical tips here regarding relationships, conflict and how we confront others in sin.

Hebrews 6:1-8 is a warning passage, full of chastisement for the Hebrews for their folly in desiring an infantile Christian faith.  The warnings are stern, to the point of calling into question the salvation of the members of the church.

But Hebrews 6:9-12 takes a different turn:

⁹ Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case—things that accompany salvation. ¹⁰ God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. ¹¹ We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure. ¹² We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

After all of the confrontation, warning and chastisement in verses 1-11, the writer turns to words of encouragement.  Then, in verses 13ff he changes the subject, moving away from the failures of the Hebrews to speak of the promises of God.

Christians and Public Schooling, III

Part I

Part II

If this is your first time reading this I want to point out that this little series of posts was begun as a reaction to and interaction with a personal resolution at the PCA General Assembly encouraging parents to pull their kids out of public school.  This resolution was defeated and I have been doing these posts to explain why I voted against the resolution.

It is one of those strange ironies of life that I find myself arguing against such a resolution, the sentiments of which I support strongly.  My wife and I have always homeschooled or Christian schooled our kids.  I nearly lost a ministry opportunity because of my fanaticism several years ago.  During interviews for a ministry position they checked my references, some of whom were from my home church.  Those "friends" at church let my interviewer know that they probably didn't want me because I had a very narrow, one-track mind, where I thought homeschooling was the only viable option for Christian parents, all television was off limits and we needed to go to extremes to keep our kids separate from the world. I was a minister of condemnation and my friends from church let the interviewer know that I didn't have a clue about the grace of the gospel.

How to Encourage Your Pastor

Curt at the Happy Husband sent an email a few days ago to about 50 blogging pastors asking us how our congregations can encourage us.  This has become a special burden to him as he seeks to encourage his own pastor and he wants us pastors to add our two cents to the discussion.  Here's the orginal post on his blog and he has also set up a permanent page where he is posting links to the responses.

I'll begin with a big thanks to Curt for doing this.  It is a big encouragement to me just to see him doing something like this.  And beyond that, here are a few thoughts on how to encourage your pastor.

Christians and Public Schooling, II

Part I

In part 1 I gave a bit of background on the personal resolution that was offered to the General Assembly of the PCA asking the denomination to "encourage" its members to withdraw their kids from public schools.  Today I want to begin talking about why I voted against it.

The longer I think about it the more reasons I come up with to not support it. and I'll share some of those in future posts.  Today I'll talk about the whole issue of position statements and freedom of conscience.

Inspiration, Historical Settings and the New Perspective

I've been trying (and failing miserably) over these last few months to get up to speed on the controversy surrounding the New Perspective on Paul and the teachings of N.T. Wright.  Since I am not up to speed I'll try to be very reserved in my comments here, but I wanted to touch on one thing I have heard and interact with it a bit.

One aspect of the New Perspective, as I understand it, is that its advocates claim that the reformers and other interpreters of Paul have misunderstood Paul because they haven't given great enough weight to the historical setting in which he wrote.  In other words, the reformers and others brought presuppositions into their study which hindered them from understanding Paul.  From this perspective, a more accurate reading of Paul can be gained by understanding his historical/cultural setting involving second-temple Judaism, his reaction to the Roman Empire and his interaction with Greek philosophy

Christians and Public Schooling

By now many of you will have heard of overtures made to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America and the Southern Baptist Convention regarding Christians in public schools.

As reported by WorldNetDaily, last year the Southern Baptist Convention was offered a resolution encouraing the Convention to pull kids out of public schools:

Baptist activists Bruce N. Shortt and T.C. Pinckney, calls on the millions of members of the denomination to take their kids out of public schools and either homeschool them or send them to Christian schools.

While this was voted down, it appears that it may be coming back again this year, as Russell Moore notes in a June 17th entry on the Mere Comments blog.  This year it is coming back with the endorsement of Al Mohler, who is calling for the development of an exit strategy.

In my own denomination, the PCA, a personal resolution, somewhat modeled on the Baptist one from last year was offered by the Rev. Steve Warhurst, pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Kingsport, Tenn.  Although Rev. Warhurst may be unknown to you, his resolution had the backing of some powerful folks in the denomination, and the evangelical world at large.  It was backed by D. James Kennedy of Evangelism Explosion and Coral Ridge Presbyterian and Joel Belz, founder of World Magazine.

Like the Southern Baptist resolution, Mr. Warhurst's resolution to the PCA was voted down, and from where I sat, it looked like it was voted down by a fairly large margin.  I was one of those who voted against the resolution and I thought I would take some time here to explain why.  I'll do this through several posts instead of making this the horribly long, unreadable post.  Today, I'll voice some commendations and agreements with the resolution and in future posts I'll talk about why I voted against it.

Theology Matters

By now you may have heard the story of the Romanian Priest who crucified a recalcitrant nun, then performed her funeral mass, and remains unrepentant.

I started off wanting to write a very sarcastic piece to the effect that this illustrates the outcomes of bad belief and bad theology.  But it occured to me that every theological persuasion has its share of lunatics and it would be unfair to paint with too broad of a brush in talking about this guy.

But, this is a horrible story, made even more horrible by the priest's unrepentant attitude and belief that his actions would somehow deliver this woman from her alleged demons.  And the horror is compounded by the lack of outrage on the part of some in the local and religious communities of which this priest is a part.

However, having said all that, I do need to go back to the matter of theology. 

John Piper - "Obedience, Orthodoxy, and Joy: Leadership for a Greater Consensus"

John Piper preached at the PCA General Assembly on Thursday night, June 16th.  The title of the message was "Obedience, Orthodoxy, and Joy: Leadership for a Greater Consensus."  His text was Acts 20:24-31:

²⁴ However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace.

²⁵ “Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. ²⁶ Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. ²⁷ For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. ²⁸ Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. ²⁹ I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. ³⁰ Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. ³¹ So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

Why God Invented Elders

As you know I am at the PCA General Assembly.  I am part of a team that is live blogging from GA.  I haven't posted anything yet because of my continual wireless woes, but it looks like we are getting it all fixed and I should start posting some stuff on the GA Blog soon.  If you are interested in reading the GA blog you can find it here.

I will go ahead and post something here for your edification.  Last night we had our opening worship service and it was tremendous, as these things always are.  Ligon Duncan, our outgoing moderator, preached on "Why God Invented Ruling Elders."   I thought I would share the notes I took on his message with you, so keep reading and you can find them.  And, in order to cover myself, I'll just mention that these notes were taken on the fly and grammar and formatting leaves something to be desired.

PCA Debate on the New Perspective

Just in case anyone cares what us PCA'ers think (which most people outside the PCA probably don't), our denominational website hosts a monthly (translate - "monthly or whenever we can think of a new topic to debate) umpired debate.  Our current debate is on the topic of justification, with particular reference to the New Perspective on Paul.

These debates always begin with a paper, or a set of papers on the varying positions on the particular issue.  This month, the debate is kicked off with a single paper, by the venerable Reggie Kidd, my old New Testament prof at RTS-Orlando.  One of the things that Reggie said in his essay was:

Before the older and newer readings of Paul get too quickly set against each other, however, we need to see how the language of "righteousness" and "justification" (in Greek, the same word serves for "justification" and "righteousness") actually works. When it comes to the apostle Paul, we'll find that a logic of "not only, but also" helps us much better than one of "not that, but this."

 

Julie Ann Fidler - Adventures in Holy Matrimony

Fellow blogger and all around great gal, Julie Ann Fidler of Fidler on the Roof has just had her new book Adventures in Holy Matrimony, published.  In fact, I believe it was just released yesterday.  You can download a free chapter and order the book from Relevant Books, or order it from Amazon.

I read the free chapter online and I gotta say I am looking forward to reading the book.  The first chapter relates the comedy/tragedy of errors that was her engagement/wedding/honeymoon.  Here's a pretty good description of what it was like:

That’s the problem with most people, though, isn’t it? They equate a beautiful wedding with a beautiful marriage. Sure, you can have a beautiful marriage, but it’s not all wine and roses. I can’t tell you how many people tried to warn us that it wasn’t always going to be a dream come true. We just didn’t want to listen. Anyone who told us anything other than what we wanted to hear was promptly shut out and dismissed as trying to ruin the great thing we had together. (Which wasn’t giving our pals much credit, since none of them would ever purposely steer us wrong!)

We should have listened.

It turned out that married life was a trial by fire. We went from whispering sweet nothings into each other’s ears at the reception to practically wringing each other’s necks in the bedroom.

Why It's Cool to Be a Calvinist

OK, with all of this serious discussion about calvinism and all I thought I would inject a little levity into it.  I first got this in an e-mail from another pastor in my presbytery, but also found it on a blog called Semper Reformanda.  This is hilarious, but what is even more hilarious is if you go over to the Semper Reformanda blog and look at all of the comments this young lady got from people taking this way too seriously.  This really is a joke, somewhere along the lines of 10 reasons it's better to be a man than a woman or 15 reasons dogs are better than cats.  So, if anyone gets offended here I'll be happy to post a rebuttal about why arminians are better than calvinist, baptists are better than presbyterians or something along the lines.  Of course, I'll reserve the right to rebut the rebuttal.

Traditionalists now have permission to talk to Emergent types

Don't know if you have seen this, but flaming reformed stick in the mud Mike Horton has been talking to totally cool, cutting edge, tall skinny emergent man Andrew Jones.  They had a little exchange on Andrew's blog a few weeks ago and it was completely free from name-calling, anger-spewing, invective-hurling, and accusation-mongering.  Kind of disappointing for those who like a good fight.  I mean, who would have tuned in to see Ali and Frazier do the "Tango in Manilla," instead of the "Thrilla in Manilla."

It all started here, where Andrew speaks about an interview that Mike did with someone on the emerging church.  Apparently, in that interview, Mike was given a gun and targets with pictures of Brian McLaren and other EC types and was offered the chance to shoot at will.  But ol' Mike couldn't bring himself to pull the trigger.  Well, he did lob a few water balloons their way, but he apparently didn't cause much injury to the emergent types, although he did point out several areas they needed to work on, so maybe they got their sandals a little wet.

Then Andrew missed his cue, because he was supposed to respond with protestations that Mike didn't understand the emergent church, was hopellesly stuck in the modernistic age and really couldn't care less if this generation just burrrrnned in hell or something.  But no, Andrew says, "hmm, maybe you've got a point, or a few good points here."  He didn't agree with everything Mike said, but he listened.

5 Books for Sermon Preparation

Adrian Warnock is linking a discussion started at Stronger Church that he heard about from Transforming Sermons.  The question is - if you could only have five books out of your library to keep to help you prepare sermons, what would they be? 

Actually, for about the last seven or eight years I've been using Logos Software and accumulating all kinds of stuff from them so I would just ask for my laptop and my Logos disks and could be very happy. But, since that's not the question I'll play along.

1. Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible
2. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - ok, this has four volumes so I'm done, but if you'll allow me to count it as one volume I'd go with the following three others.
3. Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem (betcha thought I was going to say Berkhof, didn't ya?)
4. According to Plan - Graeme Goldsworthy
5. Your Best Life Now - Joel Osteen - kidding - just checking to see if anybody's really reading this.  How about Young's Analytical Concordance so I can have a language reference.

Hebrews 6 and Assurance of Salvation IV

Here's part IV of my serialized sermon from this past Sunday on Hebrews 6.  As I mentioned before, this is more of an introduction, so I am preparing this week to actually get in and exegete and preach the passage itself.  So, I'll post a few things from this week's sermon as the week goes along.

I've been talking so far about the fact that there are many professing Christians who are actually counterfeit and in this part of the message I am giving some evidences of deception and then moving to talk about the grounds of assurance.

V. Evidences of Deception

  How might I recognize if I am a counterfeit Christian or have a counterfeit faith? Let me just rely on a summary of a couple of things gleaned from the writings of Jonathan Edwards (note to blog readers, these came out of Gerald McDermott's book on Edwards called Seeing God).

1. They have no fear of deception - they don't realize that spiritual deception is common and easy to fall into

2. They don't question their own spiritual judgments because they don't know that their own hearts are often blind and deceitful. True Christians recognize this problem and bemoan the duplicity of their own hearts.

3. They don't comprehend their own sinfulness. They think they are virtuous and even better than most.

Basically, this is the picture of a very self-satisfied person and this picture fits very well with Hebrews 6. These folks were very satisfied with where they were in the Christian life – they had become believers and didn’t need to go any further than first grade in the Christian life.

But they may have been deceived.

In Defense of "Internet Calvinists"

These are some tough days for those of us who are on the internet and claim to be Calvinists and/or Reformed.   First, Michael Spencer published  his essay Why I'm Not Like You, wherein  he sought to distance himself from some expressions of what has come to be known as "ugly calvinism."  And then he had his "iMonk and Calvinism Q&A" where he esplainified himself some more.  Basically, he still holds to alot of Calvinistic beliefs but he feels like this is a movement which has been co-opted by some unsavory types.

And of course, Michael's writings have spurred a good deal of discussion at the Boars Head Tavern and one of the wags who patronize the tavern has created a cool graphic that says "This weblog has not been approved by the League of Truly Reformed Bloggers" which links to an FAQ dealing with the Tavern's feelings about calvinists and "truly reformed" types.

I have corresponded with Michael online and off from time to time and I think I know him well enough to know that he wasn't taking a potshot at the League of Reformed Bloggers, which I moderate.  I also know that Michael isn't the only one posting things at the tavern, but since "League of Truly Reformed Bloggers," sounds so much like "League of Reformed Bloggers," I shot Michael a quick e-mail to confirm that no offense was intended.  He confirmed this immediately and even apologized for any confusion, though none was necessary.  And they have added another FAQ to their FAQ's specifically pointing out that they aren't making fun of me or anyone else in the League of Reformed Bloggers, which is good news because I am very sensitive and get my feelings hurt easily.  Michael and the folks at the tavern aren't attacking calvinism and calvinists per se, rather this "ugly" form of calvinism I have mentioned. 

Now, Phil Johnson of Grace Community Church has jumped into the blogosphere and the debate about calvinism.  Phil's entry into the blogosphere has been greeted with a level of excitement not seen since Elvis appeared on the Ed Sullivan show.  Phil didn't open with Blue Suede Shoes or You Ain't Nuthin But a Hound Dog, rather he opened with an essay called "Quick and Dirty Calvinism," wherein he talks about the move away from Calvinism by folks like John Armstrong, Andrew Sandlin, Rob Schlapfer, and of course the iMonk himself.

Hebrews 6 and Assurance of Salvation III

Here's part III of my serialized sermon on Hebrews 6 and the assurance of salvation.  As you can see, this is all still introduction to issues raised in Hebrews 6.  I'll preach the rest of the sermon next week so I'll go ahead and keep this little serialization going for a few more days.

This part begins with a little thingy I got from R. C. Sproul on four kinds of people in regards to salvation.

III. Four Kinds of People

1. Those who think they are saved but aren’t 

2. Those who think they are saved and are.

3. Those who don’t think they are saved, but are.  

4. Those who don’t think they are saved and aren’t.

    In this section of the book of Hebrews, the author was sharing his worries that he feared that there were many people there who were in the first category – they thought they were saved, but they weren’t.  

     This is a point that we don’t talk about much in our day, but that the Bible actually talks about a good deal -

More on Assurance

As I have been doing my series on Hebrews 6 and the assurance of salvation I have been seeking to do justice to the text itself while addressing issues of eternal security and the assurance of salvation.  I think it is obvious that these weren't the concerns of the writer of Hebrews, but they become our concerns when we read this text.  Thus, a straight exegesis of the text has to blend in with modern questions and concerns when you preach and teach on it.

So, there is a sense in which, when you bring concerns about eternal security and assurance of salvation to Hebrews 6 you are bringing a square peg to a round hole.  This doesn't mean we should ignore these concerns.  Using the analogy of faith, i.e. the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, means that we need to interpret Hebrews 6 in light of the rest of Scripture and this means that if indeed, the rest of Scripture tells us that we can have eternal security and the assurance of our salvation, then we need to bring these factors to bear on our exegesis of this particular text.

But getting back to square pegs and round holes, one of my concerns in the Hebrews 6 series is that modern evangelicals tend to be so wrapped up in issues of assurance and security that, when they come to Hebrews 6, they are more concerned about identifying what the passage doesn't say than what it does say.  With assurance and security being our primary concerns, Hebrews 6 becomes a hurdle to clear rather than a pool to swim in or a chair to recline in.  In other words, our goal in approaching Hebrews 6 is to clear it with our sense of assurance and eternal security in tact.  As I have said in other places, many of us read, teach or hear Hebrews 6 in such a way that we come away from it wiping our brow and saying "whew, glad that doesn't apply to me."  My concern has been to show that it does apply to us.

But in doing that, I haven't been making any kind of positive case for eternal security or the assurance of salvation.  For my purposes now, I will skip the former and concentrate on the latter - assurance of salvation.

Hebrews 6 and Assurance of Salvation II

Here's the second part of my serialized sermon manuscript on Hebrews 6.

II. There is a Difference Between the Security of Salvation and the Assurance of Salvation 

1. Passages      that Affirm Eternal Security

John 6:39-40 say this: 

^39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. ^40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

John 10:27-30 says this: 

^27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. ^28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. ^29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. ^30 I and the Father are one."

Hebrews 6 and Assurance of Salvation I

A couple of days ago I mentioned that I am preaching on Hebrews 6 this week and would blog some of my thoughts on this controversial passage.  Well, I'm pulling a John MacArthur here (which is not to compare myself to him) in that the introduction has taken over the message.  If you ever listen to MacArthur preach, his introductions (especially for a new series) will take 75% of the message and then he'll get started on the text for the other 25% and finish next week.  For this message, the introduction became 100% of the message.  And because it is so long I'll just serialize it over serialize parts of my preaching manuscript over several days. 

Oh btw - the usual caveat applies - what you will read here was written to be heard, not read, so it will read a little differently than other posts which are written to be read and not heard.

So, here's part 1.

Process and Product in Public

There is an old Japanese proverb to the effect that no one should ever write a book before they are 50 years of age.  The point is that you just haven't experienced enough of life to write anything of value before then.

Typically, in times past, writers would study for a period of time, maybe many years before publishing their thoughts.  If someone wanted to write on something they would do a lot of reading and study, and a lot of notetaking.  They might change their views many times during the course of their study and maybe they would leave some reflection of their wrestlings in private journals and notebooks.  But basically, their internal wrestlings were hidden from the public.  Sure, when they published the book they might have given a synopsis of the process they went through in coming to their conclusions, but this was only a step to unveiling the final product.

In other words, there is a difference between process and product.  In times past the process was largely a private affair and the product was the public matter.  So, if Joe Author confessed in his writing that five years ago he held to position "x" but after further study he came to position "y" no one criticized him for believing position "x" way back then, because the finished product was now position "y."

Westminster Confession on Security and Assurance

I'm preaching this Sunday on Hebrews 6, the famous passage that is so controversial in the debate about eternal security.  I'm working on the sermon now and plan to blog a post or two from my sermon prep but I thought, as a runup to that, I would post a couple of sections from the Westminster Confession.  Before I do that, here are a couple of concerns I have as I am studying the passage.

The Scylla on that passage is the Arminian notion that you can lose your salvation.  I think there are plenty of other passages that speak of eternal security, plus if you look at the passage through an O.T. covenantal community lens, there is a very reasonable explanation which does justice to the passage without forfeiting eternal security.

The Charybdis of Hebrews 6 is the typical reformed exegesis which effectively neuters the passage's intended effect as a warning.  What I mean is that reformed exegetes and others who believe in eternal security spend so much time jumping through hoops to prove what it doesn't say, that they never get around to saying what it does say.  In other words, these folks go to great lengths to show that this doesn't teach you can lose your salvation and I think the effect is to cause their hearers or readers to wipe the sweat from their brows and think "whew, glad to know this passage doesn't apply to me."  It seems clear to me that, when we read Hebrews 6, we aren't to walk away relieved that this doesn't apply to us, but we should have a sense of fear and awe as we read it. In that respect, though I disagree with their paradigm and conclusions I think the Arminian interpreters do a better job of respecting the force of this text as a warning passage.

Re-Post - The Language of Faith

I'm taking a few days of vacation right now and am only at the computer in a very haphazard, hit and miss fashion.  But, I still was wanting to get a post or two up while I was away so I thought I would recycle an old post from February 26, 2004 called the Language of Faith.  This dealt with a few issues that I believed were important then and which still resonate with me now.

So, for those of you who weren't reading me back in Feb. 2004 this will give you an idea of what I was writing then and any feedback is welcome.

The Difficulty of Being Always Reforming

Most who are familiar with the history of the reformation are aware of the famous slogan "always reformed, always reforming," or said another way, "the reformed church is always reforming," or for those who may be a bit highfalutin, snobby or otherwise desirous of impressing people with their immense learning "ecclesia semper reformans, semper reformanda."  However you want to say it and whoever you want to impress, the point of the slogan is that the church is always to be reforming its doctrine and practice according to the Scriptures.

This is one of those things that sounds like a great idea until someone actually tries to do it. 

Which is not to say that it shouldn't be done, or at least attempted.  The problem is that inevitably, when someone tries to reform something, a groundswell of criticism emerges against said reformers to remind them that though "always reforming" is a great idea, this particular area that this particular person is trying to reform is inviolable and shouldn't be reformed.

Which is not to say that the critics of the "always reforming" types don't usually have a point.  If the fifteenth and sixteenth century religious culture was overbalanced with a "we shall not be moved" mentality, our era is overbalanced with a mentality that says "we shall change and rearrange everything, everyday in every way."  Many, mabye most, attempts at reforming are unnecessary or missing the point at best, and silly or harmful at worst.  As the old saying goes "if I had a nickel for everytime I heard someone say they wanted to start a new reformation I'd be a rich man by now."  OK, maybe it's not an old saying, but at least part of it is old.

Yet, silliness aside, the principle is an important one.

What About These Wayward Children?

One of the most painful things in life is dealing with wayward children.  Although this is not unique to religious types, it is particularly difficult for those who hold strong religious convictions.  One of the characteristics of those who hold strong religious convictions is that they are to pass their strong religious convictions on to their children. 

As I said, this is not unique to those with strong religious convictions.  Even those strong religious convictions have hopes and dreams for their children and are often dismayed when their children fall short of their hopes and dreams.  And even when kids aren't falling short of specific parental hopes and dreams, the pains and agonies of the kids become the pains and agonies of the parents.  And these pains and agonies of the parents are multiplied because said parents have often taken great pains and agonies to protect their kids from and educate them against these pains and agonies.

But this situation is especially acute for parents with religious convictions.  Those without strong religious convictions may lament the prodigality of their children and may wonder where they went wrong, or how it could be that their kids didn't learn any better; in short they may feel that there has been some sort of failure on their part or the kids part.  But with religious parents this is compounded because they carry the added weight of feeling that they have let God down too.

Theological Conviction and Church Growth

Al Mohler's blog entry for today is titled Why are Conservative Churches Growing?  It looks at two sociological explanations for this phenomena - Judith Shulevitz's May 12 column in Slate called "The Power of the Mustard Seed," and the book Vanishing Boundaries: The Religion of Mainline Protestant Baby Boomers by Hoge, Johnson and Luidens. 

Per Mohler, Shulevitz relies on the work of Laurence R. Iannaccone of Santa Clara University in his essay, "Why Strict Churches Are Strong," that was published in the American Journal of Sociology in 1994.  Shuevitz/Iannaccone says that conservative churches are growing because of their strictness:

Following Kelley's lead, Iannaccone argued that "strictness" is the clearest indicator of congregational strength and potential for growth. He defines strictness in terms of "complete loyalty, unwavering belief, and rigid adherence to a distinctive lifestyle." Thus, the churches that require members to hold definite doctrinal beliefs and to share common moral commitments are more likely to grow and remain strong than churches who have lower expectations in terms of both belief and behavior.

With that being the case:

Judith Shulevitz suggests that liberal denominations should look to this body of research and modify themselves so that their members will find deeper meaning and connection. Her answer is a recovery of ritual. Nevertheless, her concept of ritual has no specific theological content. As she argues, "the greatest religious leaders have understood [that] ritual is theater. You can use it to send any message you want."

The Centrality of Learning to the Christian Faith

One of the most debated passages of Scripture is Hebrews 6:4-8:

⁴ For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, ⁵ and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, ⁶ if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. ⁷ For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. ⁸ But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 . Standard Bible Society:

Wheaton

This passage is so heavily debated because it raises the issue of whether or not one can lose their salvation.  Some say that this verse is speaking of genuine Christians who really lose their salvation, others say it speaks of false professors who gave the impression they were genuinely saved when they weren't.

In either case, both sides agree that this passage gives a very stern warning against falling away from the faith.   And while the debate is very interesting and is worthy of much discussion I would like to point out that the occasion for these words is as interesting and as important for us to discuss.

Challenges in the Blogosphere

Well, it seems like everyone is challenging us preachers to do a post on a particular passage of Scripture these days.  John at Blogotional challenged us to do a post on Hebrews 6:1-2 and in particular to apply this to the discussion of preaching to different audiences.  Then of course my buddy Adrian challenged me personally here, and then Adrian challenged us all to do a post on Acts 15:28-29.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to all of these challenges.  My friend Mike at Eternal Perspectives has responsed to Adrian's challenge on Acts 15:28-29.  And I know that others have responded to these challenges in other places.

But because I don't want to be left out in all of these challenges, I want to issue a challenge of my own.  That's right, I take a backseat to no one in these matters - if my buddies Adrian and John can issue a challenge, well so can I. 

With this challenge we will see who the elite of the blogosphere really are, yea verily this is a challenge which will cause the cream of the blogosphere to rise to the top.  The question is - have you got what it takes to rise to the challenge??

I don't wish to brag or anything but I will point out that Adrian and John's challenges were very narrow in scope, being pretty much limited to preachers, and I have a better challenge. A huge segment of bloggers were left out of their challenges and they also required access to study materials and the like that are not available to everyone.  So, at the risk of sounding conceited, I think the challenge I am about to issue is better than theirs, because the audience is not limited to a particular calling or profession, and access to specialized resources is not required to meet my challenge.

I challenge every blogger to send me a check or cash in an amount not less than $25 nor to exceed $100 and then to write your own personal love letter to me on your blog.  And I'll even expand the challenge to non-bloggers.  If you don't have a blog you can send me a hand written love note when you send in your check or money and I'll post it for you on my blog.  Yep, you're welcome, I'm just that kind of guy.

So go ahead, I dare you - the gauntlet has been thrown - how will you respond??

To Whom Shouild we Preach?

I hadn't planned on posting on this subject, but Adrian Warnock has called me out.  He and John at Blogotional have been having a discussion on "to whom should we preach?"  Should preaching be targeted toward believers or unbelievers, or can it target both.  John has spoken about this here, and he has rounded up a collection of posts on the subject here.

The discussion is great - I've waded through a few of the posts and people on all sides have said lots of great stuff.  I'm not sure I can add much to the discussion or say anything that hasn't already been said.  But since Adrian has called me out I'll add a few observations.

Miscellaneous Thoughts on N. T. Wright and Theological Encyclopedia

N. T. Wright is all the rage these days.  He's the hottest theologian going and may be this generation's Karl Barth.  Whereas Barth's commentary on Romans may have been like a bomb exploding on the playgrounds of the theologians, Wright seems to have made a lifestyle out of exploding bombs on theological playgrounds.

Everyone is reading Wright, and since I take a backseat to no one when it comes to following the crowd, I am trying to get acquainted with Wright myself.  I am just getting started on Wright - I've listened to a few messages and read a few downloaded articles.  I've only skimmed J. Ligon Duncan's paper on him, so I really don't know enough yet to offer any intelligent opinions on his teaching.  In this post I want to take one statement of his on imputation, and use it as a springboard to another topic that is of interest to me, and hopefully to you.

I give that preface to hopefully head off some of the comments I know are going to come.  I am quite sure there will be some folks who will warn me of the dangers of dabbling with Wright.  And then there are his followers who will say that I don't understand him.  Please understand that though I don't know that much about Wright himself, I am well acquainted with his critics and advocates.  Almost to a man, his critics consider him to be a snake in the garden, and almost to a man, his followers think his critics misunderstand him, haven't read him, or haven't read enough of him.

I'm going a different road in this and hopefully it will be helpful to some of you.  I'll begin with a passage from an interview that Wright did with Travis Tamerius.  Then I will use that quote to spring into a couple of thoughts and a series of questions that came to mind.  I was reminded recently that asking the right questions is often as important as finding answers to those questions.

Be Encouraged - An Awesome Quote from C. S. Lewis

I am currently reading Beyond the Shadowlands, which I will review for Mind & Media soon - hopefully the first of next week.  This is a study of C. S. Lewis's teachings on heaven and hell.  Today I came across the following quote which is taken from Mere Christianity:

Though our feelings come and go, His love for us does not. It is not wearied by our sins, or our indifference; and, therefore, it is quite relentless in its determination that we will be cured of those sins, at whatever cost to us, at whatever cost to Him.

I hope that encourages you as much as it does me!

Leadership and Goals

Next weekend I will be leading a session at our church's men's retreat on leadership and I'm putting my stuff together now.  I thought I would share my thoughts on the blog as they develop to see if I can get any reaction and input.  I figured this way I could get you to help me prepare my message.

I'll be drawing on several Scriptures and I'll be reading Robert Clinton's book The Making of a Leader and Jack Miller's book The Heart of a Servant Leader in preparation. 

My plan is to start with a simple proposition that is very obvious but that I think gets overlooked, and that is simply that leadership presupposes a goal.  In other words, if you aren't going anywhere  or trying to become something, or accomplish something, you don't need a leader.

Preaching Beyond Ourselves

We often hear and say "practice what you preach."  This goes for everyone, but has a more particular application to those whose calling is to preach.  Preachers ought not to be hypocrites, preaching to the congregation about things they themselves haven't experienced.  At least this is the conventional wisdom of the day.

But there is a real sense in which preachers need to preach beyond themselves, they need to preach things they aren't practicing.

In saying this, I am not so much referring to the ethical commands or spiritual disciplines.  A preacher is being a hypocrite if he tells the congregation to read the bible or be morally pure if he is not practicing these things.  His message may benefit his hearers, to some degree, but the message itself will be his condemnation.

But there is another sense in which we can never truly practice what we preach and shouldn't be ashamed to admit that.

The Holy Spirit and Rhetorical Skills

In a prior post, Phil Dillon from Another Man's Meat left the following comment:

Even the frauds using the word of God can't dull its power. The best example I can think of is Marjoe. He was a child evangelist who admitted that he was a fraud in a documentary whose title was the same as his name. What was interesting was seeing people respond not so much to him but to the Word of God. In order to link the saving power of the gospel to him alone or to others like him one would have to deny those who came to a saving knowledge of Jesus the conversion to Christianity they had embraced.

I wanted to thank Phil for that comment and encourage you to check out his excellent blog.  I actually had never heard of Marjoe until Phil left that comment.  So, spurred on by this I did a little research and found that the life and story of Marjoe illustrates just how easy it is to fake the effects of the Holy Spirit.  And yet, even when acting as a fraud, as Marjoe did, God's Word was proclaimed and some folks were blessed through him.    

More on the Spirit and Preaching

My last two posts on preaching (here and here) have evolved in the comments into a discussion of the role of the Holy Spirit in preaching.  In my last post I argued that the Holy Spirit works through the Word and that where the Word is preached faithfully the Holy Spirit is present, regardless of the delivery vehicle.

The comments have been terrific on this and I thank everyone who has commented.  Although I stand by my basic thesis the commenters have all brought up some good "other side of the coin" type thoughts that are well spoken and well received (at least from me).  However, I want to explore this point a bit more.

As often happens, Jeremy Pierce has taken a thought of mine, expanded on it and said it better than I can say it.  In this post he says:

Too often being Spirit-filled seems to have something to do with tone, volume, or how the preacher or the audience feels rather than whether God has worked in the hearts of those hearing it for genuine lifechange.

That comment hits the nail on the head.  For those who distinguish between "Spirit-filled" preaching and that which is not spirit filled, what is the criterion you use to distinguish the two.  Jeremy is right on two counts here.  But I also want to interact and modify a few of the things he says, and I'm guessing he would be pretty much in agreement with me.  If not, well that's what comments are for.

The Power of Spirit-Less Preaching

In my last post on preaching a couple of commenters mentioned the importance of spirit filled preaching where the preacher is full of unction from on high.  I agree that there are those whom God moves on in a powerful way and through whom He speaks in a special way.  Yet, I don't think that what we often mean by "spirit-filled" preaching is as important as we think it is.  I am not saying that it is ok for a preacher to preach while in rebellion to the Spirit of God.  But I am saying that even such a preacher, if he faithfully brings the Word, can see the spirit move through his preaching.

The notion of the primacy of the spirit filled preacher misses a very important fact.  It is the Word of God that has power, not the one who delivers it.

Some Thoughts on Sermon Prep and Delivery

Doug at CoffeeSwirls recently asked me for some thoughts on sermon prep and delivery and I thought I would share them with you. 

First of all I'll admit that I have gotten a bit sloppy and don't really follow the textbook approaches as much as I used to.  I think this is a normal thing once you have been preaching for awhile, and in fact, it's probably normal for anything we do.  When you are first learning how to do something you have to be very careful to get the mechanics just right.  But after you have been using the mechanics for awhile they become second nature and you don't have to consciously be thinking about them all the time.

I point this out because my practice at this time may not be all that helpful to someone who is just starting out.  Further, my practice at this time is probably not what it ought to be in the future.  I've developed a certain comfort level in preaching over the last couple of years that can be dangerous.  There are some things I'll need to do in the future to improve my preaching. 

But having said that, here's a few things on how I go about preparing and delivering sermons.

"Heaven Can't Wait" from the Utne Reader

I took Joe Carter's advice today (by the way, I'm thinking of changing the name of my blog from "Jollyblogger" to "Hat Tip: Evangelical Outpost")  and decided to read "outside the circle," today and read "Heaven Can't Wait" by David Schimke on the Utne Reader website.  This is basically an appeal for progressive religionists to reclaim Jesus from the fundamentalists.  For instance:

The Jesus they taught me about lived and died in the name of justice, in the spirit of peace. He was an anti-establishment activist who begot peacemakers from Gandhi to Chavez, King to Mandela. And I had forsaken him: in social circles, because my progressive friends equated Western religion with naivete; professionally, because I wanted to get the story. And while, on some level, I will always be sorting out the whole religion thing, I'm no longer reticent to say that I believe Jesus walked the earth. That I believe he provoked the powerful, considered economic injustice a sin, and welcomed all people -- no matter what their race, religion, sex, or sexual preference -- without judgment or expectation.

In short, I believe Jesus was a radical, and the time has come to start saying so.

What is Arrogance?

I've been interested lately in the idea of "arrogance," for several reasons.  First of all I have noticed that "arrogant" is lately being used as a kind of catch-all criticism for many people when dealing with folks they disagree with.  Secondly, I have been called "arrogant" a time or two in my life and you can imagine how that hurts the pride of a humble guy like myself.  And thirdly, I have done a bit of reading lately that gave me a new perspective on the subject.

I mention being called arrogant.  I recently said some things rather strongly and sinfully for which I was called arrogant.  In looking back on the things I said I would have been willing to confess to sin in those statements, but arrogance is not the sin I would have named.  There were a couple of other sins I recognized myself as being guilty of, but I wouldn't have said arrogance was one of them.  Yet, at the same time, isn't arrogance the root of all sin.  It is pride that leads any of us sin because, at root, sin is a refusal to bow the knee to God and to do things His way. 

Skeletons in Our Heroes Closets

Todd Rhoades at Monday Morning Insight has a post called 10 Things You'd Hate about John Wesley (and 10 Things He'd Hate About You!).  The post is quite entertaining but there is a discussion in the comments that I really want to focus on.   But before I do that, here's the first four of the ten things you'd hate about Wesley, which are my favorites:

1. Despotism – Even Wesley's own preachers called him "Pope John". He ruled his followers like an enlightened despot, and his beloved brother Charles plotted to "break his power". John expected every Methodist society to follow his rules like a McDonalds franchise, and took personal charge over every member's private life, expelling them for laziness or selling spirits.

2. Superstition – He saw rain storms as God's punishment on him - or the Devil's attack. He made decisions by opening the Bible at random for God's guidance, and even decided whether to marry by pulling bits of paper out of a hat.

3. Copyright – Wesley was a plagiarist and pseudepigrapher - he passed other people's writings off as his own and his own as other people's. He got into trouble for ripping off an anti-American tract of Dr Johnson's. And he attacked a book by Toplady (of "Rock of Ages" fame) by publishing a cheap caricature of it at the same time under Toplady's name. Toplady denounced him as a common crook worthy of deportation to America.

4. Grief – He didn't believe in it, as Christians should be happy when someone goes to heaven. "I believe the death of your children is a great instance of the goodness of God towards you," he told his sister. "You have often mentioned to me how much of your time they took up. Now that time is restored to you, and you have nothing to do but serve the Lord without carefulness and without distraction."

And here are my favorites from the category of ten things Wesley would hate about you:

2. Laughter – Wesley did not much approve of laughter. He rebuked one of his preachers for being willing to "break a jest, and laugh at it heartily", and complained that even George Whitefield's conversation was "often mixed with needless laughter".

6. Marriage – Spouses are far too indulgent on each other for Wesley's liking. He told his travelling preachers that those with wives or families should keep going "as if they had none", just as he did himself. He told his wife that he was forbidden to "laugh or trifle a moment when with you". His theory of matrimony (expounded on a bad day, admittedly) was "You should have given me a carte blanche. You should have said, 'Bid me do anything, everything'."

7. Children – Parents are far too indulgent on children too. In his Methodist school the timetable was from 4am to 8pm, with religious and physical exercises, including fasting, but no play: "He that plays when he is a child, shall play when he is a man". When he married, he planned to dump any children he had there permanently.

8. Foolishness during sleep – If you've passed all Wesley's tests so far, do your hours of sleep also honour God sufficiently? "Is there no vanity or folly in your dreams? No temptation that almost overcomes you? And are you then as sensible of the presence of God and as full of prayer as when you are waking?"

Wow, even our dreams come under scrutiny.  But that's not what I want to talk about, I want to talk about the ensuing discussion in the comments section.         

Forgotten Factors in the Downfall of Nations: Divorce

Yesterday I did a post called Forgotten Factors in the Downfall of Nations: Sodom.  I intended this to be the start of a little mini-series and today is part 2 where I want to take up the subject of divorce and homosexuality.

As a bit of a refreshed I want to mention that I am framing this in light of evangelical's penchant for issuing prophetic warnings of impending doom and judgment on our nation.  You've heard the rhetoric haven't you - "America stands on the brink of judgment," or "if God doesn't judge us He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."  These prophetic statements are usually followed by a description of a social ill, or two or three, that is fueling the fires of God's judgment.

I will say again what I said yesterday - that we need to be careful about presuming to know the mind of God and presuming to know when and if he's going to bring judgment upon us.  Indeed He might, but fallen man ought to be a tad humble when presuming to understand the ways of God.

I also mentioned that the two biggies for evangelicals today are abortion and homosexuality - these are the reasons that most evangelicals believe that judgment is coming on America - because of our acceptance of these two heinous sins.  Evangelicals understand that there are other big issues out there, but these are the two biggest of the biggies in their minds.  I want to suggest that some of the other issues that we think are not quite so big might actually be bigger in God's mind than we think.

Yesterday I looked at the sin of Sodom.  Most folks assume Sodom was judged because of their gross sexual immorality, but Ezekiel 16 shows that in fact, Sodom was judged for their arrogance, hedonism, materialism and unconcern for the poor.  True, their immorality was a symptom of their arrogance and hedonism, but this lack of concern for the poor got an explicit mention in Ezekiel 16 whereas the sexual stuff didn't.

Today I want to look at evangelical's attitude toward homosexuality.  Many evangelicals think that God's judgment is due to come upon us because of our acceptance of this.  Our acceptance of homosexuality is said to be destroying the institution of marriage, and the destruction of our society is sure to follow.  I suggest that the institution of marriage has been nearly destroyed by our acceptance of divorce.  So, though I don't like all of the judgment rhetoric, if we presuppose that the destruction of the institution of marriage is grounds for judgment, then we need to look beyond homosexuality as the culprit.         

The ESV in the Blogosphere

My British blogging alter-ego has noticed that everyone's going to the English Standard Version of the Bible in the blogosphere.  Well, not everyone, but lots of people are.  Check out this post for a list of people who are endorsing it and/or talking about it.  I think the reason that so many are liking the ESV is captured in this comment from Adrian Warnock, speaking of John Piper:

      Acording to Piper the ESV strikes the best balance between being excessively literal and being too much of a paraphrase.

You can add me to the list of the proponents of the ESV, with a few qualifiers.  I have been using it for a few months now and am enjoying it.  The qualifiers are these:

1. People like me who aren't experts in the original languages need to be careful about making strong statements about translations of the Bible.  Without a good deal of expertise in the original languages most folks aren't going to know why this translation is better than that translation on this particular verse.

2.  When non-experts endorse a particular version of the Bible its probably not the Bible they are endorsing so much as the theory of translation they are endorsing.  There is a great debate about the value of more literal translations vs. more dynamic translations.  Those who buy into the arguments of one or the other will gravitate to Bibles which use their particular theory. 

But the waters are muddy here - there is no such thing as a literal, word for word translation, contrary to those who advocate them.  As Jeremy Pierce shows, there are places where the NAS (which claims to be the most literal English translation) and the ESV (which claims to be a mostly literal translation) are more dynamic and the NIV (a more dynamic translation) is more literal.

3. Because of that, we really need to avoid these "my bible is better than yours" statements.  True, there are some which are inferior translations, but most of the more well known translations like the NAS, ESV, RSV, and NIV are good translations.  Different translation theories give a little different wording here and there, but they all faithfully render the text.

4. Having said all of that, I like the ESV translation theory and that is why I am on board with it.  By claiming to be "mostly literal" they are on the right track.  Such a statement acknowledges that they are doing their best to get it as close to word for word as you can, while realizing you just can't be completely literal. 

5. I still think the best approach to Bible study is not to pick one translation and stick with it.  You probably ought to pick one translation for memorization and stick with it, but for study its best to use a few different bibles.  Get one or two of the more literal translations and one or two of the more dynamic translations.  Where they diverge on a particular verse you can then pick up a few commentaries to try to figure out why they diverged and gain greater insight into the text.

 

Forgotten Factors in the Downfall of Nations: Sodom

One of the things that evangelical Christians are accused of is being "one-issue" people or "two-issue" people.  This accusation is leveled against us because we are very caught up in battles over abortion and homosexuality.

When evangelical Christians talk about these issues, we often do so with a sense of prophetic doom.  You'll often hear rhetoric about God's impending judgment because our society tolerates such things.

Of course there is a problem with this whole thing in that we are identified more by political persuasions and issues than we are the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Whether we are doing it to ourselves, or our critics are doing it to us, the fact is that evangelical Christianity (at least in America) has come to be identified more with power politics than with the gospel.  In that respect I would like to argue with evangelicals that we need to be more circumspect to make sure we not let other things eclipse the gospel in our life and witness.  And I would also like to argue with our opponents that our identity is to be found in the gospel of Jesus Christ, not a political platform.  But I won't do that here.

The gospel of Jesus Christ impacts all of life and the Bible gives guidance for how we function in every arena.  So, while we ought not to let other issues eclipse the gospel it is appropriate to let the gospel and Biblical principles inform all of these issues.  In that vein, I suggest that some of the aforementioned criticism of evangelicals, that we are "single issue" people is valid.

Yes, God does judge nations, but there are some factors we often forget about why it is that God judges nations.  In this post and a few more I want to look at a few examples of these forgotten factors in the downfall of nations.      

Servant Evangelism and Building Good Will in the Community

This past Sunday a couple of the small groups from our church replaced our regularly scheduled small group meeting with a servant evangelism project.  You may know the name Steve Sjogren - he is the pastor of the Cincinnati Vineyard who started a little revolution in evangelism with the publishing of his book Conspiracy of Kindness.   This book and the whole ministry has the motto, "little things done with  great love will change the world." 

God has remarkably blessed Steve's ministry and the ministry of the Cincinnati Vineyard as they have sought to evangelize through simple acts of service - like giving away free cold drinks on hot days, hot drinks on cold days, free car washes, light bulb and smoke detector battery giveaways and all kinds of things.  The basic idea is that you give away these gifts and services and refuse to take any kind of compensation for them as an expression of the freeness of the grace of God.

Robert Lewis at Fellowship Bible Church in Little Rock has some similar ideas in his book The Church of Irresistible Influence.   Lewis goes deeper into community involvement, but the idea is basically the same as Sjogren, the church is called to love the community in tangible ways.

What is Satan's Favorite Sin?

In his book Hollywood Worldviews, Brian Godawa says this:

On the contrary, it cold be argued that the favorite sin of Satan would not be vanity, as described in Devil's Advocate, or even disbelief in the existence of the devil, as described in The Usual Suspects, but the imaging of a generic, Christless God.  The very essence of the Christian faith centeres on the identity of Jesus Christ as God's only begotten Son, who alone is the source of salvation and author of faith (Acts 4:12).  So it stands to reason that Satan's favorite sin is the belief in a God without Jesus, because that is a god without atonement or redemption and that is what populates hell in the name of heaven.

Cathedral Building

Mark Olson at Pseudo Polymath is calling for posts on the theme of Cathedral Building:

In the early to late middle ages, Christians built magnificent cathedrals. These magnificent architectural wonders took generations to build. The community constructing these architectural marvels had to hold fixed, in heart and mind across the generations, one vision of what they wished to build. America in the 1960's had a goal of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade. That vision drove the cathedral builders and American engineers to achieve majestic technological marvels. A pilot steering a ship must have a goal in mind before he sets out or he will just wander.

Today's church is divided, but worse than that we are lost and wandering. We are not building Cathedrals.

What I would ask is that you put your pen to paper or tickle the ivories of your keyboard and dream a little dream. Write about the Cathedrals we should be building. Describe your vision of what your church and community should striving for across the generations. What do you want the church look like or have accomplished in over the next three generations? What would you wish your Church (big or small "c") to have accomplished by the turn of the next century, which you hope to endure?

E-mail me with a link to your essay, essay title, the title for your blog, link to your blog, trackback if desired, and a short summary by 6pm CST Sunday, April 3. Please put "Christian Roundup" in the subject line for the e-mail. If you don't have a blog e-mail me an essay. I'll post and attribute e-mailed essays as they come in to include them in the Roundup.

Update: Don't be daunted by the possibilities. There is no "right" answer. Let's brainstorm, put some ideas and thoughts out there for discussion.

This is a subject I posted on a couple of times last year.

1) A Transcending Vision

2) Cathedral Thinking

I've sent those to Mark and may send him another one if I can get to it this weekend.  In the meantime, why don't you head over there and share your own thoughts with him. 

Terri Schiavo and Lost Causes

With the passing of Terri Schiavo today it seems that not only have her advocates lost a mighty battle, but that those who advocate a culture of life have lost an important battle. Yet, though a life has been lost and a cause has been lost, the cause itself is not lost.

To be sure, over these last few weeks as I have engaged the issues I have seen that the issues surrounding the life and death saga are far more complex than I originally thought.  

There is the issue of defining exactly what we mean by the phrase “extraordinary measures.” Personally, I don’t buy the argument that a feeding tube is an “extraordinary measure.” Several times I have heard advocates for removal of the feeding tube say that, in times gone by, people in Terri’s condition would have died naturally, having no access to a feeding tube. Thus, we can “let nature take its course.” But that is a silly argument in my mind – none of us want to allow nature to take its course. This is why we immunize our kids and why we give them penicillin when they have an infection. Vaccines for polio and smallpox were invented for the purpose of interfering with the course of nature. In Terri’s case, a feeding tube was simply an alternative means of delivering nutrition to her. Since when is providing nutrition an “extraordinary measure?”

Terri Schiavo and the State of the Soul

I'm gonna have to disagree with Donald Sensing at One Hand Clapping in his post "What about Terri's Schiavo's Soul?"  I do this advisedly, recognizing that he is kind of the dean (well maybe co-dean, along with Mark Roberts) of blogging pastors and is unusually erudite and well-spoken.

His post was in response to a question he received about the state of Terri's soul, or the state of the soul of anyone in a persistent vegetative state.  The post is mostly a theological reflection on the relation of the soul to the body and the state of man after death.  So, it really doesn't get into the Schiavo debate very much.

Donald's contention is that our common understanding of the soul as a separate entity from the body, owes its existence to Greek thought rather than biblical thought.  His contention is that the biblical picture is that you can't separate the two. He cites the Abingdon Dictionary of Theology as follows:

The word "soul" has a very different meaning for the biblical writers from the understanding that we usually assign to it. The Hebrew word often translated as “soul” basically means "breath," and is often used simply to designate "a living being" (not always a human, sometimes an animal). The Hebrew word, along with its New Testament Greek equivalent, can mean "life," and even "person" or "self." Both the Hebrew and the Greek words used in the Bible can stand for the unity of personality, since the Jews conceived of human beings as a unity, rather than as a duality of body and soul. In fact, there is no distinctive word for "body" in Hebrew; one is not needed because there is no separate part of a human being, distinct from that person's "soul," that needs to be so distinguished. In the New Testament, Paul uses "body" as a collective noun for the unity of the flesh and soul. He never makes a hard and fast distinction between the two. The biblical view of human being is we are whole persons with no part detachable. We do not have bodies, we are bodies. We are flesh-in-unity-with-soul. (Derived from "Soul," in The Abingdon Dictionary of Theology.)

Given that understanding of the unity of soul and body he says that when we die, all of us dies.  He contends that death is the destruction of the entire person.

Francis Schaeffer on Redeeming Culture

Just because I can't leave well enough alone and haven't stirred up enough controversy this week I thought I would return to my prior posts on Redeeming Culture ??? and Redeeming Some More Culture, wherein I joined forces with my friend The Dane, threw caution to the wind, and agreed with him that the idea of redeeming culture wasn't all it was cracked up to be.  The resulting brouhaha was quite fun and enlightening.  And now, like Apollo Creed stepping back into the ring with Drago, I sally forth into this whole thing again, hoping against hope that I will not meet the same fate as Apollo in my pugilistic blogging endeavors. 

I don't have Rocky in my corner today, but I do come with Francis Schaeffer in my corner.  This week's World Magazine has a feature on Schaeffer commemorating the 50th anniversary of L'Abri.  In the article, World cites the following comments from Os Guinness.

Mr. Guinness said that "the genius of Schaeffer's apologetics has yet to be fully unwrapped." When asked about reaching the culture, Mr. Guinness said that one of Schaeffer's great insights is that we have to reach not cultures but individuals. Each individual has his or her own questions, personal struggles, and moral brokenness. Schaeffer took them all seriously, addressing people one by one, while giving them—sometimes for the first time—a sense of belonging to a community.

Yes!! Against all odds JollyApollo lands a knockout blow as Drago falls to the canvas, his head spinning, unable to comprehend what has just happened.  Can he recover from such a powerful Schaefferian upercut?  JollyApollo begins to dance around the ring, knowing he has won the battle.

Update on the AP Story about Terry Schiavo

Dory at Wittenberg Gate clued me into something that I need to clear up.   She and I are both mentioned in the AP News story that is making the rounds.  So far I have seen it on ABCNews, MSNBC, Foxnews and Yahoo News, and a couple of local news sites.  The AP article references Dory and quotes her.  However, it references me and quotes someone else. Here's what the AP story says about me:

On JollyBlogger, maintained by Maryland minister David Wayne, a correspondent who calls himself ``Public Theologian'' presents a strictly pragmatic view:

``The overwhelming evidence is that she is not going to get any better. This business about her communicating verbally is bunk _ her physicians have testified repeatedly that this is not the case. If she could do this there would be no question in the matter _ the courts would simply ask her what she wanted. Her husband has the right, as next of kin, to make her health care decisions for her. Tampering with this right by conservatives will undo centuries of legal precedent by taking that out of the hands of families ...''

Please be aware that the quote is from a commenter named "Public Theologian," not me.  Those are not my words.   

No one has e-mailed me personally, but Dory has gotten several e-mails expressing great disappointment that I would take such a view.  She has written them back to point out that those are not my views.  This may explain some of the hostile comments that have shown up on my blog today where people are expressing their disgust at so-called Christians who want to see Terri die.  Maybe some folks think that these are my views when they aren't.

"Public Theologian's" comments are on my post Bloggers Best for Terri Schiavo, where I clearly say that neither Michael Schiavo, nor any government official or agency has the right to take Terri's life from her.  Here are my words:

I will only say that the Christian view is that we always have a bias toward's life.  Only God is sovereign, and only God has the right to say who lives and who dies.  I do believe that God has given the state the power of the sword, which would include the right to take a life under certain extreme circumstances.

The extreme circumstances which would allow the government to take a life are in the case of war or some type of particularly heinous crime.  I won't get into the capital punishment debate on this, except to point out that where capital punishment is allowed, it is only allowed in cases of the most heinous crime.

In this case, the government is intending to step in take the life of Terry Schiavo.  So the question is "what crime or act of war has she committed to warrant taking her life?"

The sad fact of this case is that the only crime she has committed is the crime of inconveniencing her husband.  This is truly a chilling development and I encourage us all to pray and do what we can to rally for Terry.

So, please don't confuse what you read in the AP story with my actual views.  Or, should I say, don't confuse what you read in the news media with the truth ;-)

Sex on Campus

Note - I know I have a few friends out there whose kids read my blog from time to time, so just to be forewarned, there are a couple of places in this post that lean toward being PG-13.  Just thought I would let you know in case you want to read this first.

I went to college in the 80's which, when it comes to sexual mores, certainly weren't the 50's, but neither were they the 00's. Sexual activity could be had for those who wanted it and there was plenty of "hooking up" going on, but most of it was in the context of a dating relationship.

However, there were times when I would get a bit shocked. One evening I was doing laundry in the dorm laundry room and this guy I had never met came over to me and said that his girlfriend was up in his room and she had brought a friend of hers who was a nymphomaniac, and did I want to come up. Much to his surprise I said "no thank you," and he was incredulous. He went away shaking his head probably thinking I was gay, not knowing that in actuality I was something far worse - a right wing religious fundamentalist zealot Christian. 

I forgot about that incident until a few years later when I was a youth minister. We took the youth group to a weekend conference on dating by a well known youth worker. At one point in the weekend he explained the current situation - that we all know that kids are having sex, but most of us thought it was happening in the context of dating relationships. Not so anymore he said, now students were into hooking up. On any given night, high school kids might have multiple partners, going from party to party and person to person.

Terry Schiavo is Still a Person

Blogodoxy contends that Terry Schiavo ought to live because she is still a "person."

Regrettably, too many Christians today have an heretical understanding of what it means to be a person, according to the Gospel.  You will hear at funerals, Christian funerals I note, the damnably pagan Platonic notion that our souls (or spirits) are the "real" us, our bodies just the shell housing us.  Under this rubric then, Terri is "no longer there," since she does not manifest any evidence of the sort of consciousness that souls housed in bodies manifest.  Thus, we're foolish and sentimental, the argument continues, in "holding on" to Terri by making her continue to live.

But according to the rubric of the Incarnation, Terri is still manifestly a person, and not "merely" a living, breathing human being. As such, the decisions about whether to actively bring her life to an end, cannot be predicated on matters of consciousness, improvement of her persistent vegetative state, or the normal length of time the PVS sufferers live after onset of their debilitation.  Furthermore, whether or not she feels pain at her starvation and dehydration, though imminently important and necessarily a factor in these considerations, is not the basis from which to make a decision about these matters. The sole basis of the decision must rest on the fact that she is a person.  She is a person, because she is made in the image of God, and not because she is conscious like us.  She is a person, because she is in community with her family, friends, a great many supporters in her country, and, most profoundly, with her church, and not because she merely has a human body and the right chromosomal configuration.  But lest I be misunderstood, even if she were alone, uncared for and unwanted, she would still be a person in community, the community that is the Person of God, her creator.

The urgency fueling this active end to Terri's life is predicated on demonic doctrines.  If she is a person, she deserves the utmost care to maintain her life until her body actively enters the dying process, at which point she deserves the utmost care to make that dying faithful to the love of God for her whose handmaiden she is.  Against the odds, her body has not yet begun to actively die of its own accord--at least hadn't until her active kakothanasia began last Friday.  Why it is that we must take it upon ourselves to end her life more quickly than God and her own body has determined is no mystery.  We know the origins of this impetus.  And it is helllish.