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.

JS Bangs on the Boars Head Tavern said this was one of the best posts on the Terry Schiavo situation he had seen.  I wholeheartedly agree.

Update 3-24/05 @ 2:15pm:  Since I have been mentioned in an AP news story that has been featured on the websites of ABC News, Fox News, MSNBC, Yahoo and others I am getting lots of visitors reading what I have written about Terry Schiavo.  All are welcome here and all are welcome to leave comments, even those who disgree with me.  For the most part we have had respectful and helpful interaction from people on all sides of the issue.  However, today the comments are starting to turn nasty.  I've already deleted several comments from a gentleman seeking to incite violence against Michael Schiavo and others involved in this matter.  Others are resorting to name-calling, and at least one comment has been laced with profanity.  I realize the emotional nature of this issue and I feel passionately about it, as do many of you.  But, this blog will not be a forum for threats, name calling, profanity or anything else I feel is out of order, no matter who it is directed against.  I will delete all such comments.  Again, I welcome comments, even from those who disagree with me.  But when you comment, stay on point, speak as passionately as you want to, but speak respectfully.

Michael Schiavo and the Gospel

My own words convict me.  I'm working on my Good Friday message and here are the opening words:

D. A. Carson is a well known Bible scholar and theologian who says this about the Apostle Paul.

“He cannot long talk about Christian joy, or Christian ethics, or Christian fellowship, or the Christian doctrine of God, or anything else, without finally tying it to the cross. Paul is gospel centered, he is cross-centered?”

How about you? How about me? Are you gospel-centered? Are you cross-centered? Forgive me for piling on the quotes but I have to quote Jerry Bridges, a well-known author who says this:

“The gospel is not only the most important message in all of history, it is only essential message in all of history. Yet we allow thousands of professing Christians to live their entire lives without clearly understanding it and experiencing the joy of living by it.”

Let me repeat something there – 

“The gospel is the only essential message in all of history?”

What is the cross to you? Is it the only essential thing? Is it one important part of your life among many others? Is it the most important thing in your life? Or is it the only essential thing in your life?

Do you remember those immortal words from Vince Lombardi to the Green Bay Packers? He is famous for saying:

Gentlemen, winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.

Well, Vince was a great football coach but a lousy theologian. It is the cross that is the only thing.

If you have read me the last couple of days you have seen that I have gotten pretty worked up about the whole Terri Schiavo situation.  I think it is unconscionable what is being done to her by her husband Michael and by the courts of our land.

Yet, with all of my moral outrage on this, I have to stop and ask myself if I am viewing this situation, and Michael in particular through a gospel-centered lens, or through a cross-centered lens?

John MacArthur, Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life and CNN

In the wake of Ashley Smith's encounter with Atlanta courthouse murderer Brian Nichols, Rick Warren's book The Purpose Driven Life has gotten a renewed round of publicity.  As she was held hostage by Nichols, Smith read to him from the bible and The Purpose Driven Life.  She acted heroically in this situation and has rightly received lots of praise. Because she read to Nichols from PDL the book is being credited with playing a part in the ending of this hostage drama and on March 16, Paula Zahn, sitting in for Aaron Brown, did a feature on the book.

CNN contacted Tim Challies in regard to this.  Tim let it be known that he is a critic of the book and they chose not to interview him on air, apparently settling for John MacArthur instead.  MacArthur voiced some criticisms of the book which were pooh-poohed by CNN as the ramblings of a jealous skeptic who believes in a "stern God."

It will probably come as a total shock to you when I say that CNN didn't represent MacArthur fairly, but yes, believe it or not, they didn't.  So, Grace to You has clarified MacArthur's comments on their website, where they say, among other things:

James Kushner on Terry Schiavo

James Kushner at Mere Comments says the following about the Terry Schiavo case, to which I wholeheartedly agree.

My two cents on the case runs something like this:

1) Michael Schiavo as legal guardian and husband has a moral obligation to care for his wife. He received $1 million in lawsuit more than 10 years ago that was supposed to be used for medical expenses toward rehabilitation of his wife. He did not use the money for his wife.

2) Terri Schiavo has never said that she wished not to live but rather euthanized in her current condition--at least there is no evidence that she ever said this other than her husband's claim that she did, a claim that he did not make until seven years had passed with Terri

3) Michael Schiavo, still legal guardian of his wife, has fathered two children with his current "fiance," with whom he has been living for some time.

4) How can someone who has taken money for his wife's rehabilitation and spent it on himself, committed adultery, fathered two children with another woman with whom he lives--how can he still be considered legal guardian?

5) Courts have ordered Terr's parents not to feed her by mouth, not hydrate her by putting ice chips in her mouth, and Michael Schiavo reportedly has forbidden this as well, even before the recent court rulings.

6) It would seem that the honest thing for Mr. Schiavo to do would be to legally divorce his wife, relinquish guardianship to her parents, and go away. It would be better than starving her to death.

7) Regardless of Terri's state, we may fairly ask the question: shall we starve and refuse drink to someone in this condition? She is not in a coma, breathes on her own, her heart beats on its own, she does have some brain functions (some doctors describe her responses are mere "reflexes"), she is not sick, diseased or dying. And she did not ask to have a feeding tube withheld.

8) Granted that it may be burdensome to support someone in this state (I fail to see how it is "vegetative," surely a perjorative term aimed to scare people who don't want to be viewed as vegetables--a beating heart, a smile, blinking eyes are more than vegetables have). But cannot we bear such burdens rather than starve someone to death? It's what the word tolerant means: to bear with what is burdensome. Can't we be a little more tolerant of Terri Schiavo and others like her?

Review of e-Ministry by Andrew Careaga

I've just finished reading eMinistry by Andrew Careaga and wanted to share an extended review of the book here on my blog.

My initial impression is that the best audience for this book is pastors and other ministry leaders with little knowledge of the internet and online communities.  Andrew spends a good deal of time describing life on the internet and describing the people (mostly young folks) who spend so much of their lives on the internet. 

As such, people who are tech-savvy and deeply immersed in the internet won't find much in the way of new information here, and by the way, that is not a criticism.  It is these people whom Andrew is trying to describe for the benefit of less tech-savvy folks.

Re-Post - Marriage and the Myth of True Love

I've mentioned many times in the past that I hope to write for publication someday.  Actually it has happened to some degree as some of the things I have written here have been picked up and linked to by my friend John at Monergism.com. And, I have recently been invited to take part in a project involving a team of "citizen journalists" that will enable me to publish my writings off site.  I'll tell you more about that in coming days. 

But I've decided to take the plunge and start getting some of my stuff ready to submit for publication. I figure the worst that can happen is that I'll get turned down and hopefuflly get some helpful feedback.  This means I'm going to have re-edit some of my posts to be read in different formats and as I do this I will re-post some of those here.

In this post, I am re-posting my piece called Marriage and the Myth of True Love, which I originally posted on April 5, 2004.  It's not that this was one of my most popular posts or anything, but it is a matter that I have some strong feelings about and has a message I would like to get out to a wider audience.  I've pretty much rearranged and updated the whole thing and wanted to run it by you again.

So, along with the usual comments, complaints, compliments, criticisms, roses and rotten tomatoes, feel free to give me any editing suggestions or to tell me how badly this stinks and that I should abandon this idea of publishing it before I embarass myself.

More on Blogging and a New Reformation

Yesterday, I took my blogging life into my hands and dared to disagree with Hugh Hewitt's contention that blogging is a new reformation.  This was spurred on by Tim Challies review of Hugh's book.  A couple of good comments have come in that I thought were worth following up on.  In a comment here, Jeff Clinton from the Dawn Treader says:

That said, however, there is a special kind of shift taking place in the spreading of an idea. Blogging changes the rules about how an idea gets spread ... and the speed with which an idea gets spread ... and the reach of an idea. Blogging has made using the web to spread ideas incredibly easy. Most do not realize just how easy it is ... and that it is free.

Having just read the book "Tipping Point", the rise of blogging could be the environmental context needed to spread idea "epidemics" at mind blazing speeds.

And, Blogotional agrees and disagrees with me:

When it comes to the church, David is dead nuts on. Blogging cannot and will not produce a reformation -- that will require some new and appealing idea. I for one am not hoping for nor desire a reformation in the church, most of what I see developing in the church that is "new" is the kind of stuff the the reformation of the 16th century came about to combat.

However, on a purely political level, Hugh's analogy is not so unsound. the 16th century reformation changed politics forever, both in governments and in the ecclesiastical circles. The political potency of Rome prior to the reformation cannot be understated. Every king and potentate in the western world drew their authority from Rome. The reformation changed all that.

And:

I have yet to meet the perfect analogy. When pushed they all break down. Hugh's is no exception, but that does not invaildate its usefulness. In this case Hugh is right and David is right. Both of them should keep writing, and I am going to keep reading.

Blogging is not a New Reformation

Blogging is not a "New Reformation."  Whew, glad I got that off my chest.  Why don't you say it with me - "blogging is not a 'New Reformation.'"  Again - "blogging is not a 'New Reformation.'"  There, I feel better, and I hope you do also.

I thought of this reading Tim Challies review of Blog by Hugh Hewitt.  I think I'm more positive about Hugh's book than Tim is, but he does address the whole issue of blogging being a new reformation.  Hugh is so enthusiastic about blogging that he sometimes uses blogging and "new reformation" in the same sentence.  I understand what he is getting at - the changes in communication media today are akin to the changes in communication media during the 15th and 16th centuries.  That is probably a valid comparison.

But the Reformation was not about the printing press, it was about a message.  The printing press was merely a vehicle for a new message that reformed society.  Similarly, blogging is a vehicle, it is a tool, it is a medium for communication.  Blogging could play a part in a new reformation, assuming some type of message develops that can radically alter religion and society at large, as happened during the Reformation of the sixteenth century.  But blogging is not the reformation.

Science and Christianity Showcase is Up at Allthings2All

The Science and Christianity Showcase is now up at Allthings2All.   I haven't had a chance to read through it, but with one quick glance you can see that this is full of quality material.  And, Catez has done a great job of organizing it into categories. And she's added some nice graphics to boost the visual appeal.  So, let me invite you to go on over and take a looksee.

Are Christians allowed to do anything just for the fun of it?

Awhile back I did a post on movies in which I thought I waxed very eloquent as I described two different ways to watch a movie.  One way was the moralistic way and another was the redemptive way.  The moralistic way of watching a movie is to take out your scorecard and count instances of foul langauge, sex, violence and other objectionable elements.  The redemptive way is to look deeper into the movie for it's redemptive themes.  Satisfied that I had enlightened a whole new generation of folks with my brilliant insights (which, looking back, were insights that most everyone knows anyway) I posted and awaited my well deserved accolades in the comments section.

So imagine my surprise when Jeremy Pierce commented something to the effect of "hey, there's a third way of watching a movie - just for entertainment."  Jeremy seems to think that there are some things that a Christian is allowed to do just for the fun of it.  Hmm . . .  but is he correct in this?

Redeeming Some More Culture

In my last post I tried to introduce my friend The Dane more thoroughly to my blogging circle and at this point I'm thinking he probably doesn't want any more favors from me.  I thought this post by The Dane was outstanding and recommended it highly.  Unfortunately, not many others were as enamored of the post as I as.  However, I do see that Diane Roberts was favorable to the post - so, since she and the Dane both live in Southern California I would like to officially commission, appoint and authorize Diane to seek out The Dane and give that man a hug.

Not being one to leave well enough alone, allow me to stir the pot a bit more.  The words that got the whole thing going from the Dane, were these:

. . . culture isn't nearly so mysterious a topic as some would have you believe. It's not anything noble or grand. It's not something that moves and breathes. It's not anything like that. Essentially, culture is nothing greater than the natural byproduct of society, or community. When people gather together, the natural reflection of who they are and what they believe is that pile of stuff we call "culture."

And

culture is the environment produced when people in a community interact. So in effect, culture isn't anything tangible at all; it's more the gossamer evidence of who the people in a community are.

Now, allow me, if you will, to interact with and defend the Dane in this regard.

Political Series

Here are links to all of my posts in the political series.

1. Dead Guys Talking About Democracy
2. Why All The Fuss?
3. Is This Our Land?
4. The Religious Right - Playing the End Game as an Opening
5. How Evangelicals Went from Uninvolved to Super Involved
6. The Christian Interface with the World
7. The Evangelical War Footing
8. What are the Weapons of Our Warfare?
9. An Illustration of Dual Citizenship
10. Political Blogging

Purpose Driven Sex Series

Here are links to all of the posts in my Purpose Driven Sex Series.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Redeeming Culture??

My good friend the Dane thinks those who want to redeem the culture are missing the point.  You gotta read this brilliant post to understand why and then read the comments.  What he says is a little foreign to my way of thinking and he has a great take on the way that community, culture and ideology interact that I am chewing on.  I won't tackle the whole thing here, I'll just reference a couple of comments that are especially relevant:

. . . culture isn't nearly so mysterious a topic as some would have you believe. It's not anything noble or grand. It's not something that moves and breathes. It's not anything like that. Essentially, culture is nothing greater than the natural byproduct of society, or community. When people gather together, the natural reflection of who they are and what they believe is that pile of stuff we call "culture."

And

culture is the environment produced when people in a community interact. So in effect, culture isn't anything tangible at all; it's more the gossamer evidence of who the people in a community are.

He's saying that culture is an effect not a cause.  So, trying to "redeem" or change culture is the attempt to change an effect.  If we change the community the culture will change, but you can't change a cause by focusing slowly on the effect.  In other words wiping the blood away from a gaping wound won't stop the bleeding until you deal with the gaping wound.  And, only the gospel can do this.

I think he's right and I don't think he is advocating merely a pietistic withdrawal from the world around us.  But if he is right, then this changes alot of what we do in the "redeeming culture" dept. 

Thoughts anyone?

The Prodigal Sons and Biblical Interpretation, Part 2

In my last post, I made an attempt to defend my interpretation of the parable of the prodigal sons that were found in two prior posts (here and here).  Following the lead of Tim Keller, I see this as illustrating, among other things, that there are two lost brothers in view in this parable and that this parable places far more emphasis on the status of the elder brother/Pharisees and teachers of the law than we normally think.

My good friend Mike at Eternal Perspectives doesn't think I'm quite getting it, and he offers the following comment:

Certainly there are lessons in the parable about the lack of forgiveness on the part of the older brother, but since parables have a singular point it seems that the purpose here is to reveal the nature of God: He is receptive to both the younger and older brother, running to the former when he returns and seeking out the latter when he refuses to join the party. This is what God is like, Jesus is saying, and our problem is that we do not understand or know God correctly.

As promised in my last post I want to use that comment to interact with the whole "singular point - particular purpose idea."

The Prodigal Sons and Biblical Interpretation, Part 1

My prior posts on the parable of the prodigal sons (here and here) have stirred up a good bit of discussion.  To some it has been convicting and encouraging.  To others, it seems that I have missed the point of the passage, or at least massaged the passage in a direction that is not really apparent from the text.

I started this post as a defense of the way that I, and Tim Keller, and Jeremy Pierce and others have interpreted and it expanded to the point that I think it better to turn this into two posts. 

So, in this one I'll state my interpretation again and give a minimal defense of why I agree with Keller and these others.  Then, in the next post I'll share some thoughts on the interpretive process itself which I hope will show that these debates about the true meaning of this particular parable are unnecessary.  How's that for foreshadowing?  Is your appetite whet?

I'm going to use a comment from Mike at Eternal Perspectives as a jumping off point.

Certainly there are lessons in the parable about the lack of forgiveness on the part of the older brother, but since parables have a singular point it seems that the purpose here is to reveal the nature of God: He is receptive to both the younger and older brother, running to the former when he returns and seeking out the latter when he refuses to join the party. This is what God is like, Jesus is saying, and our problem is that we do not understand or know God correctly.

I pretty much agree with everything he has said here, but I want to go ahead and defend what I have said previously in this post.  In the next post I'll interact with this comment a little more in-depth.

The Cyber-Gnostic Church and Cyber Ministry, Part 1

A few days ago I did a post called The Cyber-Gnostic Church and it led to some good comments and I wanted to follow up on it.

As I mentioned there, I've been reading Andrew Careaga's book eMinistry, and he begins with a whole discussion of the church in cyberspace.  In that last post I simply tried to point out that the cyber church cannot replace the true church, but I want to be careful to correct any misconceptions I may have fostered in that post.  I don't want to sound as if I am disagreeing with Andrew's thesis, because I really think he is on the right track.  My point was that we ought not to think that an on-line community can duplicate or replace a the church.  But Christians do need to be online and deeply involved in the internet world.  That is what Andrew is getting at, and I think he is right on. 

Maybe it would be helpful to distinguish cyber-church from cyber-ministry.  Though we shouldn't look to the internet to replace the local assembly we should look to the internet as a vast mission field, and not only as a mission field, but a place where Christians can share a good deal of fellowship and teaching.

I'd like to expand on this, but bear with me for a moment while I jump through a couple of biblical and theological hoops.

More about Elder Brothers

In my last post I mentioned that our small group was doing a study on Galatians, using Tim Keller’s material. And, by the way, since Tim made a comment on my last post on this subject and I am hoping he’ll read this one, I want to point out up front that I’ll be jumping off from his material into my own ruminations and applications. What I say will be largely based on his material but I want to make sure he doesn’t get the blame if I stray from his own thoughts.  

In our study we came to an excursus on the story of the prodigal son and we saw how the story is really that of two lost brothers. We saw that the elder brother and the younger brother represent two different kinds of lostness. The younger brother represents the irreligious person and the elder represents the religious person.  

The outcome of both religion and irreligion are the same – lostness. The gospel is a “third way” of salvation that is neither through religion or irreligion.

As our small group discussed this story, one passage from Keller’s study stood out in particular. 

The point? When the message of the gospel is clear, moral people tend to dislike it, while irreligious people are intrigued and attracted. The way to know that you are communicating and living the same gospel message as Jesus is that “younger brothers” are more attracted to you than elder brothers. This is a very searching test, because almost always, our churches are not like that. The kinds of people that were attracted to Jesus are not attracted to us. We only attract conservative, buttoned-down, moral people. The licentious, the “liberated,” the broken, the people out of the mainstream very much despise us. That can only mean one thing. We may think we understand the gospel of Jesus, but we don’t. If we don’t see the same effect Jesus saw, then we lack the same message Jesus had. If our churches aren't filled with younger brothers, then we must be more like the elder brother than we’d like to think.

More on Infant Baptism

I wanted to finish up my thoughts on infant baptism.  If you haven't read them already, you can find a prolegomena here and a post on the foundations of infant baptism here.

The main points I tried to make in those posts were:

1. Infant baptism is justified as a deduction from scripture that is a good and necessary consequence (See Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, paragraph 6).

2. Infant baptism is a consequence of the doctrine of the covenants and the doctrine of the church. 
As a consequence of the doctrine of the covenants, infant baptism is based on the assumption of the continuity of the covenants from the Abrahamic through the New Covenant.   There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that the practice of covenant making has significantly changed in the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament era.

As a consequence of the doctrine of the church, infant baptism is based upon the understanding that the church of the Old and New Testaments does, and always has, consisted of believers and their children. 

With those foundations, in this post I will assert that:

3. Members of the covenant community are entitled to receive a sign of membership in that community.

4. Baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of membership in the New Covenant community.

5. As children of believers are members of the covenant community, they are entitled to receive the sign of membership in the covenant community.

The Paradox of Existentialism in the Movies

I'm reading Hollywood Worldviews by Brian Godawa and am learning about story and screenwriting, and am getting a pretty good little refresher course in philosophy while I'm at it.  Alot of the things he covers, at least about the elements of story, are things we covered in high school and college literature classes.  But of course I assumed all of that stuff was useless back then and didn't really pay attention - "Oh Lord, forgive me the sins of my youth."

Godawa's main point, of course, is that movies don't merely entertain, they also put forth worldviews.  The basic storyline in all film (and any story for that matter) is a story of redemption, but that redemption can look very different in different stories.

One of the worldviews that comes across in many films is existentialism.

On Not Sweating Joel Osteen

Joel Osteen may soon become the face of Christendom, and lots of Christians are worried about this.  I am on the anti-Joel bandwagon, but I did read something today that helps cool my jets and not be too worried about him.  It's not that he's not all that bad, because he is all that bad and worse.  It's just that God is sovereign and Joel doesn't have the power to derail the church.  This is from R. C. Sproul Jr.

Today on the Today show I caught a minute or two of an interview with Joel Osteen, pastor of Somesuch Cost? What Cost? Mega-Happy-Center in Houston. His “church” is said to be bigger than those “churches” shepherded by Apollyion and Beelzebub, or rather Rick Warren and Bill Hybels. As such we can expect to see him figure prominently in the Reformed Wrestling Smack Down, vying for the coveted crown of “Most likely to destroy the church.” Joel, whether he is a hapless geek who made it big by being nice, or a diabolical manipulator, doesn’t actually preach anything. Well, he does say that if we think happy thoughts Tinkerbell will survive. And so my camp begins wringing its hands. It seems, as luck would have it, that we have a confluence of popular heretic with big ole honking full sanctuary with media coverage. We’re doomed. These are the same folks who keep the volume turned down every time John MacArthur appears on Larry King, lest they miss the trumpet call.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m still Reformed. It’s a good thing to denounce error, to warn the flock. Joel is one bad guy, and the people that listen to him are badly duped. But please, can’t we be Reformed enough to know that this confluence didn’t happen by luck? Can’t we believe enough in the sovereignty of God to stop seeing face time on TV as the measure of how we are doing? The Kingdom of God has survived Billy Sunday, Billy Graham, Billy Carter, Billy Hybels and Billy Clinton. It has survived Promise Keepers, WWJD, Jabez’ prayer and every other Big Idea to come down the pike. It will do more than survive this latest drivel. May we learn to roundly denounce error, and may we learn to do it without spilling our wine all over the carpet.

Update 1-5-05 Well, I see the time has come to shut down comments on this one as I'm getting a bunch of folks hijacking the comments section to attack R. C. Sproul Jr..  I'm not defending or criticizing him, but this is a post about Joel Osteen and if we can't keep the comments on topic there's no need to have them.  I went ahead and deleted the last two comments as they were reiterations of the one from the guy who signed on as R. C. Jr. Jr. Jr.

The Cyber-Gnostic Church

I've started reading Andrew Careaga's book eMinistry and  he starts off talking about the cyber church.  He quotes one person who is into this "cyber-church" who says that it is like church but it is disembodied.

I think that is a fair description of what is happening on the internet.  More and more people are getting their spiritual instruction from the internet and more and more folks are feeling a sense of community amongst those they interact with in the cyber-church.  But the cyber-church as it is called is a far cry from the biblical church and we need to be very careful about confusing the two.

More on Being in the World but Not of It

As a follow up to my last post, I found these words today on Walt Mueller's blog.  In this, he is quoting Charles Ringma, author of Resist the Powers with Jacques Ellul.

"There is no virtue in isolating ourselves from the world. This will not safeguard our spirituality. But it will certainly condemn us to irrelevance. There is also no virtue in being culturally ‘trendy' and accepting blindly the latest offering in the round of personal and social ‘cures.' At the same time, there is not merit in being out of touch with the critical issues of our time. Ellul laments that Christians are usually ‘several steps behind.' Consequently, they seek to provide answers to questions that people are no longer asking. Instead, the Christian is called to be both relevant and different. If we fail to be relevant, we cannot be heard. If we fail to be different, we have nothing to say. This calls us to both a critical immersion in the issues of the world of our day and in a withdrawal for the purposes of reflection, prayer and discernment."

I still think there comes a time when you have to withdraw from Sodom, but these are some good thoughts for living in towns that haven't yet become Sodom. 

Worldly Entertainments

In the world but not of it . . .

I've been reading through Mere Comments, the blog of Touchstone Magazine and they've got a fascinating dialogue going on about Christians and movies.   This discussion bleeds over into larger discussions about Christians involvement in the wider culture.  The discussion centers around whether or not Christians should be viewing movies and involved in moviemaking.  To most Christians, me included, the answer is an obvious yes - Christians ought to be involved in these things for the purpose of redeeming them. And, for the most part the Touchstone writers affirm this. 

However, in a couple of particularly  good posts the Touchstone writers remind us of the flip side of this involvement.  Anthony Esolen reminds us of Augustine's friend Alypius who went to the gladiatorial games and was disgusted by them initially, yet the spectacle itslef drew him in and hooked him.  And, Samuel Hutchens reminds us of Lot, who was ostensibly a redemptive presence in Sodom.   In both cases, the entertainments shaped the "redeemers" more than vice versa.

Hypocrisy in the Church

Eugene Peterson says this about the church in this week's Christianity Today:

What other church is there besides institutional? There’s nobody who doesn’t have problems with the church, because there’s sin in the church. But there’s no other place to be a Christian except the church. There’s sin in the local bank. There’s sin in the grocery stores. I really don’t understand this naïve criticism of the institution. I really don’t get it.

I love it - people act as if it is big news that there is sin in the church.  Joe Carter follows up Peterson's comment:

Why am I so dumb that I expect the church to be something its not? Why can’t I recognize that the trouble with the church is that it accepts sinners like me?

When people reject and talk bad about the church it makes me wonder how they got such a highly inflated opinion of themselves.  This is a hot button for me because for years I was that guy. Sometimes I bounced around churches because they just weren't good enough for me.  Other times I stuck with a particular church so that I could make a difference and help straighten them out.  That's a common theme for young zealots but notice the arrogance in such a statement.  Such an attitude assumed a level of holiness for myself which I hadn't attained and a level of sinfulness in my brothers in Christ to which I hadn't descended.

This is why I think that the following passage from Calvin's Institutes is spot on and is one that all of us should take to heart.

Infant Baptism - Biblical Foundations

My last post on the subject of infant baptism attempted to justify the methodology used to derive the doctrine - the process of deduction from Scripture by which we arrive at the "good and necessary consequence" of infant baptism.

In this post I'll try to lay out the biblical foundations by which we derive this doctrine.

There are several biblical considerations which go into the doctrine of infant baptism, but the two main ones are the doctrine of the covenants and the doctrine of the church.

Infant Baptism - Prolegomena

The subject of infant baptism has suddenly become hot on several blogs.

Dead Man Blogging did a post on assurance of salvation that bled into a discussion on infant baptism in the comments.

Jared is wrestling with the issue at Mysterium Tremendum.

Discoshaman posts about the subject here.

The residents of Half-Pint House are frustrated with the whole subject.

And Adrian Warnock has thrown down a gauntlet to us baby-sprinklers.

Well, far be it from me to allow a thrown gauntlet to go un-seized.  Looks like this will be a good chance for me and my buddy Adrian to get into another one of our debates.

More on Forgiveness

Surprisingly, one of the best insights I have ever received on the subject of forgiveness came from a plastic surgeon/motivational speaker/secularist who doesn't even believe in the concept of sin.  Maxwell Maltz was the author of the book Psycho-Cybernetics (updated by Dan Kennedy in The New Psycho-Cybernetics), and such a book is not the place I would expect to find profound theological or spiritual insights.  And granted, the insight he shared on forgiveness that I was so taken with may be found in other writers, but I can't remember reading a Christian author who connected the dots on forgiveness as well as he did.

This great insight that Maltz pointed out is simply that, where there is no condemnation, there is no need for forgiveness.  Or, to put it another way, the only reason we would be thinking of forgiving someone for something is that we must have condemned them first.

Forgiving the Unrepentant

In this week's Christianity Today, R. T. Kendall answers a question about forgiving the unrepentant.  He begins by pointing out that many, if not most, of those who offend us will be unrepentant over it.  This poses a huge problem for us.  Whenever I speak on forgiveness, inevitably someone will ask me what to do about the one who is unrpentant.  Kendall's words got me thinking about this issue of non-repentance. 

Allow me to invite you to engage in a little exercise.  Think of all the people who you know who have offended you or someone else that you are aware of.  Now, answer the following questions:

• How many of them don't even know that they have offended someone else?
• How many of them know they have offended someone else, but they think that the other person has misunderstood them and is just being a little too sensitive, or touchy?
• How many of them know they have offended someone but feel that the other person is at least partially to blame?
• How many of them believe that someone else's sin against them justifies their own sin against that person?
• How many of them are sorry for what they have done, but not really "sorry enough" in the eyes of the one whom they have offended?
• How many of them are cold-hearted and just don't really care whom they offend?

Inerrancy Again

As far as I know, MIchael Spencer and I are a part of a mutual admiration society and so I'll throw that out  as a preface to this post which will take issue with his views on inerrancy.  I do think he is one of the most provocative writers out there these days and everyone would do themselves a favor to read him and his friends at the Boars Head Tavern on a regular basis.

But, in a few posts recently on the Internet Monk and Boars Head Tavern he is taking the inerrantists and the doctrine of inerrancy to task.  He accepts the Westminster Confession's statement on Scripture but doesn't like the term inerrancy.  This poses a problem for some of us who believe that, though the Confession doesn't use the word "inerrant" it supports what we mean by inerrancy.

I've defended the doctrine of inerrancy a couple of times so I don't want to repeat myself - I'll simply point you to this post and this post if you want to read what I have said before.

Nor can I deal with all of the matters that Michael and the patrons of the Tavern have raised, but I'll try to address a few issues that they have raised.         

What is the "Gospel?"

Adrian Warnock has been dialoguing with lots of folks about "The Simple Gospel."  I won't try to list all of his posts on the subject, nor will I try to link to everyone who is trackbacking to him and/or is commenting on his posts.  Suffice it to say, this little post he did on the subject has stirred up quite a few responses.

For my money, I think what he shared is fine and adequate, but I don't want to debate the individual points themselves.  Also, since I haven't read everything that has been written I will ask your forgiveness up front if I say something here that someone else has already said.  But, I want to bring a different perspective on this, which I think has the potential to bring the same amount of clarity to the discussion that a hot steamy shower brings to your bathroom mirror.

Defending C. S. Lewis

Over the last several weeks I've been asked on a couple of occassions to come ot the defense of C. S. Lewis.  First of all, Ales Rarus (aka my favorite papist) pointed me to this post from Rand at "A Pattern of Sound Words" who questions whether or not C. S. Lewis was a good Christian apologist, and who also questions whether or not he was even a Christian.  Ales gives Rand a good fisking here.

More recently my buddy Adrian has challenged me to come to the defense of Lewis in this post.  Adrian points to this post on Destruction of Gog wherein Lewis is quoted as denying the doctrine of penal substitution.  In doing so, Adrian admits that Lewis sure sounds like what he calls a "neo-liberal" and he invites me to come to Lewis's defense.

In receiving these challenges from Adrian and Ales Rarus I feel like I am being exposed as a fraud.  Because my blog takes its name from a C. S. Lewis quote I am giving off the impression that I am a great lover of C. S. Lewis and maybe even someone who knows alot about Lewis.

The truth is that I do love Lewis, but I am far from being a scholar of his works.  I have read the Chronicles of Narnia, Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity and the Four Loves.  Other than that I have merely dabbled in his writings.  I have enjoyed many of his essays, particularly God in the Dock and the one on Learning War Time.  But having read those things hardly qualifies me as an expert on Lewis.

Which makes me think I need to change my little blurb about where I got the inspiration for "Jollyblogger."  I think it was Michael Spencer from the Boars Head Tavern who thought I had taken my inspiration from the Jolly Roger, and he once encouraged people to say "Jollyblogger" in a real piratey voice.   So, maybe I should replace my C. S. Lewis quote with a quote from Captain Jack Sparrow or something.  But if I do that, people will start asking me questions about Johnny Depp and pirate stuff and then I'll be in real trouble.  My only expertise in piratey stuff is that, when my kids were young I used to know all the words to "We are the Pirates Who Don't Do Anything."

So, I'll just go back to the whole C. S. Lewis thing.  And while I don't feel that Lewis needs me to defend him I do think there are a few things we can learn from this whole discussion.               

My Journey Into Grace Part 5

My Journey into Grace Part 1

My Journey into Grace Part 2

My Journey into Grace Part 3

My Journey into Grace Part 4

V. Wake Up Calls      

     During my time in seminary at RTS I had numerous wake-up calls, some on the intellectual front, but mainly on the spiritual front. I received those wake-up calls from all kinds of angles.

Intellectually, I thought I would go to seminary to attain ever increasing knowledge of the things of God and gain an arsenal of knowledge that would help me in my ministry. In other words, I thought I would go to seminary to become smarter. But something strange happened while at RTS – I came away feeling much dumber than I did when I went in.

This is paradoxical in many ways because I know that I knew more facts about the faith when I left seminary than when I began. Yet, I felt comparatively dumber because questions were asked and doors were opened that caused me to see just how much there was to know about God and how little I knowledge I had acquired. 

Defending Division ??

I'm finally getting around to answering Mark Olson's challenge over at Pseudo Polymath:

My question to the God Blogosphere is the following. Of the differences we hold, why are they strong enough to keep us apart, out of communion, and in (sometimes bitter) disagreement. What are these differences? I challenge you to defend them! Tell us what differences you hold more important than what you profess each week: your belief in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Or are the differences just political and based on historical inertia? If it is just traditions of styles of worship and praxis, why does that still hold us apart? I don't have the answers to these questions, but many out there who read this undoubtedly have thoughts on this.

Mark has already received a few responses to this which he discusses here.

There are others who have already responded. Mike Russell at Eternal Perspectives responds here, Rey at the Bible Archive responds here, and my twin blogging brother Adrian responds here.

I haven't read any of their posts in detail yet, just because I wanted to get my own thoughts together first, then interact with them.  So, here goes.       

And, I'm especially looking forward to Jeremy Pierc'es response which he promised here.

My Journey Into Grace Part 4

My Journey into Grace Part 1

My Journey into Grace Part 2

My Journey into Grace Part 3

IV. Wandering in the Wilderness

Shortly after my conversion to Christ I began to sense a call to the ministry. I couldn’t put my finger on exactly what that call was, I just was so grateful to Jesus for what He had done for me, that I wanted to spend my life telling others about Him and helping Christians grow in Him. Over the next few years, this desire remained, but I do believe it became corrupted as I grew more and more proud of my own Christian testimony.

As college progressed I wanted nothing more than to serve God in full time ministry. I changed my major to Classical Studies, a very impractical major for anyone who doesn’t plan on going into a teaching or research field. But, Classical Studies gave me the opportunity to study Greek, Latin and ancient history which I felt would prepare me for seminary.

My Journey Into Grace Part 3

My Journey into Grace Part 1

My Journey into Grace Part 2

III. Conversion and Early Christian Life

Growing up I was a pretty insecure kid. I was raised by mother and stepfather, who truly loved me. But, my stepfather was an alcoholic and there are consequences of that. For me one of the consequences was a feeling of insecurity.

To add to that, my life was the equivalent of a B-movie. No, my life wasn’t filled with tomatoes that ate Pittsburgh, or aliens from the planet Zyborg. I was on the B-list in everything I did, not the A-list.

My grades were in the B to C range. I loved athletics and was always good enough to make the team (often because there were no cuts) but never good enough to start. I was friends with lots of the popular kids but wasn’t in the “inner circle,” of popularity. I could get a few dates here and there, but the young ladies weren’t exactly lining up outside my door, and I usually got dumped after a few dates. But I deeply wanted to be accepted by the “in-crowd” wherever they could be found.

My Journey into Grace Part 2

My Journey into Grace Part 1

If you read this post earlier or read the prior post, you will note that I have changed the titles.  Instead of calling these posts "My Testimony," I am calling it "My Journey into Grace," simply to reflect that, though this is the most important part of my story, it is not the whole of my story.

II. Setting the Stage

Tim Keller is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, and he has this to say about Redeemer’s ministry:

At the heart of Redeemer's ministry and its philosophy of preaching to post-modern audiences is the conviction that "the gospel" is not just a way to be saved from the penalty of sin, but is the fundamental dynamic for living the whole Christian life--individually and corporately, privately and publicly. In other words, the gospel is not just for non-Christians, but also for Christians. This means the gospel is not just the A-B-C's but the A to Z of the Christian life. It is not accurate to think 'the gospel' is what saves non-Christians, and then, what matures Christians is trying hard to live according to Biblical principles. It is more accurate to say that we are saved by believing the gospel, and then we are transformed in every part of our mind, heart, and life by believing the gospel more and more deeply as our life goes on.

The gospel is "I am accepted through Christ, therefore I obey" while every other religion operates on the principle of "I obey, therefore I am accepted." Martin Luther's fundamental insight was that this latter principle, the principle of 'religion' is the deep default mode of the human heart. The heart continues to work in that way even after conversion to Christ. Though we recognize and embrace the principle of the gospel, our hearts will always be trying to return to the mode of self-salvation, which leads to spiritual deadness, pride and strife and ministry ineffectiveness.

My Journey into Grace Part 1

A couple of months ago the session of my church asked me to write two pamphlets for us to put in our literature rack.  One was to be directed toward Christians and the other toward non-Christians.  We were hoping that we could have something that our folks might share with their friends and neighbors that would be helpful, and that would be from a local source.

As I have thought about this, it occurs to me that one of the best things I could write would be my own testimony.  After all, I know more about my own testimony than anything else, so why not share it.

So, I thought I would also share it here on my blog as I write it.  Any feedback would be appreciated as we prepare to print this.  I'll serialize it over the next several days.  For those of you who have read my blog for awhile you've seen snippets of a lot of this stuff, but this is an attempt to gather the snippets together into one place so we can put it in a printable format.

You'll see that this is not your basic three minute testimony.  I wanted to share a good deal more in depth as I think I have had some temptations and experiences that are "common to man," and could be helpful to others.

I recently mentioned in a sermon that my testimony is one that has far more failure in it than anything else. I hope this will be encouraging to many who live with a sense of failure - the sense that they are not measuring up to what they think they should be for Christ.  On the other hand, if there is anyone out there who considers themselves to be a spiritual success, I hope my testimony will be used to humble them the way God has humbled me.

If you are still with me and want to keep reading, what follows is an introduction and an account of my early years in the faith. 

The McChurching of America

The McChurching of America . . .

I haven't read the whole book, but I've had discussions with those who have, and I've read excerpts and followed online discussions of George Ritzer's The McDonaldization of Society.  McDonaldization is "the process by which  the principles of the fast food restaurant are coming to  dominate more and more sectors of American society and the rest of the world."  Just do a Google search on the word "McDonaldization" and you'll find all kinds of information about what it is, but the short version is it creates a process that is efficient, calculable, predictable and is easily controlled and then franchises that process.  The key thing is that it is a predictable process which gives predictable results - you can always count on getting the same thing with the same taste at any McDonald's you go to.

With this in mind, Kyle at PureText and John at Rabe Ramblings are talking about Willow Creek's new satellite churches.  Both say "yuck" at the whole thing, with John at Rabe Ramblings calling this McChurch.

While I am uncomfortable with the whole idea I am reticent to go too overboard in my criticism of them lest I who am with great sin be guilty of throwing stones.

Blogs and Dividing Walls

Dr. Michael Russell at Eternal Perspectives has a post called Rebuilding the Dividing Wall where he specifically addresses the issue of denominational and other doctrinally oriented blogrolls.  He was kind enough to send me an e-mail to let me know of this post, and as I read his post, I could see that it was particularly addressed as a response to some things I have done on the blog, so I appreciate his grace in coming to me personally about it.

I started to leave a comment to reply but the comment was simply too long so I decided to make a post of it instead.

Faith Under Fire on PAX TV

I finally got around to watching Faith Under Fire on PAX last night and overall it was a good show.

I didn't know this before I turned it on but our man Hugh was on there debating Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith.  William Lane Craig and Cal Thomas were also on there, and I don't remember the names of their opponents.

Illinois Legislation Regarding Churches and Gay Discrimination

This is what we've been worrying about . . .

Worldnetdaily is reporting today that the state of Illinois has passed a law that "adds 'sexual orientation' to the state law that bars discrimination based on race, religion and similar traits in areas such as jobs and housing."  Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich says:

This legislation sends a clear message that we will not allow our citizens to be discriminated against," Blagojevich said in a statement.

What we're doing today is older than scripture: Love thy neighbor," the governor told the audience yesterday, according to the Associated Press. "It's what Jesus said when he gave his Sermon on the Mount: 'Do unto others what you would have others do unto you."'

The Greatest Words in All of Un-Inspired Literature

Please forgive the hyperbolity of my post title, but whenever I read the following words from Pilgrim's Progress (as I did today in preparation for Sunday's sermon) I can't help but give praise to God and burst forth with superlatives!

Now I saw in my dream, that the highway up which Christian was to go, was fenced on either side with a wall, and that wall was called Salvation. Isaiah 26:1. Up this way, therefore, did burdened Christian run, but not without great difficulty, because of the load on his back.

He ran thus till he came at a place somewhat ascending; and upon that place stood a cross, and a little below, in the bottom, a sepulchre. So I saw in my dream, that just as Christian came up with the cross, his burden loosed from off his shoulders, and fell from off his back, and began to tumble, and so continued to do till it came to the mouth of the sepulchre, where it fell in, and I saw it no more.

Then was Christian glad and lightsome, and said with a merry heart, "He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death." Then he stood still a while, to look and wonder; for it was very surprising to him that the sight of the cross should thus ease him of his burden. He looked, therefore, and looked again, even till the springs that were in his head sent the waters down his cheeks. Zech. 12:10. Now as he stood looking and weeping, behold, three Shining Ones came to him, and saluted him with, "Peace be to thee." So the first said to him, "Thy sins be forgiven thee," Mark 2:5; the second stripped him of his rags, and clothed him with change of raiment, Zech. 3:4; the third also set a mark on his forehead, Eph. 1:13, and gave him a roll with a seal upon it, which he bid him look on as he ran, and that he should give it in at the celestial gate: so they went their way. Then Christian gave three leaps for joy, and went on singing,

"Thus far did I come laden with my sin,
Nor could aught ease the grief that I was in,
Till I came hither. What a place is this!
Must here be the beginning of my bliss?
Must here the burden fall from off my back?
Must here the strings that bound it to me crack?
Blest cross! blest sepulchre! blest rather be
The Man that there was put to shame for me!"

Bunyan, J. 1995. The pilgrim's progress : From this world to that which is to come. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA

John 1:1 - Jesus, the "Logos" of God

I'm writing this post for inclusion in the "Jesus the Logician" project from the Evangelical Outpost. 

When I was in seminary I had Ron Nash, author of Faith and Reason, as my philosophy and apologetics prof.  I'm about to disagree with something he said so I'll begin by saying that he is an excellent prof and some of my most profitable studies in seminary came from him.  But I do have a point of contention with him about at least one matter. 

Nash followed Gordon Clark in believing that as the "logos," John 1:1 implies that Jesus is the "logic" of God.  This assumes that the Greek word "logos" depends on Greek ideas and the Greek philosophical tradition for it's meaning.

Toward the end of my seminary career I was preparing for a presbytery licensure exam and one of our NT/Greek profs was kind enough to quiz me to help prepare me and we came to a question about the meaning of John 1:1. So, I told him that this means that Jesus is the logic of God, and this emphasizes the rationality of God.  A buzzer was immediately hit and a trap door opened and wooshed me away.  He told me that was wrong.  He said this view assumes that these uneducated Jewish fishermen sat around reading Plato and Aristotle in their spare time.  His point was that, to understand what this means we have to look to it's Jewish context.

Charles Spurgeon's Reading and Preaching Habits

I've been listening to a lecture by George Grant about the life of the great Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon.  Among the many things he shared about Spurgeon, his reading and preaching habits were two of the most astonishing.

Grant says that it was Spurgeon's practice to read 5 books per week and to read no less than 500 pages per day.  Yes that's right - 500 pages!  Spurgeon did not receive much formal education but he had a deep love of learning that enabld him to develop a tremendous intellect through self study.  And it is no wonder that he became so well educated if he read 500 pages per day.

Jesus and the Law of Non-Contradiction

As I mentioned earlier, Joe Carter has begun a project called "Jesus the Logician," and he is soliciting blog entries on the subject.  I thought I would submit my first entry on the subject of Jesus and the law of non-contradiction. 

The only problem is that Joe is asking that we tie our posts to a particular text of Scripture and this one won't be - this is more along the lines of prolegomena on the subject.  But, I'll send Joe a trackback on it and see if he wants to post it - if so great, if not I'll come up with something else.

One of the ongoing debates in these matters is on whether or not God obeys the law of non-contradiction.  Those of us who follow Van Til are famous for saying that God transcends the law of non-contradiction.   But we are in error if, by that, we mean that God is free to ignore the law of non-contradiction.  I think the main point that Van Til's followers want to get at is that it is improper to say that God is submissive to the law of non-contradiction, because God is submissive to nothing.  Rather, a better way of stating it is to say that the law of non-contradiction is grounded in the non-contradictory character of God.  Thus, the law of non-contradiction is not some principle or ideal out there which God submits to, rather it is something that flows from the character of God. 

The "Jesus the Logician Project" from Evangelical Outpost

Joe Carter is stirring the pot again amongst faith bloggers.  First he had his blog symposium on Americanism and Puritanism.  He was hoping for 25 entries and got 66.  Now he's offering us the "Jesus the Logician Project."  The inspiration for this project came from a Dallas Willard article on the same topic.  Here are the details on this project straight from his blog:

History as Idolatry

I’ve started reading Herbert Schlossberg’s book Idols for Destruction, and the first idol he deals with is the idol of history. There is much thought provoking material in that chapter, but there is one particular thought he had that opened my eyes.

He says that we often make an idol of history and the way we do this is by ascribing to history a kind of god-like force, where we personify history. It is as if we think that history is a kind of being that moves and guides the things that are swept up in its path. We treat history as if it has a mind of its own.

 One example of this is in the common phrase “we can’t turn back the clock.” Schlossberg says:

 “. . . this idea pictures historical trends as juggernauts that cannot be stopped, even if one were so foolish as to wish to stop them.”

Of course these trends are always stopped, but when they are, curiously, no one wants to say that the clock has been stopped or turned back.

This idolizes history in that it ascribes to history some sort of inviolable will. We must do this or we can’t do that today because this is just the way things are at the current time. There are some ideas that are wrong not so much because they have been proven wrong but because they are outdated.

Americanism and Puritanism

This is my entry for the first Evangelical Outpost Blog Symposium on the subject 'Is Americanism the Successor of Puritanism?" 

This blog symposium uses the article Americanism and It's Enemies by David Gelernter in the January 2005 issue of Commmentary Magazine as it's jumping off point.  Gelernter answers Joe's question with a pretty unqualified "yes" - Americanism is the successor of Puritanism.  He marshals a good deal of evidence in favor of his thesis and much of it I agree with.  I do believe he has many valid points, but I also believe the issue is far more nuanced than the article suggests. 

As a Christian I deeply desire to see America more Christianized, as more and more people respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ and as this gospel works its transforming influence in every sector of society.  Furthermore, I share what I assume to be a presupposition of Gelernter's - that both in the academy and popular culture, there is a concerted effort to remove all traces of our religous roots.

Having said that I don't think this article gives a complete picture of our historical situation, and I believe that Gelernter's insight's need to be massaged and blended with other trains of thought.

 

Web Pages as an Essential for Church Growth

This just in - web pages are an essential part of growing churches, per an article from Agape Press titled:  Church Websites -- Now a Luxury?  Perhaps a necessary outreach in near future.

The article cites several pieces of research from several sources, with much information coming from George Barna.  Among other things, this article notes that :

According to Ellison Research, almost 90 percent of churches that typically have 200 or more people attending worship on Sunday morning have a website. That compares with 60 percent of mid-size churches (100-199 people) and 28 percent of small churches.

And:

Ron Sellers, president of Ellison Research, acknowledges the probable reasons behind the disparity, but also offers a word of caution.

"Small churches often don't have the budget to pay for technology, or the staff or volunteers to implement it," he says. "[But] the increased use of technology in churches has a real potential to widen the gap even further between small churches and medium or large congregations."

Furthermore:

Why the concern about something as commonplace -- or as "worldly," some might say -- as a website? Sellers suggests it may be a matter of what today's church-goers are beginning to expect in this age of information accessibility.

"[P]astors need to take a hard look at where technology might no longer be a matter of style or a luxury for the congregation, but an expectation," he says. He says it is "amazing" that one out of four medium and large churches do not have a web presence -- "particularly with many churches trying to figure out ways of attracting younger people, who are particularly likely to use the Internet to gather information and explore their options."

Such a consideration could be critical to a church that wants to graduate from the "small" category to the "mid-size," or from the "mid-size" to the "large." For example, Barna noted in 2001 that teens -- typically more computer-savvy than the older generations -- have a "very different profile of cyber faith interests" than their elders. He found that "activities such as reading devotional passages online and submitting prayer requests were of much greater interest to younger people."

Those are all very interesting things and I would like to add a few more thoughts. 

Is it ever ok to express a sinful emotion?

In answer to the question in my title, "Is it ever ok to express a sinful emotion?" I would have said "no" for most of my life.   For instance, if I was angry at you I would assume that I should never say so because after all, "revenge is mine, says the Lord," "anger does not achieve the righteousness of God," and Matthew 5:22 tells us that anyone who is angry with his brother is subject to judgment.  The same thing goes for an emotion like disappointment.  To me, disappointment has always been a clear sign of a lack of trust in God, or maybe a failure to understand depravity.  For example if I was disappointed that a certain thing didn't happen that I wanted to happen, I would conclude that I was disappointed because I didn't trust in the goodness of God.  If I was disappointed in something you did or didn't do, I would assume that this is because I didn't understand the depths of my own depravity.

Then I started reading the Psalms.  Most of us have probably heard it is a good idea to read 5 psalms a day, starting with the Psalm that corresponds to the day of the month and then adding 30 and then 30 again.  So for instance, today I am reading Psalm 6, 36, 66, 96 and 126.  This will take you through all of the Psalms in a month.

Saudi Muslim Professor says Tsunami's are Allah's Punishment for Homosexuality and Fornication

After 9/11 Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson made some very ill-advised comments to the effect that 9/11 was God's judgment on America for its many immoralities.  Although I agree that our nation has sinned greatly I disagreed with their comments.  First of all, no one knows the mind of God, so they went beyond the scope of their knowledge to presume to know why God allowed 9/11.  Certainly, all of us who believe in the sovereignty of God believe that 9/11 was a part of God's sovereign plan.  But we are not privy to the secret counsels of God and do not know exactly how that fit into His plans.  We always err when we presume to know the secret counsels of God.

Luke 13:1-5 speaks to this:

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. ^2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? ^3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ^4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? ^5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” 

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

In that passage Jesus knows that people are assuming that God allowed the slaughter of the Galileans because these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans.  Jesus deflects this idea and gives a flat out "no" to the question of whether or not they were slaughtered because of their sin.  Not that the slaughter of the Galileans provides no message at all to those who know about this incident, but the message is not that they suffered because they were worse sinners than others.  The message is that all of us (not just a single group of people) need to repent of our sin lest we perish.

What is a Liberal? What is a neo-liberal?

My blogging partner, Adrian Warnock has taken up a series of posts on what he calls "neo-liberalism."  It took me a little looking to figure out exactly what he was talking about, but it appeared that he is dealing with the UK's version of the emerging church movement.   In a private e-mail he confirmed that he is defining neo-liberalism as an attempt to accomodate the gospel to post-modernism, whereas liberalism was an attempt to accomodate the gospel to modernism.

That's a pretty fair definition as far as I am concerned, but I would like to expand on it a bit.  First of all let me acknowledge that, for the emergent/postmodern folks, our use of terms like liberal, neo-liberal, conservative and whatnot demonstrate our captivity to modernism with it's fixation on labels and neat little categorizations.  The postmodern/emergent movement is seeking to transcend the divisions of the church that have come as a result of modernism's fixation on such things.

The Five Points of Calvinism Links

I wanted to put the five points of Calvinism series to bed with one final post with the links to all of the posts.   I have gone back through all of the posts and put links on them but wanted to have them in one place in case anyone every wants to find them and in case I ever need to refer back to them.  So, here they are:

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

The Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1 - T - Total Depravity
Part 1a - Total Depravity and Free Will
Part 2 - U - Unconditional Election
Part 3 - L - Limited Atonement
Part 4 - I - Irresistible Grace
Part 5 - P - Perseverance of the Saints

P.S. Please let me know if any of the links are broken.

 

P - Perseverance of the Saints (Five Points of Calvinism, Part 5)

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

The Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1 - T - Total Depravity
Part 1a - Total Depravity and Free Will
Part 2 - U - Unconditional Election
Part 3 - L - Limited Atonement
Part 4 - I - Irresistible Grace

Well, I’m finally finishing up my series on the Five Points of Calvinism with the last letter of the acrostic – “P” for “perseverance of the saints.” 

When I hear non-Calvinists talk about Calvinism I will often hear them say something to the effect of “I can accept the ‘T’ (total depravity) and the ‘P’ (perseverance of the saints) but can’t accept the three parts in the middle. But usually I think that their understanding of the “T” and the “P” are faulty. As regards the “T” they may be totally depraved, but yet still able to exercise saving faith. As to the “P” they believe that once they are saved they are always saved, but they don’t believe that salvation necessarily implies any kind of continuation in the faith.

Carnival of the Reformation II

A Merry Christmas to all and a welcome to all as we celebrate our Savior's birth.  This is our second Carnival of the Reformation, a themed carnival covering important doctrines in the Reformed tradition.  For this carnival we are covering the theme "Solus Christus," or "Christ alone."  This is the doctrine that says that our salvation is based on the merit of Christ alone.

As we begin this carnival, allow me to remind you that the doctrine of Solus Christus is "good news of great joy," from Luke 2:8-14

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.  An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. ^ Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
       “Glory to God in the highest,
        and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.”
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

And now, on to the carnival:

Immanuel - God With Us

I'm working on my sermon for Sunday and wanted to share an excerpt that I thought might be encouraging.  This is an illustration of the significance of the name "Immanuel."

In the class I have been taking on Islam one of the speakers said that in the Islamic view of God, all of God’s attributes are subsets of his will. OK, so what does that mean? 

That this means is that God’s will is supreme in Islam – his will governs everything else he does. So, in Islam, they believe that God is loving, he is merciful and kind. But they believe that these are subsets of his will, and his will can change. So yes, God is loving and kind and merciful and Muslims believe that if they do certain things they will receive mercy and love from God. But they are never 100% guaranteed of this, because his will can change.

Now, contrast that with Christianity. The Bible teaches that all of God’s attributes are subsets of His nature, they are put of who He is, not merely what He wills or what He does. So, when we say that God is loving and kind, He is not loving and kind by mere choice, He is loving and kind by nature. He will always be loving and kind because it is in His nature to be that way.

 When we talk about the fact that Jesus has been given the name “Immanuel,” – “God with us,” it means that His being “with us” is a part of His nature, it is who He is. He is the God who dwells among His people. 

 When Jesus says “I will never leave you nor forsake you,” this is true not just because He made a decision to not leave or forsake us. He is in a covenantal bond with His people and so He cannot break the covenant, but even more than that, it is in His nature to be “with” His people. 

Death by Assumption

Assuming the priority of the gospel and then moving on to other things can, and often does, lead to a loss of the gospel.  In his book The Cross and Christian Ministry, D. A. Carson makes some observations along these lines in an exegesis of some passages from I Corinthians.  One of the things he notes is that the idea of "wisdom," in I Corinthians 2 isn't so much about understanding principles of living or some of the other ideas we commonly associate with wisdom.  Rather, "wisdom" refers to a worldview, or a "public philosophy of life."  Hence, the "wise man" that Paul was talking about in I Corinthians was probably an advocate of one of the leading philosophies of the day.

A "World Christian" Manifesto

In his book The Cross and Christian Ministry, D. A. Carson describes what a world (not "worldly") Christian would be like:

Their allegiance to Jesus Christ and his kingdom is self-consciously set above all national, cultural, linguistic, and racial allegiances.

Their commitment to the church, Jesus' messianic community, is to the church everywhere, wherever the church is truly manifest, and not only to its manifestation on home turf.

They see themselves first and foremost as citizens of the heavenly kingdom and therefore consider all other citizenship a secondary matter.

As a result, they are single-minded and sacrificial when it comes to the paramount mandate to evangelize and make disciples.

I'll sign on to that - anyone else want to join me?

Overcoming the Fear of Death

I just came across a saying by John Updike to the effect that if you want to be a writer, there are two subjects that will earn you a hearing (or reading).  One is sex and the other is death.   Since I've already tried my hand at sex with the Purpose Driven Sex series, links to which can be found on the left sidebar, I thought I would talk about death in this post.

It's a tough subject, but one that I think about more and more the older I get.  And, technically speaking I'm not yet old - being only 41.  However, I am old enough now to be staring 50 straight in the face and it's not unheard of to hear of people dying for various reasons in their 40's and 50's. 

When I was in seminary I had a friend named Neil who was a fellow classmate.  Neil was pursuing seminary studies as a second career.  He had been a very successful businessman and was the prototypical successful businessman who was a lousy husband and father.  He said he had more money than he knew what to do with.  It was nothing for him to go snorkeling in the Bahamas one weekend and hunting in Alaska the next.  However, in the midst of enjoying this lavish lifestyle, he neglected his wife to the point that she finally left him and then he had this sudden revelation from God that maybe he had been a lousy husband.  He repented, got right with God and tried his best to get right with her but by that time she had turned off the switch and she wouldn't hear of reconciliation.

I - Irresistible Grace (Five Points of Calvinism Part 4)

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

The Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1 - T - Total Depravity
Part 1a - Total Depravity and Free Will
Part 2 - U - Unconditional Election
Part 3 - L - Limited Atonement

Today I will address the fourth of the five points of Calvinism - irresistible grace.  As I have done in a few of the other posts I'll begin with a definition of this doctrine that I got from the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.

The result of God's Irresistible Grace is the certain response by the elect to the inward call of the Holy Spirit, when the outward call is given by the evangelist or minister of the Word of God. Christ, himself, teaches that all whom God has elected will come to a knowledge of him (John 6:37). Men come to Christ in salvation when the Father calls them (John 6:44), and the very Spirit of God leads God's beloved to repentance (Romans 8:14). What a comfort it is to know that the gospel of Christ will penetrate our hard, sinful hearts and wondrously save us through the gracious inward call of the Holy Spirit (I Peter 5:10)!

You may find this curious, but I have had a far greater struggle Scripturally with this one than any of the other of the five points of Calvinism.  Almost everyone I talk to wants to punt on "Limited Atonement," or "Particular Redemption," as I like to call it, but that is one that I am completely convinced of and really don't struggle with.  However, this one gave me a few fits as I wrestled with it initially.

The main reason I struggled with this is because of Acts 7:51:

“You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

That sounds pretty clear to me - folks are resisting the Holy Spirit, so how can we describe God's grace as irresistible, unless you want to play some kind of silly word game that distinguishes the grace of God from the Holy Spirit.

The Improbability of Life's Successes

I just found this quote on the Staublog:

“For some years now, my work has been such that every day of my life has necessarily been lived under the shadow of the improbability of my life's successes.”

Wow - been there - done that, or should I say, still live there - still doing that.

This is from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Dick Staub mentions that these words weren't uttered with any kind of anger or bitterness, just an honest assessment of where he was in his life's work.  For de Chardin, like so many, his fame came after he was gone.  I'm told that Kierkegaard never attained his great fame until after he was gone and so it is with many of those we now consider great.

This opens up all kinds of discussions of what greatness is and how it is assessed.  Those who need present day affirmation of their greatness really destine themselves for a life of misery.  Few of us do things the world would consider great, and even those who do great things in the eyes of God are often thought foolish by the world. Staub says this:

De Chardin was pioneering an integrative approach to faith and science that left him out-of-step with both the community of faith and that of science. His work took on significance after he was gone, but in his own day the praise of others eluded him. Yet he pressed on with a sense of inner calling to his work.

It is this sense of calling that is paramount.  Whether the world thinks what we are doing is great or not, if we are faithful to God's call on our lives, then that is sufficient.

I know that I am one of those who likes to have lots of affirmation.  Yet, I have found that even when I get the affirmation I am never truly satisfied.  I can always think of something I could have done better,  I always have a sense of inadequacy.  When the affirmation comes I often have a sense that these folks are just being nice, or if I really did something praiseworthy, I just got lucky that time.  I think alot of that has to do with my personality and upbringing,  I also believe that alot of the people who do great things are driven by this sense of inadequacy - it is the thing that propels them forward.

As many folks know, my beloved Florida Gators are looking for a new football coach, and one of the guys they are looking at is Urban Meyer, from Utah (now that the Notre Dame job has opened up it looks like he'll be going there).  Urban is obsessed with winning - he can't eat or sleep on the days leading up to a game and it's worse if he loses.  One of his family members once asked him what he is afraid of and he said he is afraid of losing.

I'm not as obsessed with winning as he is, but I can relate to this fear of failure.  This is where the words from de Chardin via Staub are helpful to me.  The issue is not will I attain greatness or win all of my battles in this life, but will I be faithful to the calling God has put on my life?  That is all that is required and that is sufficient.

L - Limited Atonement (Five Points of Calvinism, Part 3)

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

The Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1 - T - Total Depravity
Part 1a - Total Depravity and Free Will
Part 2 - U - Unconditional Election

Well, it's time for another post in my series on the TULIP, aka the five points of Calvinism. Today we are looking at the middle petal of the TULIP - the "L" for "limited atonement." This has been one of the most hotly debated of the five points and the one where many who like the Calvinist system punt, and say they can't go there. If you ever hear of a "four point Calvinist" then this is probably where they have ceased to be on board. In my mind, this is a place where the debates have generated more heat than light. It's one of the places where both sides have dug in very hard and it's a hill that both sides have chosen to die on.

While I won't presume to be able to put forth a position that will be satisfying to all parties, I do hope to express a few things that will be helpful in defining the issues.

The doctrine of "limited atonement" speaks of the extent of the atonement, it is the Calvinistic answer to the question "for whom did Christ die." Calvinists assert that the extent of the atonement is "limited" to the elect, hence the name. Christ died for the elect in particular, not everyone in general. However, this is not the final word on this matter as we shall see in a moment.

Before proceeding, let me say that the very word "limited" is an unfortunate word to use when speaking of God or something He has done. God is the "omni-" God, so to speak of a work of His as "limited" seems to somehow denigrate HIs power. Also, knowing that "God is love," to speak of the atoning sacrifice of Christ as being "limited" seems to do violence to His nature as "all-loving." For this reason, I am in agreement with those theologians who prefer to use the term "particular redemption," when speaking of the extent of the atonement. I know that this phrase won't solve all of the problems, but at least it narrows the focus of what we are talking about. It asserts that God had a particular purpose related to a particular people, in His plan of redemption.

U - Unconditional Election (Five Points of Calvinism, Part 2)

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

The Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1 - T - Total Depravity
Part 1a - Total Depravity and Free Will

Next in this series on the five points of Calvinism is the "U" in the TULIP, which stands for Unconditional Election. As I did on the "T" I'll begin with a definition that I have gotten from the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.

Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

This doctrine does not rule out, however, man's responsibility to believe in the redeeming work of God the Son (John 3:16-18). Scripture presents a tension between God's sovereignty in salvation, and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. Both are true -- to deny man's responsibility is to affirm an unbiblical hyper-calvinism; to deny God's sovereignty is to affirm an unbiblical Arminianism. The elect are saved unto good works (Ephesians 2:10).

Thus, though good works will never bridge the gulf between man and God that was formed in the Fall, good works are a result of God's saving grace. This is what Peter means when he admonishes the Christian reader to make his "calling" and "election" sure (2 Peter 1:10). Bearing the fruit of good works is an indication that God has sown seeds of grace in fertile soil.

So, with that as a background, let me offer some of my own thoughts. First of all, this doctrine affirms the sovereignty of God in salvation, but it has a different spin than other views. I believe that even Wesleyans and Arminians affirm the sovereignty of God in salvation to some degree. Calvinists though, affirm God's absolute sovereingty in salvation.

Sin, Sins and the Pursuit of Happiness

Thanks to everyone who has been commenting and interacting with my posts on Total Depravity and Free Will.  On Saturday I was able to squeak out the last post on free will, but haven't been able to get back to it to address any of the comments.  The ol' holiday busy-ness is upon me and it's the same today.  I'm doing a quick post now and have to jet out the door for the rest of the day.  Lord willing, tomorrow I will address the subject of unconditional election and interact with some of the comments on the last post. For today, I just thought I would share a quick devotional thought with you.

In my mind it is helpful to distinguish between sin and sins.  Sin is a part of who we are (not the whole of who we are, but a significant part of who we are) and sin permeates our entire being.  Sins are what we do as sinners.

Total Depravity and Free Will

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

The Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1 - T - Total Depravity

An apologetic and explanatory note about this post.  I made a major blogging boo-boo on this post.  I started it this morning and had to go attend to some things around the house.  So, I set it to post sometime around 6:00pm or so, thinking that I would get back to it in the afternoon and have it all finished up by 6:00 and there would be no problem.  Lo and behold, I didn't get back home till 10:00pm tonight and got online and realized I hadn't made the proper adjustments.  Thus, a half-done post hit at 6:00pm.  I have come back now and finished the post.  My apologies to those of you who have commented already on this (Donal, Mark O, David M. and Tim) as, due to my negligence you have commented on a half done post.  Anyway, it is now about 11:15pm on Friday evening and the post is done and in its final form.  The rest of the post is that which follows the paragraph that ends as follows:

I've written on this before, but I'll repeat my assertion that freedom is always circumscribed in some way.  Our freedom is always bound by our nature.

In my last post on total depravity I mentioned that I wanted to do a post on how this relates to the subject of free will - so, here it is.

I fear that what I have to say here will probably not be accepted very well by Calvinists or their opponents, but hopefully it will give both something to think about.

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism, Part 5

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

I started to work on my first actual post on one of the five points of Calvinism but thought I would go ahead and list a few resources that you can go to for more information.

For those who may not be familiar with the Five Points of Calvinism these were formulated at the Synod of Dordt in 1619 in response to what is known as the "Five Articles of the Remonstrance."  They have taken the form of the acrostic TULIP.  These stand for:

T - Total Depravity
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints

Here are some online resources.

There are several good resources at the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.

Canons of the Synod of Dordt - this is the original formulation.

The Reformed Faith - an online book by Loraine Boettner.

The Five Points of Calvinism - an online book by R. L. Dabney

A Defense of Calvinism - online book by C. H. Spurgeon

The Five Points of Calvinism by Herman Hanko, Homer Hoeskema, and Gise J. Van Baren.  This is particularly helpful for those who want a continantal perspective on the five points.  These authors are from the tradition of the Heidelberg Catechism, not the Westminster Tradition.  They show that the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dordt are two parts of one whole and that the five points are inherent in the whole continental/Heidelberg tradition.  Thus, even though the five points aren't discussed as explicitly in the Heidelberg Catechism as they are in the Westminster Confession, they work together with the Canons of Dordt and are foundational to the whole tradition.

The Five Points of Calvinism by Matt Slick.  Also, check out Matt's website called "The Calvinist Corner."

And of course the mother lode can be found at Monergism.com.

Books:

By His Grace and For His Glory - by Tom Nettles.  This book, written by a Southern Baptist was the most influential book in my own study of Calvinism.  It was particularly influential for me because I read it while still as Southern Baptist.  A great book for anyone who says that you can't be a Baptist and a Calvinist (which I have heard).

Chosen by God - an outstanding exposition by R. C. Sproul

Of course there is a whole lot more, but for those who want to study such things, those will get you started.

The rest of the series:

The Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1 - T - Total Depravity
Part 1a - Total Depravity and Free Will
Part 2 - U - Unconditional Election
Part 3 - L - Limited Atonement
Part 4 - I - Irresistible Grace
Part 5 - P - Perseverance of the Saints

 

 

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism, Part 4

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

As I bring this "introduction" to a close, the final comment I would like to make is that the five points of Calvinism (or the five points of Arminianism) are the particular product of a particular way of studying the Scriptures. They are the product of systematic theology, which is a thematic approach to studying the Scriptures. Systematic theology picks a topic or theme and then searches the Scriptures to gather all of the data on that topic together in one place. Then, the systematic theologian massages the data and formulates summary statements on these matters. These statements are creedal statements. Systematic theology is inescapable. Even those who despise theology are systematic theologians. Anyone who says they believe in “once saved, always saved,” or that we are saved by grace through faith saved "by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone" is doing systematic theology. The reason is that the bible never says it in those words. Even those who say they believe in “no creed but Christ,” are making a creedal statement. Although the Scriptures never say explicitly that we should have no creed but Christ, these folks have engaged in systematic theologizing by searching the scriptures, examining the data and forming the creedalistic statement “we have no creed but Christ.”

But in saying that systematic theology is inescapable we do not say that this is the only way to study or approach the Scriptures. One of the major projects within reformed circles in the last century was the study of biblical theology. I realize that there is a type of “biblical theology” practiced by liberal scholars, but the version I am speaking of is the biblical theology of scholars like Vos and Ridderbos. I would also mention that, in this case, the term “biblical theology” is being used in a very narrow, technical sense. In speaking of this as “biblical theology” I am not saying that “systematic theology” or other approaches are unbiblical.

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism, Part 3

Part 1
Part 2

As to what the five points of Calvinism are, we need to begin by saying that, in their present formulation, they are not a positive statement of what we believe, rather they are negative statements of what we do not believe.  When I say “present formulation” I mean to say that the “five points of Calvinism” didn’t come to us initially as “five points of Calvinism.” They were present in the writings of Calvin and others in their tradition but no one had put them into a neat and tidy package of five points until the Synod of Dordt in 1610. At the Synod of Dordt, some followers of Jacob Arminius brought forth the “Five Points of Remonstrance.”  As the protestant movement grew and began to mature in its early years these “Arminians” began to take issue with some of the things they found in the writings of protestant leaders like Calvin. There were five specific areas of concern they had in the writings of Calvin and others and they formulated them into articles that were debated at the Synod of Dordt. At this Synod all five points of remonstrance were denied. Even though John Calvin and Jacob Arminius were not present at this Synod, their names became affixed to the two positions. Thus, the five points of the remonstrance came to be known as the five points of Arminianism and the five points of response from the Synod became known as the five points of Calvinism.  It is an interesting footnote in this matter that the “five points of Arminianism” existed before the “five points of Calvinism.”

 

I point that out in order to point out that the five points of Calvinism are not a comprehensive statement of faith. They are specific answers to specific questions and they were written to negate what the participants in the Synod of Dordt considered to be errors.  Of course there is a positive aspect of the five points, but it is helpful to realize that they came out as a reaction.

 

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism, Part 2

Part 1

After I began writing this I listened to a talk about the life of C. S. Lewis by Earl Palmer. One of the things Palmer reminded us of was a passage from the Screwtape Letters where Screwtape complains that Wormwood’s subject is “merely Christian.” This was the first time Lewis used this term that would later become the basis for his famous book. Screwtape told Wormwood that his goal should be to make his subject a “Christian and . . .” Screwtape said that when people are “merely Christian” they are a great threat to his kingdom, but if they can become “Christian and . . . “ then they are of great use. Another way I have thought to describe the same thing is to speak of “Adjectival Christians.”

I became painfully aware that this whole discussion plays into the hands of ol’ Screwtape because we are talking about “Calvinistic Christians,” “Arminian Christians,” “Reformed Christians,” etc.. On the other hand, I feel a sense of frustration in that the adjectives seem to be inevitable. I am sure that C. S. Lewis would agree that theological debate is appropriate even for “mere Christians.” Even within the broad scope of “mere Christianity” God cannot be finite and infinite at the same time and in the same sense, salvation cannot be solely by grace through faith and not by grace through faith. In short there are legitimate and crucial theological debates within “mere Christendom” that must be engaged.

To engage in such debates we need words to engage the debate. There is a real sense in which terms like “Calvinist,” and “Arminian” and “Reformed” can fall under the condemnation of I Corinthians 3 as a form of “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos.” But there is another sense in which terms like “Calvinist,” “Arminian” and other words become technical terms that function as a kind of theological shorthand for discussion.

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism, Part 1

This post and the ones to follow on the 5 Points of Calvinism are in response to a request from Diane Roberts at Crossroads that I address this subject. I had thought about doing something like this in the past and Diane’s words have spurred me on.

Whenever I talk about or defend anything related to Calvinism I am always reminded of H. L. Mencken’s obituary for J. Gresham Machen. In this obituary, Mencken said that, though he admired Machen he had filed Machen’s Calvinism away in his little cabinet of horrors right next to cannibalism.

So, when I speak of Calvinism I can’t help but think there are those out there who think of me as if I am defending cannibalism. I almost feel like I’m saying “hey, we cannibals are actually pretty nice people once you get to know us – we’ve just been a little misunderstood.”

An Example of Bridging the Chasm

With all of this talk about bridging the chasm between evangelical Christians and those who differ, I found this story in a comment on Parableman's post "Christians and Blue Counties."  Actually, I started blogging this and the same comment showed up on my post      . It is from Brad Hightower at 21st Century Reformation.

I have a great story. When I was in graduate school in education, I noticed after the first semester that the bias against Christians was intense. So in my second semester, I performed an experiment. I simply did well and hid my fundamentalism. Many times I had my essays read out loud by the professor before the class. Actually, she only read my essays. She even said once that she was reading my paper and had to call her collegues because she was so excited about the content. I was easily her favorite student. BUT...
She was Angela Davis-type, leftist, feminista radical. I mean she was a Christian hating, wealth distributing, pro-abotion-in-all-cases radical.
So, after the last class session, I approached her. I said to her, "What do you think is my stance as a writer." She said, "Well, I know you graduated from Stanford and are well versed in science, but I am not sure. I have been thinking about that." To this I said, "Who are the most ignorant and uneducated people in our 20th century American society."
To this she said and I do not lie, "Your not a Christian are you."
"The only one you have ever met. I am a fundamentalist Christian", I said. She admitted that she had never met a born again Christian before.
I explained to her that I had sat in this class listening to her stereotypes, and I decided I am going to help this woman understand the depth of her bigotry. I told her you see Christian like clansmen see little black sambo. I explain to her that most of my friends have advanced degrees from prestegious schools and still believe in the bible.
She was floored. She confessed she had stereotypes and that I had helped her to see that she was wrong.
The bigotry is very real out there, but we can win folks over one relationship at a time.
brad

That is a great story, and of course I have a few comments.

Disdain and Disgust, or Gentleness and Respect

The past couple of days I've been blogging a few thoughts on bridging the chasm between the evangelical world and the rest of the world.  For this post I wanted to share a thought I heard recently in a message from Brian McLaren.

Those of you who have read me before know that I don't see eye to eye with Brian about a lot of things, and that is putting it mildly.  However, there is no doubt that he is a brother, who cares deeply about communicating Christ with this generation, and he has many thoughts worth listening to.

In this particular message he talked about I Peter 3:15:

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

Brian made the simple point that, in our engagement with the world outside of the Christian faith, we are called to engage them with gentleness and respect.  However, we usually approach them with disdain and disgust.

Red, Blue, Purple and Unreached People Groups

Jeremy Pierce at Parableman has taken my post titled Mapping the Election and run with it in his post titled Christians and Blue Counties.  One of the main reasons that any of us gravitate to any writer is that that writer says what you would want to say better than you could say it, or they give words to amorphous thoughts in your head.  This what Jeremy has done in this post.

He points out explicitly what I had only implied - that the vast majority of evangelical Christians live in red counties.  Certainly, this doesn't mean that all of the red counties could be called "Christian" counties, nor does it mean that the blue counties are without Christian influence.  It's just that evangelicals tend to gravitate toward the red counties.  The effect of this is to effectively render the blue counties to be unreached people groups.

I really hadn't thought of the blue counties as unreached people groups before, but I think Jeremy is on to something here.  He mentions that the people in the blue counties just don't know many Christians, and this reminded me of a story which shared in a comment on his blog and will post here also.

More on Bridging the Chasm

Yesterday, I linked to a post by Michael Spencer at the Boars Head Tavern on bridging the chasm between evangelicals and the rest of the world.  As usually happens over at the Tavern the boys got into it and so Michael and the gang have given some more thoughts on how we might bridge the chasm.

Here's seven suggestions from Michael on bridging the chasm:

1. We can talk to them, instead of talking to ourselves all the time.
2. We can look at church models that are significantly communicating and communing with the secular culture, and find out what the bridge approaches could be. I suspect there are more than we might think. Secularists have to raise children. They think about money and aging parents. They enjoy art and music. Could we make a new endeavor to being part of the larger culture, especially in helping/sharing capacities?
3. Go to the secular venues- the campuses, the talk shows, etc.- and don't sound so dxxxed scary.
4. Make a full frontal assault on Christian television and broadcasting that embrasses the cause of Christ. Reject it. Denounce it. I saw Al Mohler on a TBN program the other day. Listen....we just need to get totally AWAY from people with large purple hair crying on satin couches. If Matt Crouch wants our support he needs to start ordering some hits....asap.
5. Establish ministering Christian communities that specifically exist for penetrating culture and communicating with culture. The idea of "secular orders" in the Catholic Church is a good model. Particularly, we need communities that do servant ministry and have no threatening political agenda at all.
6. Let's clarify and nuance our discussion of abortion. All pro-lifers aren't wanting to send the secular world to jail for differing with us on this one.
7. Let's make it clear what our opposition to gay marriage is and isn't. We aren't a threat to law-abiding homosexual adults, are we? Do we really believe they are a threat to us?

Eric Rigney responded here.

Jim Nicholson responded here.

Michael follows up here.

Jim Nicholson replies to Michael's reply here.

There's plenty more stuff but that'll get you going for a while.

Rather than turning this into one of my monstrously long posts, I'll just leave this here and do some more posts interacting with Michael and the gang.

Post Tenebras Lux - The Carnival of the Reformation I

Welcolme to Post Tenebras Lux the Carnival of the Reformation, #1.
This is the first of what I hope will be many carnivals celebrating many of the key doctrines of the Reformed tradition. With this carnival we are celebrating the doctrine of Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone. This means that the Scripture alone is the final authority for all matters of life and doctrine. The Scriptures affirm this in many places:

Psalm 19:7-8: 
7 The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple.
8 The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes.

Psalm 119:105
Your word is a lamp to my feet
and a light for my path.

II Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

All scripture references are from The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

The posts in this carnival encompass biblical exegesis, theological reflection, interaction with culture and testimonies regarding the place of Scripture in our lives. I want to thank all of those who have entered this carnival and to let you know that I have been greatly encouraged and challenged reading your posts and I trust that all who read them will.

In what follows you will see several quotes from great Christian leaders interspersed among the posts themselves. What I have done is list the name and author of the post and indented a description of each post. As you will see, in several cases I have grouped posts together when I was able to find a common thread.

So, with all that as a background, let's move on to the carnival - happy reading!

When You Just Don't Feel Like Loving the Word of God

Yesteday, I did a post on Psalm 119:1 suggesting that the key to happiness is found in devoting ourselves to the Word of God, wholeheartedly, per the instructions of Psalm 119. Today I want to follow that up by quoting from my sermon notes for this Sunday as I address the problem of having a divided heart that really doesn't want to devote itself to the Word of God.

I'll give my usual preface when I quote from my sermon notes. I write sermons to be heard, not read. I type out every sermon word for word, but as I type it I picture myself standing before the congregation. I just point that out because when you write something to be heard, and particularly when writing a sermon, you are going for a different affect than when you when you are writing to be read. Sermons aren't as tightly argued as written tomes, they have to appeal more to the emotions. Anyway, I hope some of what follows is helpful.

And, I think that all of you John Piper fans out there will quickly see his fingerprints and my debt to him as you read through this.

The Practical Benefit of the Word of God

This Sunday I will be preaching on the theme of Sola Scriptura, in honor of Reformation day. My intention was to preach through Psalm 119:1-16, but in my study and application I have only gotten through verse 3 and have more than enough material for a sermon. Just doing a bit of word study on verses 1 and 2 led me to a thought worth writing and preaching on for days, weeks, months, etc.. Psalm 119:1-2 say:

1 Blessed are they whose ways are blameless,
who walk according to the law of the Lord.
2 Blessed are they who keep his statutes
and seek him with all their heart.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

I'm pretty weak in Hebrew, but using an interlinear and some other tools I can see that what the NIV translates as "Blessed" in verse 1 is actually two words in Hebrew.

The first word means:

how happy!, i.e., a heightened state of happiness and joy, implying very favorable circumstance and enjoyment.

The second means "whole, complete, or entire."

In other words, the word "blessed" here means "completely, entirely, and wholly happy" are those whose lives conform to what is about to be described in these verses. What struck me is that the blessedness is entire and complete, and it is the blessedness that someone would enjoy if they found themselves in an exceedingly favorable circumstance and were enjoying it, having the time of their lives.

Quote of the Day from Monergism.com

Here's a great quote from the greatest site for all things reformed on the web - Monergism.com. This is from A. W. Pink:

"Just as the sinner's despair of any hope from himself is the first prerequisite of a sound conversion, so the loss of all confidence in himself is the first essential in the believer's growth in grace."

This quote introduces Monergism's theme for the month of October - Sanctification. I can't believe it's taken me till the end of the month to find this, but he's got some great articles this month on sanctification by Jerry Bridges, J. C. Ryle, Thomas Chalmers, John Owen, Rod Rosenblatt, Rich Gilbert, Abraham Kuyper and others. It looks like its worth spending some time on.

A Few Thoughts on the Reformation

I just got finished writing my newsletter article for the church for the month and thought I would share it with all of you. It doesn't say everything I want to say about the topic, but I only had so much space so I tried to get the gist of what I wanted to say in a short space.

Basically, what I wanted to communicate is an appreciation for our traditions while warning of the dangers of traditionalism. It's a fine line to walk. I think that in today's world most folks are way too anti-traditional, and that is to our peril. On the other hand, this anti-traditional viewpoint is probably a reaction to "traditional-ism." By the way - I'm of the opinion that many good things become bad when they become "-isms." So, I tried to address these concerns in the following and I hope that some of it makes sense and is helpful to you.

What are the 10 Biggest Objections to Christianity?

I just read an article by Tim Keller where he said that, in today's world we need to be missional in everything we do and one of the ways is by keeping the gospel in the forefront of all we do. No big news here, but he makes a couple of other interesting comments that I wanted to camp out on. He mentions, as I have said before, that the gospel is not the A-B-C's of the Christian life it is the A to Z of the Christian life and must be foremost in all we do.

Sooo, . . . he says that every sermon should have the gospel as the answer to every problem, which enables the preacher to preach to unbelievers in the crowd and equip believers for witnessing. One of the applications of this is that the preacher should keep a list of the 10 most common objections to Christianity. Any passage should we preach will probably address at least one of those. By having this available, every sermon can have an evangelistic thrust and can also train Christians in evangelism.

And again I say "Sooo, . . ." would anyone out there like to help me out in a little project by listing what you think are the 10 most common objections to Christianity. This could be for people who claim to be Christians and who don't. If you can't come up with 10, just come up with as many as you can.

Every time I have ever solicited a response for something I get few if any - as they say in the blogosphere - you never get a lot of comments/visits/responses to the posts you spend lots of time crafting or that you want a response to, its the ones you never expect a response to or that you just fire off quickly that get responses.

That being said, would you please, pretty please, pretty please with sugar on top, help me out on this one? Just leave a comment here with your top 10 objections to Christianity or do it on your own blog and send me a trackback.

The Unbearable Lightness of Modern Christendom

Dick Staub's Commentary today is too good not to post the whole thing.

His title, "Incredible Light of Being" is a takeoff on the title of the novel The Unbrearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera. Here's a blurb on the book from Amazon.

A young woman in love with a man torn between his love for her and his incorrigible womanizing one of his mistresses and her humbly faithful lover--these are the two couples whose story is told in this masterful novel. In a world in which lives are shaped by irrevocable choices and by fortuitous events, a world in which everything occurs but once, existence seems to lose its substance, its weight. Hence, we feel "the unbearable lightness of being" not only as the consequence of our private actions, but also in the public sphere, and the two inevitably intertwine.

I haven't read the book, but some of the reviews I have seen say that the "unbearable lightness of being" also descends from the protagonists fleshly pursuits. As fleshly pursuits dominate, life loses it's weight, it's substance.

It's interesting to me that Dick Staub chose this association for his article today. He contrasts the substantive faith of a persecuted Christian with the weightless, fleshly faith of modern day Christendom.

Here's the link to today's Staublog article and may I also encourage you to subscribe while you are there? He's got some great stuff.

Thoughts on Leadership from "Good To Great"

This weekend the elders of our church are going to get together for some planning for next year. In preparation and in order to stir up some of my creative leadership and visionary juices I decided to read the book Good To Great - Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Other's Don't by Jim Collins. I'm about half-way through and it's got some terrific stuff in it.

This is a study of companies that tooled along for at least 15 years earning at or below the market share. Then, at some point in time they began an upward trend whereby they did at least three times better than the market share for 15 years. As he did in his prior book, Built to Last, he examined these companies in comparison to other companies in the same field who did not go from good to great, or did not last.

Collins was surprised at some of his findings, and I found them intriguing. What is most intriguing to me is that pastors and other evangelical leaders take their cues on leadership from the business world. John Maxwell is a Christian authority on leadership but it is clear that he doesn't rely on the bible for his principles. If you look at his reading lists they are all secular management books and it seems clear to me that he finds the principles he teaches and then occasionally reads a bible verse back into them. Similarly, Rick Warren didn't come up with the Purpose Driven Church stuff through an exegesis of Scripture. I'm not exactly sure who influenced him the most, but his whole demographic driven, purpose statement based, and process oriented ministry style is straight out of a marketing manual, not the Scripture.

Those statements came out a little harsher than I intended them too. This doesn't mean that the things that Maxwell and Warren say have no value. Just as Calvin, Augustine and others have always acknowledged that God gives common grace insight into truth to pagan philsophers, so it is that many of these business guru's have some common grace insights that are helpful to us today.

The Reformed View of Inerrancy

Darren at Nicene Theology has written a post called "Calvinist or Reformed" where he goes through my summary of what the Reformed confessions have in common in a prior post on the League of Reformed bloggers. Those things are:

a. High view of Scripture - Scripture is infallible and inerrant.
b. God's absolute sovereignty in salvation in all matters. God's sovereignty is not based on foreknowledge of future events, nor is it a bare permission, it is His active ordaining, maintaining, preserving and governing of all that happens in life.
c. Each of the confessions affirms the five points of Calvinism in some form.
d. Each of the confessions affirms the five solas of the Reformation.

Darren affirms the above criteria except for the five points of Calvinism and the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. He holds to a high view of Scripture but does not believe that the church has historically held to what we would now call the "inerrancy" of Scripture. Neither does he think that one has to affirm the Five Points of Calvinism to be considered reformed.

I plan to deal with the issue of the five points later, although for now, I would say that they are at the heart of the Reformed system. There are some who consider themselves "four point Calvinists," who don't believe in limited atonement. They have historically been referred to as Amyraldians and there is debate in reformed circles as to whether or not an Amyraldian can truly be considered Reformed (see this article for a short primer on Amyraldianism). It is hard to say whether or not a four point Calvinist could be considered within the Reformed tradition. Some of the more hard boiled Calvinists would say no, but I am loathe to exclude someone like Richard Baxter, who was close to this position. I think it all depends on one's view of God's sovereignty, but that is for another day.

For now I want to take up some of Darren's comments about inerrancy. As I do this, I do it for the sake of clarification, and not to diss Darren. He's got an excellent blog and I commend it to you highly. Furthermore, he has said that he is recently come to a reformed position and is still working through some issues. But having said that I do want to clarify that the position that the Scriptures are inerrant is central to the reformed system of doctrine (and I would say to the Christian faith) and it is the historic view of the church.

Relational Apologetics

In my last post I talked about presuppositional and evidential apologetics and after a very long winded (or should I say long-fingered) post I concluded with some thoughts on the ineffectiveness of apologetics.

When I say that apologetics are ineffective I need to qualify that by saying that they are ineffective for certain things but effective for other things. Apologetics, whether of the presuppositional or evidential kind, have been very effective in strengthening the faith of believers and giving them the courage of their convictions. Furthermore, apologetic arguments, whether they be proofs for the existence of God, historical proofs of the resurrection or the transcendental argument have generally been accepted by Christians. At the same time all of these arguments have generally been rejected by non-believers.

So, apologetics are effective in strengthening the faith of believers, but generally unpersuasive to non-believers. This leaves the believer in a quandry since, for most of us, the reason we learn a few things about apologetics is to equip us to respond to unbelievers.

Presuppositional and Evidential Apologetics

Jeff Clinton at the Dawn Treader has done a couple of posts on presuppositional apologetics (I referenced them in my prior post) which you can read here and here. I commend those posts to you again and would especially commend the comments to you on the first post. Jeff got into a dialogue with Joe Carter from Evangelical Outpost and Roger Overton of Res Cogitans on the subject of whether or not there is a moral component to apologetic argumentation.

Jeff says: Finally, I never thought of arguments as having moral components; as in, this approach is morally superior to that approach. It is an interesting thought. I lean more toward pragmatism when it comes to deciding which approach to use.

Roger says: I don't think arguments have a moral import either, but that is what presups (generally) claim. I asked Greg about that a month or so ago and he agreed. There is no moral component to arguments. I agree as well that the best approach is pragmatic.

Joe says: I have to disagree with you on that one (though not for the reasons you might think). Arguments are essentially actions and all actions have moral importance. Like all moral actions, a moral apologetic argument is one that is the right argument, at the right time, for the right reasons. If I use an evidentialist argument simply because I am more comfortable with it even when I know that my audience will find it unconvincing, the argument would lack a sound moral footing. It would not only be the wrong argument but it would also not be for the “right reason” (i.e., to glorify God by presenting the truth to an unbeliever). I think that is the sense in which we should judge the “morality” of arguments.

In a comment on my last post Jeff kindly invited me to chime in on the debate so I did by leaving a lengthy comment on his blog. I figured I would use that comment as the basis for a post here, so here goes.

Reformed Theology vs. the Reformed Attitude

I read with interest an online interview that Danny Fast did with Rob Schlapfer from The Discerning Reader and Christian Counterculture. I say I read it with interest because Rob has been a pretty staunch defender of Calvinism/Reformed Theology and now it appears he is abandoning Calvinism. Here are a few salient comments from the e-mail exchange between Danny and Rob:

3. (Question from Danny) In a letter published with your permission to Michael Spencer you said "We are abandoning Calvinism" and "The 16th century is over. We're not wasting any more time with such a dead issue." I think many of us, probably more who are Calvinists, and who enjoy the work of DiscerningReader and ChristianCounterCulture would like you to expand on this

(Rob's Answer) We need to focus on the world that is actually confronting us today. The students we deal with have needs that are real and cannot be helped by talking about abstract theological issues that were fought over centuries ago. One can talk about the reality of God's sovereignty (and all the related themes) without talking about Calvinism.

Calvinism is a great study for historical theology. But it is not the gospel — in ANY way. For awhile I thought we could deal with it along the periphery, all the while moving people on to being followers of Jesus and lovers of His Word — not being "Reformed." But most Calvinists can't do that. They have to identify with their cause. So we are leaving it well behind. Our cause is Christ and his kingdom. Not Reformed Theology.

(Question from Danny) 7. Final question. In Michael's letter you said "Besides, "Reformed" people are an embarrassment to the name of Christ." Can you expand on this as many may have taken it as an insult.

(Rob's Answer) I think I have written about this many times over the years. Reformed people have a reputation within the Christian community — and outside, even — that is easy to survey:

judgmental
self-righteous
arrogant

Why do you think Lance Quinn added all those appendices to the new edition of P&Rs "The 5 Points of Calvinism"? About a "kinder gentler Calvinism"? He wrote to tell me: it was because Calvinists tend to be nasty, mean-spirited people. One always has to qualify the 5 Points with some appeal . . .

The main reason we have discontinued the vast majority of Reformed books is becasue the people who buy them are disproportionately mean, nasty, hateful, judgmental and EMBARRASSING to the faith. We have had ENOUGH dealing with them. I am actually a very laid-back, easy-going guy. People who know me would tell you that. But this work has taken my blood pressure off the charts.

People who are offended by this ought to do some serious pondering here. Because it is just an empirical fact.

Dirty Laundry, Grace and Accountability, Part 2

I am finishing up a post I started yesterday in this one. As I often do, I got long winded and this time decided to cut it off and finish it later.

I was talking about dirty laundry in the body of Christ. I had been rubbing my nose in some of the filth of the fundamentalist movement, courtesy of the links provided by Secret Radio, and wrote a reflection on the dirty laundry within the Christian community and how much of it comes from not understanding grace.

If you look at alot of the more sordid stuff within Christendom you can see that it often comes from sectors where there is little appreciation for grace. But you can also see it coming from sectors where there is very little accountability.

If you read the sordid story of Jack Hyles and his numerous underlings who have fallen into all kinds of stuff, one of the things that comes across is their lack of accountability to the church body at large. You can even see this to a degree in the ministry of Bill Gothard. Although Gothard has his problems, I wouldn't put him in the same camp as Jack Hyles. There has been some fairly sordid stuff that has happened in his ministry, but for the most part he has kept his nose clean, at least morally (if you read A Matter of Basic Principles, you can see that there are some other serious problems with his ministry.) But there is a sense in which Gothard is untouchable, as Hyles was. These men reach a kind of svengali like state in their ministries where they hold such powerful sway over their followers that it is difficult, if not impossible, to challenge them. It becomes as if total depravity doesn't apply to them.

You've been forgiven

I often struggle with feeling that I'm not good enough - not a good enough Christian, not a good enough pastor, etc.. A few days ago I was reading a sermon by Jack Hyles that I found through some links on the Secret Radio blog and this one was on merits and demerits. My jaw dropped as I read this stuff. I couldn't believe a preacher who allegedly believed in justification by faith was teaching that God has a system of merits and demerits in the Christian faith. But it was there, plain as day. In this sermon Hyles out-catholiced the catholics by teaching that if you have done something wrong you have to make up for it by doing something right.

I was appalled until I realized that, though I would never say things like that, I live that way. When I fail I live with a sense of guilt and a feeling that I've got to do something to atone for it, to make up for it.

Providentially, this hit home for me as I was preparing this week's sermon and came to these words in Hebrews 1:3:

After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

This is saying that Jesus has atoned for our sins by His death on the cross and has sat down. It is finished. The deed is done - atonement has been provided.

Trouble is, most of us don't believe that practically, I know I struggle with it.

As I was thinking it through my mind went back to the "It's not your fault" scene in Good Will Hunting. If you aren't familiar with the movie, Matt Damon plays Will Hunting, a mathematical and scientific genius who was severely abused as a kid and who is seeing a psychologist named Sean, played by Robin Williams. I'll spare you the details, but suffice it to say that there is a moving scene toward the end of the movie where Sean takes a manilla folder with all of Will's records in it and goes to Will and says "its not your fault, its not your fault, its not your fault." At first Will just says "oh, I know," and shrugs it off. Then, when sean presses the issue, he gets agitated and finally he breaks down crying when it sinks in that the abuse wasn't his fault.

For the Christian, things are a little different. We can never say "its not your fault" when it comes to the sin in our lives. However, the amazing thing is that we are forgiven of our sins as much as if we had never committed them. This is an even more startling realization than Will's that the abuse was not his fault.

So, here's an imaginary dialogue similar to the scene in "Good Will Hunting," only it's between a guy named Will Christian and Pastor Sean.

Dirty Laundry, Grace and Accountability

One of the new blogs I added to the League of Reformed Bloggers is called Secret Radio. It is blogalized version of a novel of the same title by Grace Jovian (a pen name of Jeri Massi). I'm not clear if it is an autobiography or a fictiionalized account of her experiences. She summarizes it this way. "SECRET RADIO is the ongoing story of a woman who attended a corrupt, fanatical church and school and is slowly coming out of it to understand the real message of the Gospel and the power of the Grace of God."

If you read her site and some of her links you will see that she has spent a good many years in the bowels of the an ultra-fundamentalist monstrosity headed by Jack Hyles, First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN and Hyles-Anderson College. If you rummage around her links and the links from her links you will see a pretty sordid story involving some big names in the fundamentalist movement.

A few weeks ago I came across the blog of the X-ATI guy which is a blog for people who used to be involved in Bill Gothard's Advanced Training Institute. His blog is a pretty sarcastic and humorous (biting humor) look at Gothard and ATI. If you want a more in-depth expose of Gothard you can find it in the book A Matter of Basic Principles.

Although I was never involved in the extremes fundamentalist circles that Jeri was involved in, I've been involved in fundamentalist circles and for years was a big time Gothardite. I've left both of them and so I certainly resonate with all of these things. One of the questions that always comes up when you read or hear this kind of stuff is whether or not Christians should air their dirty laundry in these ways.

The Foolishness of the Cross and Strategic Planning

Here's a few thoughts from D. A. Carson which are particularly appropos for a pastor like me, but which have wider application to all Christians:

Ever so subtly, we start to think that success more critically depends on thoughtful sociological analysis than on the gospel; Barna becomes more important than the Bible. We depend on plans, programs, vision statements - but somewhere along the way we have succumbed to the temptation to displace the foolishness of the cross with the wisdom of strategic planning.

Argumentation in a Post-Modern World

This post is more of a commercial than anything else. I have just subscribed to an e-newsletter from Tim Keller at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. The newsletter is called The Movement and it is geared toward church planters and church planting. However, I would recommend it highly to any Christian who is concerned about reaching postmoderns for Christ. I really think that Keller is the greatest thinker and practitioner of evangelism in America today, particularly in the area of reaching postmoderns. Part of my praise for him is because he is from my own denomination, so I'm biased and am definitely cheering for the home team. That being the case though I think anyone could benefit from reading Keller's thoughts. You can subscribe to the newsletter here.

In the most recent newsletter he discusses the place of argumentation in apologetics in regard to postmodernism.

There are Two Kinds of People in this World

One of my standard jokes is "there are two kinds of people in this world - those who think there are two kinds of people in this world and those who don't." Badda-bing, badda-boom, thank you very much, I'll be here all week.

I just started reading D. A. Carson's book The Cross and Chrisitian Ministry. When C. J. Mahaney handed over the leadership of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, MD to Josh Harris he gave Josh a copy of the book and said that, outside the bible, this book has been the most significant book on ministry he has read. That's pretty high praise, so I had to pick up a copy myself. I was off yesterday so I went to CovLife and got a copy after the service.

Carson deals with this "two kinds of people in the world," syndrome in the first chapter.

The ancient world deployed various polarities for describing humanity: Romans and barbarians, Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free. But Paul here sets forth the only polarity that is of ulitmate importance: he distinguishes between those who are perishing and those who are being saved. The dividing line between these two groups is the message of the cross: "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are bieng saved it is the power of God" (I Cor. 1:18).

That's a good word for Christians, especially in an election season. If Paul were alive today I wonder if he would say something along the lines of "in Christ there is neither republican, nor democrat, conservative nor liberal, etc., etc.." There are all kinds of applications for Paul's words in I Corinthians 1:18 but since we are in an election season with all of the smoke that is blowing from it, those words are a helpful reminder to how God views things. It occurs to me that, for whatever political party you favor, there are many (very many) who share your political views who are perishing, and there are many (very many) in the opposing party who are being saved. This doesn't mean the issues themselves aren't significant, only that they aren't ultimately significant.

We need to remember that ultimately, the great division of humanity is at the cross, not at the polls.

Belgic Confession of Faith on Sola Scriptura

In keeping with the theme of Sola Scriptura this week, here are some words from the Belgic Confession on this theme.

Article 2: The Means by Which We Know God

We know him by two means:

First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.

All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse.

Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.

Article 3: The Written Word of God

We confess that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of men, but that holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit, as Peter says.^1

Afterwards our God-- because of the special care he has for us and our salvation-- commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit this revealed Word to writing. He himself wrote with his own finger the two tables of the law.

Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures. ^1 2 Pet. 1:21

Article 4: The Canonical Books

We include in the Holy Scripture the two volumes of the Old and New Testaments. They are canonical books with which there can be no quarrel at all.

In the church of God the list is as follows: In the Old Testament, the five books of Moses-- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth; the two books of Samuel, and two of Kings; the two books of Chronicles, called Paralipomenon; the first book of Ezra; Nehemiah, Esther, Job; the Psalms of David; the three books of Solomon-- Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song; the four major prophets-- Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel; and then the other twelve minor prophets-- Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

In the New Testament, the four gospels-- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; the fourteen letters of Paul-- to the Romans; the two letters to the Corinthians; to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians; the two letters to the Thessalonians; the two letters to Timothy; to Titus, Philemon, and to the Hebrews; the seven letters of the other apostles-- one of James; two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and the Revelation of the apostle John.

Article 5: The Authority of Scripture

We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.

And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them-- not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.

For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen.

Article 6: The Difference Between Canonical and Apocryphal Books

We distinguish between these holy books and the apocryphal ones, which are the third and fourth books of Esdras; the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch; what was added to the Story of Esther; the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace; the Story of Susannah; the Story of Bell and the Dragon; the Prayer of Manasseh; and the two books of Maccabees.

The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books. But they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion. Much less can they detract from the authority of the other holy books.

Article 7: The Sufficiency of Scripture

We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. For since the entire manner of service which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one-- even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says--^2 ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us. For since it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God,^3 this plainly demonstrates that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects.

Therefore we must not consider human writings-- no matter how holy their authors may have been-- equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.

For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.

Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, "Test the spirits to see if they are of God,"^4 and also, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house."^5 ^2 Gal. 1:8 ^3 Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19 ^4 1 John 4:1 ^5 2 John 10

Westminster Standards on Sola Scriptura

Since I have "Sola Scriptura" on the brain these days and am trying to drum up entries for our first ever Carnival of the Reformation on the subject of Sola Scriptura I thought I would post a few of the classic reformed statements on Sola Scriptura for your perusal and edication. Here are some statements from the Westminster Standards:

Shorter Catechism Questions 1-3
Question 1: What is the chief end of man?
Answer 1: Man's chief end is to glorify God,[1] and to enjoy Him for ever.[2]

1. I Cor. 10:31
2. Psa. 73:25-26

Q2: What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him?
A2: The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,[1] is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him.[2]

1. Eph. 2:20; II Tim. 3:16
2. I John 1:3

Q3: What do the Scriptures principally teach?
A3: The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.[1]

1. II Tim. 1:13

Does "Sola Scriptura" have a place in the Postmodern World?

In an effort to drum up support for the upcoming Carnival of the Reformation, I thought I would throw out a few teasers to get folks thinking and to hopefully spur some folks on to do some creative writing and posting that could be entered in the Carnival.

The first carnival will be devoted to the theme of "Sola Scriptura." I am wondering if I could challenge somoene, or several someone's to write a response to the question "Does the doctrine of 'Sola Scriptura' have a place in the Postmodern World?"

The Truth About Christianity

One of my favorite preachers/teachers is Steve Brown. I had the privilege of having a few classes under him when I was in seminary, as he was one of our homiletics (preaching) professors. There are lots of reasons to like him - he's got the greatest preaching voice this side of Scotland (I think Scottish preachers have the best voices), he's funny, he's irreverent, and he comes real close to stepping over the line in almost everything he says. Well, actually, alot of times he does step over the line.

He's got a new book out called A Scandalous Freedom, where he is harping on one of his favorite hobby horses - our freedom in Christ. I want to reference a couple of quotes from that book, but before I do that, let me tell a couple of his stories, as these have come back to mind as I have been typing.

Steve says that if you ever want to know who is a Christian go to an airport. When you get to the airport find the most worried, tired, fatigued, frazzled and burdened looking person in the airport, walk up to them and say "I bet you love Jesus, don't you brother." And if they are all of the above, plus mean, angry and arrogant, say "and you must be a Presbyterian, too."

Post Tenebras Lux - The Carnival of the Reformation

This post is to announce that the first Carnival of the Reformation will be held November 1, 2004 here at Jollyblogger.

The Carnival is taking its name from the latin phrase "Post Tenebras Lux" - "after darkness, light." This phrase came to symbolize the reformation and it adorns the reformation wall in Geneva, which is a kind of Mt. Rushmore for the reformation. It is a wall that features sculptures of Farel, Calvin, Bèze, and Knox (hey, where's Martin Luther? Can I get an outcry from our Lutheran friends!).

This is the first of what I hope will be several carnivals. I don't want to do a weekly carnival, but hope to do one every six to eight weeks. My goal is to have the second carnival sometime around Christmas.

This carnival will be unlike some of the other blogging carnivals in that each one will have a particular theme. This first carnival will be on the theme "Sola Scriptura." Here are the guidelines for the carnival.

1. Submit a post that is either a defense, explanation, or application of the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Each post should be in accordance with statements on Scripture in the major reformed confessions. I'll post some of the confessional statements next week in case you don't have access to them.

2. All entries must be received by Thursday, October 28 at 6:00pm. E-mail all entries to:

reformationcarnival@spamex.com

3. Provide the following info:

Name of Your Blog
URL of Your Blog
Title of Post
URL of Post
Brief Description of Post

4. This particular carnival will post on Monday, November 1. I was going to post it on Sunday, October 31, which is Reformation Day, but my experience is that Sunday is the slowest day in the blogosphere, hence I'll go for the following Monday.

For veteran carnival participants I want to point out a couple of areas of difference between this and the other carnivals. For this one, since it is theme based, any post at any time on your blog would be welcome. Don't worry about having to submit a post composed within the week before the carnival. Also, you will see that I have a three day lag between the date the posts are due and the date I post the carnival. This is basically because I don't know what kind of time commitments I will be having and want to give myself plenty of time to get it together and get it posted.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with carnivals in the blogosphere, I would suggest you check out the Christian Carnival and the Carnival of the Vanities for examples of how these things run. The best place to check out the Christian Carnival is at Patriot Paradox, run by Nick Queen. Nick has a schedule on the right side of his blog listing upcoming Christian Carnival dates. You can check out any of those. I don't keep up with the Carnival of the Vanities quite as well, but a google search will turn them up.

Basically though, everyone is welcome to submit a post per the guidelines. This is a good way to become more well known in the blogworld and possibly pick up some new readers.

I'm looking forward to this carnival. When I floated the idea a few weeks ago I got a good enough response to proceed, so I hope that all of you who showed interest will follow up and submit an entry. I do believe that our reformed tradition has much to offer in this postmodern moment and hope that many will participate.

If all goes well, as I said, I would like to host a second carnival around Christmas time with the theme of "Solus Christus." I realize that, in the standard expressions of the five sola's I'm getting out of order, but what better way to reform our commercialized Christmas season than with some reflections on the one for whom this season is named and which has become a sterling example of taking the Lord's name in vain.

Holy men and Pragmatism

In one of Michael Scott Horton's books, I can't remember which one, he talks about the difference in perception between protestant clergy and "holy men" of other faiths. He gives an anecdote from a conversation he had with someone who observed that when he sees a Hindu or Buddhist clergyman he often sees a "holy man." When he sees a protestant clergyman he often sees a businessman, a CEO. This distinction refers to two different approaches to one's faith. The "holy man," values his faith for what it is. The CEO values his faith for what it can produce.

I thought of that yesterday, when I attended a class I am taking called Perspectives on Islam. We had a guest lecturer from a big mosque in Washington DC come to the class and tell about his journey to Islam and the history of Islam. This is now the third time I have been in a seminary type class where a Muslim cleric was invited to address the class. When I was in seminary we also had a Jewish rabbi address the class one day. In each case I have been tremendously impressed by these men as "holy men" of their respective traditions.

A question about Christian fiction

Steve at Imago Dei posts this

Some interesting thoughts on writing fiction from a Christian worldview are available at the WORLD Magazine blog:

As you read the stories posted each day on our WORLDview Fiction Contest blog, consider what it means to write from a Christian worldview. Rev. Paul McCain commented on an earlier post:

A Christian worldview, in my view, can only be one that has an articulated Gospel content. "Gospel" doesn't mean "moral value" or "nice sentiment" or even a touching tale of love and choices made, but it is the precise proclamation of the suffering and crucified Christ for the sins of the world.

Do you agree?

Here's how I replied to Steve in his comment's section.

The Life God Rewards???

In a comment on my post Still Trying to Get the Gospel, Misty from Tin Can asked me to follow up on the subject of good deeds, sanctification and rewards in heaven. First of all, let me say that I am honored that she would care what I think on the matter. I do have a few thoughts on the matter and hopefully they will be coherent enough to be of some help to someone.

First of all, there is a sense in which we could split up Misty's question into three separate parts - what place do good deeds have in relation to the gospel, how does sanctification relate to the gospel and how do our eternal rewards relate to the gospel. Each is deserving of it's own discussion, but I think what Misty was getting at is the relationship between good deeds and our rewards in heaven. Do our good deeds, post salvation, earn us rewards in heaven?

Joel recommended Bruce Wilkinson's book A Life God Rewards, for an answer to that question. I haven't read the book so I won't be able to interact with it. I'll be left to my own thoughts and the modicum of study I have done on the subject.

Calling All Reformed Bloggers

As most of you who read me on a regular basis know, I'm a Presbyterian pastor who is a pretty dyed in the wool advocate of Reformed theology. Adrian Warnock and I have teamed together to start a Reformed Blog Aggregator that is called Post Tenebrus Lux. I'm going to moderate this and in the next few days I plan to put up a kind of vision statement and guidelines for it and will be inviting reformed bloggers from everywhere to join me in this.

However, for now I wanted to float an idea by those of you who would consider yourselves to be Reformed. I am thinking of hosting a "Carnival of the Reformation," which would be devoted to advocacy of the distinctives of Reformed theology. My initial thought is to host the first one on October 31 of this year, as this is Reformation Day. I don't have the time and energy to do this every week and the topic is so narrow that I don't think it would be wise to do a weekly carnival. Plus, I really, really like the Christian Carnival and don't want to compete with it. I still hope that most of those who are interested in such things will make a regular practice of entering the Christian Carnival, as well as some of the others.

So, I am thinking that we might do this "Carnival of the Reformation" once every month or two depending on interest. We would keep the format like the other carnivals, i.e. you would be asked to enter a post you have written since the last carnival. This would open the door for you to enter posts that have been composed over the prior month or two.

I am also considering having each carnival be devoted to a single theme. If there is interest in doing this I would want the first carnival to be devoted to the theme of Sola Scriptura. Future carnivals would be devoted to the other "Sola's" of the Reformation, and then, once those were completed we could move on to carnivals on the themes of the five points of Calvinism, and other things like "what is a reformed worldview," reformed spirituality, reformed sins, a reformed view of politics, evangelism, education, and other topics of interest. So, whereas the Christian Carnival and the other carnivals are open to entries on anything, this would require entries on a single topic.

Entries could be expositions of scripture related to a topic, a theological essay on the topic, a story illustrating the topic, or a testimony of how God has used a particular doctrine in someone's life. Someone might want to write an essay on "The Relevance of Sola Scriptura in a Postmodern World," or "How can we proclaim the doctrine of sola fides in a pluralistic society," or "What does God's sovereignty have to do with my daughter's ballet recital?" I'm being a bit silly on that last one but I am saying that to say that I'm not interested only in theological treatises. I would love to see some of our bloggers use their creativity to address topics that aren't addressed in the standard systematic theologies and show how a reformed worldview affects all areas of life.

So, this comes as a question to those of you who are Reformed out there. Do any of you have an interest in such a carnival? If so, please leave a comment. I'll probably send out an e-mail to some folks in the next couple of weeks because I know there are reformed bloggers out there who aren't in the blogdom of God and I would like to give many folks the opportunity to participate. I'll judge by the response whether or not to proceed. So for now, if you are interested, please let me know by leaving a comment on this post. Thanks.

Good Advice for Young Men

This post, from the Boars Head Tavern, by Jack Heald is so good that an excerpt won't do it justice. Consider this practical wisdom for teenage guys.

QotD Last year, a friend & I actually put together a list I called "advice for my teenage son", (who happened to be 16). It covered the gamut - Life, God, Women, Fighting, Working, Dying, Friendship, Money, Politics, Education, Culture, Leadership. It may be a book one day, a la Chicken Soup or Jabez.

In spite of that, here are some of my favorites:

On Life
There is a God. You are not Him.
One day you will die.
Tattoos are like suicide - a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Don’t be the idiot that drives the speed limit in the fast lane.

On Manhood
No one can make you be self-disciplined.
As a man, you will always have to do things you don’t want to do. Suck it up.

On Women
A physical confrontation with a woman is a lose/lose proposition.
Men want sex, women want intimacy.
At least 4 days a month, your wife will be insane.

On Fighting
Never lose control, except on purpose
Some fights you lose only if you don’t fight.
Never hate your enemies; it clouds your judgment

On Family
Your parents used to be cool before you came along

On Work
The Peter Principle: just because he’s in charge doesn’t mean that he’s competent.
If you’re not failing, you’re not trying to succeed.
Make your life your work, not your work your life. No one ever died wishing they spent more time at the office.

On Money
Money is never an indicator of success.
Money is a good servant, but a brutal master.

On Education
“Learn from the mistakes of others – you don’t have time enough to make them all yourself.” – G.K. Chesterton
Your education does not start until school ends
The educational experts aren’t
Read widely and read above your head

On Culture
People claiming to be non-conformists have just adopted some other conformity
The crowd is usually running towards the cliff

Still Trying to Get the Gospel

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.

There were many things that stood in the way of that obedience. My own lazy flesh was a big hindrance, and living in a world full of temptation and trial didn't help. So, I began to withdraw from the world in order that the world might not stain me. I avoided "worldly entertainments" like movies and even went to a point of getting rid of the TV in the house. I read only Christian books and hung out only with Christian people. Of course I had to interact with some of those evil non-Christians at work on a daily basis but I dutifully made sure that I kept them at arms length and of coure never went to their parties where they would all be drinking the demon rum. My wife and I made plans to homeschool our kids and read all of the books on how to protect your kids from society by basically withdrawing from any and all contact with the "world."

Bill and Ted's Excellent Lunch, Part 2

Part 1

The hour had arrived for his second lunch with Pastor Ted, the first one that was planned, and Bill came prepared this time. This time last week he had come over to Ling’s Buffet for a quick bite between classes at college and ran into Pastor Ted. He liked Pastor Ted well enough. He had been attending his church since coming to college. The service was pretty boring, but it was what he was used to, having grown up in a church of the same denomination back home. And, Pastor Ted was a pretty good preacher, so he could handle doing his time one hour a week at the church. He knew he was supposed to go to church, even though he found a more vibrant community of Christians at the college’s Inter Varsity Fellowship meetings.

Last week, Pastor Ted had shaken him up a bit. After embarrassing him by calling out his name across a crowded restaurant, Ted invited him to eat with him and offered to pay for his lunch. No self-respecting college student could turn down a free meal, which is why he was back this week, since Ted had offered to pay again. Over teriyaki chicken, moo-goo-gai-pan and some kind of broccoli something or other Bill confided to Pastor Ted that he was struggling to retain his fire for Christ. Looking back, Bill doesn’t know exactly what he was expecting – maybe he was expecting something pastoral like, read your bible and pray more. What he got was twenty questions mixed with mockery and sarcasm from a pastor with a very un-pastorly attitude. Pastor Ted basically told Bill that his version of the Christian faith was all wrong, that it was somehow disconnected from his life. Bill protested that Christ was a part of his life, but Ted wasn’t impressed with the fact that he had consistent quiet times, prayed and tried to honor God in all that he did. Pastor Ted had suggested that his school life, job and hobbies were disconnected from his faith. Bill said (to himself) duh! Of course this stuff was disconnected from his Christian life, what does school and work have to do with Christianity, aside from witnessing and trying to be like Christ?

What will last for eternity?

I don't know if you are like me but I have always heard that there are only two things that will last for eternity - human souls and the Word of God. I think I first heard this at a Bill Gothard seminar about 20 years ago but I've heard it in many other places. Come to think of it, I'm quite sure I've said it a time or two myself.

Now I wonder if that is true.

That line that only souls and the Word of God will last for eternity is usually used in service to a pietistic agenda (I'm not using "pietistic" in a perjorative sense in this case). The agenda is to get people more busy about witnessing and studying the Word of God. Both are good and necessary things. This exhortation is also often used to get people to quit spending so much time in "secular" activities and hobbies and get involved in the work of the church. We pastors are constantly on a drive to get more volunteers to fortify all of the programs we come up with and so we often use the aforementioned rhetoric about souls, the Word of God and eternity to guilt people into being more involved. I should qualify that - many pastors aren't consciously trying to use guilt manipulation, they sincerely believe that only souls and the Word of God lasts for eternity and simply are sharing their passion.

The Three Umpires

You may have heard this illustration before but I thought I would share it since it fits in with this week's sermon. Think of the difference between pre-modernism, modernism, and post-modernism as three umpires and the ways they call balls and strikes.

The Pre-Modern Umpire - "I call's 'em as they are." This reflects a belief in objective standards and an objective reality. A ball is a ball and a strike is a strike.

The Modern Umpire - "I call's 'em as a sees 'em." This reflects a scientific worldview where reality is defined by what can be proven or verified by empirical observation.

The Post-Modern Umpire - "They ain't nuthin till I call's 'em." This reflects a subjective worldview where we create our own definition of reality.

Contact with Extra-Terrestrials? Bad news and GOOD NEWS for the folks at SETI

This week has been a weeks of ups and downs for the folks at SETI@home (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence at home). On Thursday of this past weekend, CNN reported the following:

An unexplained radio signal from deep space could -- just might be -- contact from an alien civilization, New Scientist magazine reported on Thursday.

The signal, coming from a point between the Pisces and Aries constellations, has been picked up three times by a telescope in Puerto Rico.

This provided some hope to the SETI folks, but now it looks like there hopes have crashed. Today, Wired News is reporting that the mystery signal is not from aliens:

BBC News Online is reporting that a radio signal from deep space is not from aliens, according to astronomers. The scientists quelled rumors that spread across the web after New Scientist magazine reported that a signal picked up by a telescope in Puerto Rico might be from an alien civilization.

But the Seti@home project's chief scientist, Dr. Dan Wertheimer, told BBC that, "It's all hype and noise…. We have nothing that is unusual."

The BBC News Online story also cited Dr. Paul Horowitz of Harvard University. "It's not much of anything at all. We're not investigating it further," Horowitz said, according to the story. He reportedly said what the telescope picked up was "not new and definitely not a signal."

And, being a preacher and all, this got me thinking about my sermon this Sunday. You know what they say - to a hammer everything looks like a nail and to a preacher everything looks like a sermon illustration. Here are some words I am using this Sunday that are on point from Robert Reymond's New Systematic Theology:

Hundreds of the world’s space scientists are spending vast sums from their nation’s treasuries trying to make meaningful contact with imagined rational beings living in deep space. It is an extremely questionable undertaking for many reasons, but the insatiable thirst for a word to us from another world drives them on in a pursuit that has to date yielded nothing.

The Christian church believes that it already possesses such a word from “outer space,” or, more accurately, a word from beyond space, even from the Triune God of heaven himself.

Can Singleness Be a Sin?

Whew, talk about a hornets nest - Al Mohler has stirred one up - thatsfershur!

At this year's New Attitude Conference (sponsored by Josh Harris), he did a message addressed to singles called "The Mystery of Marriage." In that message he says that singleness can be a sin.

Needless to say, this didn't play well in Peoria. I was first tipped off to this by Russ at TolleBlogge (btw - isn't that one of the best blog names in existence).

Just to get you up to speed I would suggest reading about the whole thing in this order.

Begin with Mohler's explanation of what he said at the conference here . His basic argument is that celibacy is a gift, but marriage is the norm. Therefore, those who don't have the gift of celibacy ought to be pursuing marriage. Where things got dicey is when he argued that young people are waiting too long to marry, prolonging the gap between the age of sexual maturity and the age at which they marry. Mohler says that, for those who have not been given the gift of celibacy, marriage should be seen as a means of maturing as a Christian. Further, though singleness is not sin, there can be sin involved in some of the deliberate attempts young people make to avoid marriage.

The Neutralization of the Church

I've always had this latent fear that a day could come when the church here in America could endure the persecution that is endured by churches in other parts of the world. However, today I'm reading from an older book by Os Guiness called The Gravedigger File, and he posits another way the enemies of Christ might attack the church.

The Gravedigger File is kind of like The Screwtape Letters. It is a series of letters written by an enemy of the church. In Screwtape, the focus is undermining the faith of the individual. In this one, the focus is on undermining the faith of the corporate body. The book was originally published in 1983 so there is no doubt that it is dated. Os Guiness is writing this to a church that has capitulated to modernism, today we deal with a church that has capitulated to postmodernism. Still, the vestiges of modernism remain. Further, understanding how the church became captive to modernism is helpful in understanding the postmodern reaction to it.

Now, on to the point. The Deputy Director of the Central Security Council is writing to his new Los Angeles Bureau Chief and says:

Here in a stroke is the beauty of subversion through worldliness and its infinite superiority to persecution. Persecution is the world's drastic action to deal with the foreign body in its midst; judgment is the Adversary's drastic action to deal with the foreignness in the midst of his body. If the Adversary is to judge his own people, who are we to complain?

Previously, the Deputy Director had been talking about the beauty of getting God Himself to do the work of the enemy for them. What he meant was that God has a propensity to judge His own people when they give in to worldliness. This pleases the enemy immensely.

The goal of the security council in the book is to neutralize the church. The church can be neutralized by persecution from without or by compromise from within. In the case of persecution, the enemies of the faith neutralize the church, in the case of compromise, the church neutralizes itself, then falls victim to God's judgment.

I just thought this was instructive in today's "culture war" climate. We can all recognize the attacks upon the church and Christendom that come from every side. The question is - are these merely the attacks of the enemy, or are they evidences of the judgment of God. Granted, when God judges, He often does so by letting an enemy come and spoil the people of God - see Deuteronomy 28:15-68. So, the attack may look the same whether it is the persecution of an enemy or the judgment of God. Discerning the source of the attack is the tricky part.

IMHO, here in America we really can't speak of persecution, at least not in the way that brothers and sisters in other countries have been persecuted. True, we may be headed that direction, but we haven't suffered the way that others have. Still, the tide of public opinion has been turning slowly against us in recent years. It may be that Christians still enjoy the favor of many in our society, but we enjoy the favor of far fewer than we used to. Certainly, Christians do not enjoy the favor of the cultural gatekeepers of our society.

But is that because of a hostile takeover, or have we compromised with modernity to the point that God has sent the alien among us to conquer us. If the latter, then our response is repentance, first and foremost.

Idolatry as a Paradigm for Christian Counseling

Well, I've been piddling and dilly dallying around for the last few days and have gotten behind in this little tag team effort that Adrian Warnock and I are doing on Christian counseling. Since my last post he has done three more posts which you can find here, here and here.

In those posts there is really nothing I would disagree with so I'm going to jump off on a subject that is near and dear to my heart and that is the subject of idolatry. I suggest that the concept of idolatry can go a long way to explaining many of the "psychological" symptoms we deal with.

An idol is anything in our lives that takes the place of God. By its very nature an idol is something we worship. An idol is a funcional god in our life. So, though we may name the name of Christ and worship each week with other believers, we may also have functional gods that are very different from the one true God of the Bible.

On Christian Counseling - II - Can Depression Ever Be a Good Thing

Here in my second post in this little tag team series I am doing with Adrian Warnock, I want to throw out a scenario, offer some opinions and get some input.

A couple of nights ago, my family and I watched one of our two favorite shows - Monk. Here is a description of Monk, from the show's website.

OBSESSIVE. COMPULSIVE. DETECTIVE.

Adrian Monk (Tony Shalhoub) was once a rising star with the San Francisco Police Department, legendary for using unconventional means to solve the department's most baffling cases. But after the tragic (and still unsolved) murder of his wife, the devastated Monk became obsessive-compulsive. His psychological disorder has caused him to develop an abnormal fear of virtually everything: germs, heights, crowds... even milk. His condition eventually cost him his job, and continues to pose unique challenges in his daily life.

Monk is a detective afraid of the dark, a gumshoe afraid of gum. He has no problem cracking a case - as long as it doesn't involve heights or germs, and is in close proximity to his apartment. He'd like nothing more than to gain back his position on the San Francisco police force, but can he pull himself together and get back to solving crimes full time?

Pastors as the Supporting Cast

Here's a few more thoughts spurred on by Nancy Pearcey's book, Total Truth, wherein she references Bob Briner as follows:

In his book, Roaring Lambs, Bob Briner describes his student days at a Christian college, where the unspoken assumption was that the only way to really serve God was in full-time Christian work. Already knowing that he wanted a a career in sports management, Briner writes, "I felt I was a sort of second class campus citizen. My classmates who were preparing for the pulpit ministry or missionary service were the ones who were treated as they would be doing the real work of the church. The rest of us were the supporting cast."

In my last post I talked about what this reveals about the fact/value, sacred/secular split in our culture and how it has damaged the Christian cause. Today I want to talk about what this says about the pastoral ministry.

As a pastor I am often conflicted about my role and place in society. In fact, just yesterday, I found a post called Outside Looking In at a blog called "The Wilderness" which is written by a fellow pastor. He said that he often feels like an outsider, that the pastorate is the ultimate "outsider" profession. I can relate to what he has said in many ways, although my conflicts about my role as a pastor usually show up in different ways than his.

Collateral Damage from the Sacred/Secular Split

Today I am continuing to read in Nancy Pearcey's book, Total Truth. On page 36, she speaks about Bob Briner and gives a quote from him that got me to thinking:

In his book Roaring Lambs, Bob Briner describes his student days at a Christian college, where the unspoken assumption was that the only way to really serve God was in full-time Christian work. Already knowing that he wanted a a career in sports management, Briner writes, "I felt I was a sort of second class campus citizen. My classmates who were preparing for the pulpit ministry or missionary service were the ones who were treated as they would be doing the real work of the church. The rest of us were the supporting cast."
The underlying message was that people in ordinary professions might contribute their prayers and financial support, but that was about it.

Several thoughts come to mind with this quote - I mainly want to talk about the role of pastors as "supporting cast" in the Christian life, but there are a couple of other things worth touching on. I'll talk about pastors in another post.

Making Sense of What's Gone Wrong

I've just started reading John Eldredge's new book Waking the Dead. Actually, I should say that its his old "new" book, since he has a new "new" book which should be on the shelves by now. I've only just started it so I can't give a full evaluation, although I will say that one of the folks at Christianity Today reviewed this along with Wild at Heart, and said that in this one he had avoided some of the missteps he made in Wild at Heart. So, we'll see how it goes.

I know I have disagreed with him here before, but in this one he does ask some good questions to start off with. It will be interesting to see how he answers them, but the questions he asks are valid and we ought to be asking them of ourselves.

As Eldredge is wont to do, the book begins with all kinds of movie illustrations, initially saying that life is alot like the experience of John Spillane, a para rescue diver in the movie "The Perfect Storm," who jumps into the water to save a drowning fisherman. He says that life is alot like Spillane's predicament, that 90% of the time we are being tossed by the waves of life and we don't know what is hitting us and where we are.

The Purpose Driven Sex Life, Part 1

(Note - I accidentally hit the post button before this was really ready, so if you read this between 10:30 and 11:10pm on 8/17/04, it looks a little different than it does now).

Sorry, I couldn't resist the title. After my last post about Bobos in Paradise, wherein I realized that my ticket to fame and fortune was to right a book called "The Purpose Driven Sex Life," I figured I would go ahead and start my quest for said fame and fortune with a blog post on the subject. If having the words "purpose driven" and "sex" in a post title don't get me some hits, then hits just can't be had.

Of course, I realize that I am stepping into dangerous waters here, talking about sex and all. I remember Roger Staubach telling of how he got in trouble with his wife one time. An interviewer had asked him something about his sex life and he said that he enjoyed sex (shocking! on national TV no less). His wife was embarassed. I guess the revelation that all of America now knew what she had been doing and with whom was more than she could take. So, I will have to be careful lest I give off the impression that, like Roger Dodger, I too enjoy sex. Of course I will have to be just as careful to not give off the impression that I don't enjoy sex. Maybe I should just stop typing now.

Well, those of you who have read my blog before know that once I start typing, I find it hard to stop and this post will be no exception. I should say that this is going to be part tongue in cheek, but partly serious. It's also going to be fairly one dimensional in that I recognize that there are several purposes to sex, and I'm really only going to focus on one purpose. I suppose I should also issue the disclaimer that I'll be a little more blunt in a few cases than I would from the pulpit. However, what I call blunt will be considered pretty tame or prudish by most people. Well, enough the disclaimers and qualifiers, let's talk about sex.

This will be part 1 of at least two posts on the subject.

John Eldredge - An Example of Reductionism

I have a confession that is going to seriously wound my reputation as a curmudgeon to pop-Christianity. I have a certain liking for John Eldredge, you know, the man who is Wild at Heart, and says you should be too. I say that this will damage my reputation as a curmudgeon because the "Wild at Heart" movement is typical of movements that I have been critical of in the past.

The fact is that I agree with most of the negative reviews of his work, yet there is something about his ministry, and even "Wild at Heart" that I like. One of his intro comments was that the Christian male of today seems to think that the epitome of being a Christian man is to become a kind of Mr. Rogers type character - the meek and mild guy who wouldn't hurt a fly. Eldredge says that the William Wallace type of Braveheart, or the Maximus character in Gladiator is a better role model.

Come on guys, wouldn't you rather be Maximus than Mr. Rogers. In criticizing the meek and mild man he is in line with things that have been said by Leon Podles in his book The Church Impotent, and in this article in Touchstone, as well as some of the things I have said here and here.

Truthfully, a good deal of Eldredge's popularity is due to the fact that he has struck a responsive chord in the lives of many men. As I read the book, over and over again I found myself saying "yeah, that's me!" His thesis that every man needs a battle to fight, an adventure to live and a beauty to rescue is very inspiring to say the least.

But the problem is that he has taken these three points, which have some validity if properly nuanced and carefully qualified, and constructed a whole world and life view around them. Furthermore, he has made these three points the controlling paradigm for the way in which he views God and interprets Scripture.

Church Leadership and Church Growth

Here's another of my old blogger posts that I'm recycling while I'm on vacation.

As you can see I had been reading a novel by Francine Rivers that dealt with a young, hot-headed pastor who had bought into the "church growth" movement hook, line and sinker. I think it is fair to say that Francine Rivers created a caricature with this character of the pastor. I have never been a big fan of the "church growth movement," per se, but I've met a lot of folks who are and most of them are not nearly as crass as the guy in this book. Most of the church growth guys are sincerely passionate about Jesus and about lost souls. I think their passion often eclipses sound doctrine, but for most of them, I wouldn't call their character into question.

For example I have taken shots at Rick Warren in this blog and I have seen others take shots at him. I think some think that Rick is trying to take over the world, and see something insidious in the aggressive way he markets all the purpose driven stuff. I am not into the purpose driven stuff, but I do believe that Rick has a sincere passion to win as many people to Christ as he can. So, for us critics of pdl, I think we should interact with him on the basis of errors in methodology, not flaws in character. I would say the same thing for Bill Hybels. I could argue for hours against his methods and theology, but I wouldn't dream of calling his character into question.

Interestingly, as I say all this I noted that in this entry I actually quote from John Maxwell, a man whom I would put in roughly the same category as Warren and Hybels. Still, he has some good insight which is helpful here.

Having said all of that, in this blog entry, which I originally posted on January 2, 2004, I was particularly concerned with strategy. I don't think strategy is an evil word, nor is it an a-theological word. Paul had a strategy in his evangelistic ministry and it is ok for us to strategize in ministry. In this entry a young deacon who has fallen under the pastor's spell and who is very numbers driven has a conversation with an old deacon about how to do ministry.

A Football Player, The American Dream and the Gospel

While I am on vacation I am recycling some old posts in the hopes that I won't lose too many readers while I'm gone. So, I'm doing several posts and posting ahead.

I had a blog on blogger before I went to Typepad and I thought I would recycle some of those. This particular post was my second post on the old blogger blog. It was composed on December 29, 2003. I had been reading Rick Reilly's book, The Life of Reilly, and as you can tell from what follows, he had a column that really got me a little hot under the collar.

Looking back at it now I see that I hadn't yet read G. K. Chesterton's advice to Christian bloggers and I broke several of his rules. This is a definite rant and it lacks much in the way of good humor. Still, I am inclined to stand by the overall point I made.

Is this land our land?

In my last post in this series I am doing about the religious right and politics I concluded with a comment to the effect that the religious right operates under the assumption that America has been stolen from Christians in this country. The religious right operates under the assumption that America was founded as a Christian nation and that it has been taken away from us by those who are hostile to the faith.

There are several questions that can be addressed under this heading.

1. Was America indeed founded as a Christian nation?

2. Is the whole idea of a "Christian nation" biblically legitimate?

3. If America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, does it still owe any duty to God?

4. If it was founded as a Christian nation, what authority does that history carry today?

5. If it was founded as a Christian nation, is there any biblical precedent for how we as Christians can respond when the nation has turned it's back on Christ?

I won't go into detail on each of these things, but here are a few thoughts to chew on.

The Religious Right - Playing the End Game as an Opening

In my last post I speculated a bit about the influence that theonomy played in the ministires of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Although James Dobson, with them, is one of the big three of the public face of Christianity in America I concentrated on them because they seem to have been most influenced by theonomy. Or, maybe I should say that theonomy gained its strongest foothold in America through them. Robertson and Falwell read Rushdoony, I have never heard that Dobson did. But, his ideas are much like theirs.

For this post I want to compare the religious right's actions in the 80's and 90's to a chess game. In Chess, there are three phases of the game - opening, mid-game and end-game. The success of the latter two depend to a large degree on the success of the phase immediately preceding it.

There are "gambit players" in Chess - those who make risky and tricky moves which are designed to gain a quick advantage. Inexperienced "gambiteers" will often learn an opening gambit called the "fool's mate" which is designed to produce a checkmate in a few quick moves. I think they call it a fool's mate because 1) only a fool would try this, and 2) only a fool could get mated by this. In reality, a "fool's mate" is a bold attempt to play an end game as an opening in Chess.

Although the fool's mate is, well, foolish, there are experienced gambiteers who know what they are doing and can, in effect play what amounts to an end-game, very early in the game. But most Chess aficionados recommend the slow, steady, approach. If you play the end-game too early, you end up making yourself very vulnerable to your opponents.

In some ways I think that Robertson and Falwell did this. Say what you want to about the theonomists, but you can't fault them in the area of logic - they had, and continue to have a very broad, all encompassing and well thought out strategy, much like a Chess game. But, as I mentioned in my last post, when Falwell and Robertson took advice from the theonomists, they read their end game and played it as an opening. They bought the “political activism” of the theonomists without learning how they developed toward the end game from their opening and mid-games.

I think it goes without saying that I am not arguing in favor of the theonomic vision. What I am saying is that Falwell and Robertson lifted a slice of their vision out and used it in a way that was destined to fail.

How Evangelicals Went from Uninvolved to Super-Involved

If you have been following my posts the last few days you will notice that I have been writing about the "religious right." I basically had some time to myself this past weekend and sat down and processed a bunch of thoughts about the religious right and that is all coming out in these posts.

As you can tell, this is mostly a negative critique of the religious right. You may be wondering if I, as an evangelical, have anything good to say about them. I've tried to get across (maybe I have failed badly) my respect for leaders of the religious right as people and as brothers and sisters in Christ, while taking issues with their positions and methods, not their character. You may also wonder why it is that I am critiquing the religious right at this time when what I should be doing is critiquing the godless, atheistic left. At this crucial juncture in the culture war, it looks like I'm aiming bullets at my own team, not the enemy.

I began this series with a post on the Evangelical War Footing, where I argued that this kind of "war talk" is not particularly helpful in this whole thing. I don't think there is any biblical warrant to calling those outside the church "the enemy."

On the other hand, there is biblical justification for critiquing and correcting errors in the church, by members of the church.

I think that criticism is very necessary. I justify it on the basis of the New Testament. All New Testament letters were addressed to churches for basically critical, or correctional purposes. Issues arose that needed to be addressed by the apostles, so they addressed them.

In I Corinthians 5:12-13, Paul said:

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.” b
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (1 Co 5:12). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

As brothers and sisters in Christ it is far more necessary that we correct one another than that we correct those outside the church. Paul was writing to the church in Corinth, a bastion of immorality, yet he was far more concerned with immorality in the church than in the city.

So, I offer these things as brotherly critiques, and stand willing to receive brotherly (and sisterly) critiques based on Scripture.

The thing I want to examine today is how evangelicals in America went from almost complete withdrawal and isolation in the culture, to front and center in many debates.

The Christian Interface with the World

I'm doing this series of posts about Christian cultural involvement and the religious right in particular, and they were spurred on by this comment from Chad on a prior post:

I am not a christian (or am a severely lapsed one, however you wish to view that) and I must say that the Religious Right is the pre-emminant reason for this. I do believe in a God, but I can no longer believe in the god of FotF, and in America, at least, the Religious-Right-Arm of the GOP seems to be the modern view of that religion.

In further comments on a subsequent post, Chad mentions some things that would indicate that the religious right is dominating the political landscape and Jeremy counters that this is not the case. Without choosing sides in that debate I think it is fair to say that there is a difference in perception here and that raises an important issue.

If the old adage is true that "possession is 9/10 of the law," then it is similarly true that "perception is 9/10 of reality." (That last sentence is a revision based on a helpful comment that David Opderbeck gave). Perception is everything and though I may disagree with a good many of Chad's conclusions I think it is useful to try to understand how he has come to these conclusions. To understand this we need to understand how Christians interface with the world.

G. K. Chesterton Speaks to Postmodernists

Here are some words from G. K. Chesterton that I wanted to throw onto the table of discussion regarding postmodernism:

An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be held in another. Some dogma, we are told, was credible in the twelfth century, but is not credible in the twentieth. You might as well say that a certain philosophy can be believed on Mondays, but cannot be believed on Tuesdays. You might as well say of a view of the cosmos that it was suitable to half-past three, but not suitable to half-past four. What a man can believe depends upon his philosophy, not upon the clock or the century. If a man believes in unalterable natural law, he cannot believe in any miracle in any age. If a man believes in a will behind law, he can believe in any miracle in any age. Suppose, for the sake of argument, we are concerned with a case of thaumaturgic healing. A materialist of the twelfth century could not believe it any more than a materialist of the twentieth century. But a Christian Scientist of the twentieth century can believe it as much as a Christian of the twelfth century. It is simply a matter of a man's theory of things. Therefore in dealing with any historical answer, the point is not whether it was given in our time, but whether it was given in answer to our question. And the more I thought about when and how Christianity had come into the world, the more I felt that it had actually come to answer this question.

I think Chesterton is distinguishing between those who judge the times by a standard of truth versus those who judge a standard of truth by the times.

Chesterton is correct, a theory is correct because it is correct, not because it was uttered at a certain time of day or at a certain period in history.

Granted, this doesn't settle the arguments about postmodernism but it should put to rest at least one plank of the argument (of course I am assuming that Chesterton is right in this paragraph, someone else might assume he is wrong). That is the plank that argues against an idea on the basis of the date of its historical orgin.

What Chesterton's quote doesn't answer is "what is our question?" I assume he will go on to address this as I read further, but the question is "what is the question?" I think the better postmodernists aren't necessarily their opponents of being wrong so much as they are accusing them of continuing to respond to questions no one is asking. There is some validity to that. When I was in seminary I was taught the differene between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. I can't say anyone has ever called me up and said "Hey pastor David, my kid's on drugs and my wife just left me, so please tell me what's the difference between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism?" On the other hand, maybe we could build an argument that people should be answering these questions, or a host of others they aren't asking, instead of the one's they are asking.

I know this is going to sound very simplistic, but I think we need to ask if we are asking the right questions and neither philosophy nor experience can ultimately answer that question. This leaves us with a need for some kind of standard, or some kind of basis, or dare I say, some kind of foundation, to which we can turn to see if we are asking and answering the right questions.

The Evangelical War Footing

If you haven't read this post of mine, please do so before reading further.

A few days ago I did a post called "What are the Weapons of our Warfare," criticizing Focus on the Family's (FotF) e-mail they sent which gave out personal contact information of Michael Moore.

As I mentioned before, one of my friends says that I have become a kind of poster child for "evangelicals who are not in lock step agreement with James Dobson." I fear that this post may further that notion, but I want to re-emphasize my basic respect for Dobson the man, and I want to emphasize that I am critiquing an idea, not a person. I know that Dobson has many enemies out there - some say he has gone to war against America, and others have called him the most dangerous man in America. I don't buy any of that. I have no reason to call his character into question. But there is an idea that is rampant in American evangelicalism of which he is the primary spokesman, and so it will be hard to attack the idea without some thinking I am attacking the man.

So, I offer these preliminary words in hopes that if any friends of Dobson or FotF read them they will understand I am writing as a friend. If any enemies of Dobson or FotF read this I hope you will understand that I am not interested in any kind of character assassination here. And if anyone in the middle of this friends/enemies spectrum read this I hope what I have to you will be able to focus on the ideas discussed, not a particular personality.

On Being "Anti - . . . "

A few days ago I did my little post called "What are the Weapons of Our Warfare," and got linked by several sites, evangelical and "secular." One of my friends mentioned to me that I have become a kind of poster child for my point of view. I think what he was getting at is that I may be a poster child for "evangelicals who aren't in lock-step with James Dobson and Focus on the Family." My friend mentioned that he thinks I still basically support the ministry. It is true that I do have some level of support for the ministry, but not a whole lot.

But in saying that I hope I'm not a poster child for an "anti-. . . " movement although in thinking about my blog I can see where I have cultivated that impression. In our small corner of the blogosphere here I guess I have taken on the role of being the "anti-postmodern" guy and that is something I am working to change. If you have seen my last few posts on the subject I hope you notice a more irenic spirit. I'm still in great disagreement with most of what goes on in postmodern/emergent circles, but I am trying to dialogue more and not throw stones.

I do think this is something I need to do and we all need to do in Christendom - to dialogue with our opponents. But at the same time I hope that we can still recognize that there is a place for polemics and speaking plainly about matters where we disagree. I think we can have substantive disagreements on many matters and still remain friends. David Opderbeck made a comment on my blog awhile back that he has become a kind of gadfly on my blog. If you look through his comments on my blog you will find that he almost always disagrees with me, although you can find a few places where he agrees. Sometimes I wonder if he doesn't think I'm a total idiot, but I know from interaction and from an off-blog e-mail or two that he doesn't think I'm an idiot. And, I like having him around - I am glad when he shows up with a comment, he usually challenges me to deeper thinking and I consider him a friend, even though we have never met and often disagree.

I offer this post as a kind of preface to some posts I hope to do this week. This little exchange over the past week has caused me to dredge up some old thoughts and feelings regarding the religious right which are mostly negative. Yet, I won't be offering them with any sense of animosity or moral superiority. It's just that I think the religious right, and yes that includes Dobson, have gotten off track and are hurting their own cause more than helping it. So, if you see some "anti- . . . " sounding things over the next few days I hope I can come across as the "friendly opposition," who is not so much arguing against an individual or a ministry as I am arguing for Biblical fidelity in all areas. My goal is to be irenic, not combative.

Interacting with Postmodernism

I want to try out a theory on you today regarding the assertion of many postmodernists that worldview thinking is often/usually/always reflective of a power grab. It will take me a few paragraphs to set this up and I'm going to try not to make this a "three foot long post" as one of my friends says I often do. But I want to do it and see if I can get a reaction/response/criticism from anyone. This is an initial and undeveloped thought so any feedback would be appreciated.

To start with let me quote Brian McLaren as one who at least implies that "worldview thinking" is rife with power grabs. Here is a paragraph from his now famouse "Open Letter to Chuck Colson."

But try to understand this parallel reality: In the late 20th century, postmodern thinkers looked back at regimes like Stalin’s and Hitler’s. (One must never forget how postmodern thought developed in the aftermath of the Holocaust, as deeply ethical European intellectuals like Michael Polanyi reflected on the atrocities their peers had perpetuated or acquiesced to.) Postmodern thinkers realized that these megalomaniacs used grand systems of belief to justify their atrocities. Those systems of belief – which the postmodern thinkers called “metanarratives,” but which also could have been called “world views” or “ideologies” – were so powerful they could transform good European intellectuals into killers or accomplices. They thought back over European history and realized (as C. S. Lewis did) that those who have passionate commitment to a system of belief will be most willing, not only to die for it, but to kill for it.

As a sidenote, I think Brian has missed the point of worldview thinking from a Christian perspective. Hitler and Stalin operated from worldview thinking but so did C. S. Lewis who critiqued English history and so did those Christians who have given the world such things as hospitals, schools, good government and a host of other benefits. So, I would argue that Brian paints with too broad a brush here. But that's not my point.

I do believe that worldview thinking is inescapable and that even though postmoderns claim not to think in worldview terms they still do so and they make their own subtle power grabs. Here's an example.

What are the weapons of our warfare?

Julie Neidlinger has a post from a week or so ago that begins this way:

It appears groups like "Focus on the Family" and other similar religious groups from the right are making an effort to prohibit Moore's latest film from being played in theaters. FotF has also given out his home address to their supporters, no doubt meaning he will face a deluge of angry mail that is anything but Christian. Lovely.

Julie is pretty non-plussed by this whole thing and I'm with her on this. At first I was a little concerned that she may have received some bad information, but I've confirmed that this is true - it went out in an e-mail. You can follow up on it here , here and here.)

Julie rightly worries about the deluge of angry hate mail Michael Moore may get from Christians in this matter, and another blogger whose name I forget worries that some lunatic who calls himself a Christian may do property damage or bodily harm to Michael Moore. Any of these things would hurt the cause of Christ terribly in our day.

I have no problem with Focus or any other group speaking their mind on a particular political matter. However, there are several problems here.

A Few More Thoughts on Postmodernism

In view of my previous post on postmodernism where I uncharacteristically had some nice things to say about postmodernism I thought I would share a few more thoughts on how I have learned about postmodernism.

The first time I heard about postmodernism was when I was in seminary in 1994 (hmmm . . . that's the year Harold Camping said Jesus was to come back but He didn't - wonder if there's a connection?). Richard Pratt talked about it in our Intro to Theology class at RTS-Orlando. Also, some time during that year or the year after I read Gene Edward Veith's book - Postmodern Times.

The first thing I heard about postmodernism was that it was a reaction to the irrationalism of modernistic rationalism. Think of it as a kind of Hegelian antithesis to modernism. The irrationalities of modern rationalism were exemplified by things like this: with the development of nuclear power we gained a wonderful new resource for good to provide power for our societies and we also acquired the ability to annihilate mankind. The industrial age gave us tremendous advances that enabled us to produce more and produce it faster than ever, but it also gave us things like pollution and broken families and other such things. The railroad enabled us to civilize and populate the west but it was built on the back of chinese laborers (think of that movie "Shanghai somethingorother" with Jackie Chan, Owen Wilson and Lucy Liu). The movie Jurassic Park was a picture of the failure of modernism - great scientific advances led to chaos and destruction. The modern era gave us the greatest "progress" in the history of mankind, yet, particularly toward the end of the modern era it gave us the 20th century - the bloodiest century in all of history.

Don't have a heart attack but I'm going to say something nice about Postmodernism?

Yes, you read the title correctly, Jollyblogger, the cyber-gadfly to all things postmodern is going to say something nice about postmodernism. Well, at least about some things I heard about postmodernism yesterday.

As I mentioned here, I'm attending the Jonathan Edwards Institute conference this week in Annapolis. Today I got to hear and meet John Armstrong of Reformation and Revival Ministries. As I mentioned in my last post he has been on a journey lately that has left me a little unsure of where he is headed. But, after today, I am very much more at ease about him (doesn't that sound arrogant? As if it matters to anyone in the world what I think of John Armstrong - forgive me Lord and forgive me John and forgive me whoever is reading this). I will say this, whether or not I end up totally on board with him theologically or not, I have to say that he gives off an air of Christ-likeness, joy and genuineness that I find refreshing. He's just a really, really all around great guy (I'm probably making him sound like Dudley Do-Right).

Aside from the whole postmodernism thing, he said something that convicted me. He talked about a negative comment he had made in a book about another author and he said that he tried to say it kindly, without swinging a cudgel. He said that he would have swung cudgels back when he was 30 or maybe 40, but he tries not to now. I have to confess that I still swing alot of cudgels and I offer my sincere apologies to anyone who feels that they have been hit.

This doesn't mean that we can never disagree, but it does mean that we can disagree in such a way as to not bruise and batter people.

100% for Jesus

Is it possible to give 100% for Jesus. I first was confronted with the question through an article called "Green Beret's for Jesus," by Monte Wilson. I haven't been able to find the article on the internet and Monte seems to have dropped out of the cyber-world also. Monte recounted his days as a follower of Arthur Blessit. You may remember Arthur - he is the guy who used to carry a cross around the country preaching the gospel. He had a great ministry especially amongst college students and other young adults. One of his great calling cards was his call to students to give 100% for Jesus. I have heard this in many places - calls to give it all for Jesus, calls to give 100% for Jesus. I think of the famous saying that "the world has yet to see what God can do with one man who is totally committed to Him." I have heard this attributed to D. L. Moody. In the article I read, Monte described such people as "Green Beret's for Jesus." "Green Berets" or "One Hundred Percenters" are those who are a cut above the rest of us Christians, or at least they think they are.

In the past I have thought of myself as a "Green Beret" for Jesus or a "One Hundred Percenter." Now, I'm not so sure I can classify myself that way, and I'm not sure the concept is very helpful. Certainly, we always want to encourage people to live lives of commitment and holiness. But I doubt whether anyone ever gives 100% for Jesus or attains the rank of "Green Beret" in God's army.

Chalmers and Chomsky

Jack of Clubs has an interesting post on Noam Chomsky. I don't know alot about Chomsky except that Jack of Clubs gives him a good dressing down as a darling of the left. Russ at Jack of Clubs has a good argument regarding how to defeat the bad philosophy of someone like Chomsky.

There are two ways of defeating bad philosophies. One is to attack them directly and refute them point by point. The other is to promote better and more attractive ideas of your own. We can call these the Military and Marketing metaphors, respectively (if you will pardon the alliteration). I make no secret that I incline to the Marketing approach, but both approaches have their virtues and each may be necessary in any given situation. There are certainly times when a knock-down, drag-out fight is called for, in intellectual arenas as well as physical ones. But one advantage of the Marketing metaphor is that it steals the initiative from the opponent and makes him react to you or risk becoming irrelevant. Though he has not been definitively defeated yet, I think Chomsky and all his ilk are on the verge precisely such an irrelevance in the face of the enormous success of the American vision.

This reminded me of Thomas Chalmers famous sermon on "The Expulsive Power of a New Affection."

There are two ways in which a practical moralist may attempt to displace from the human heart its love of the world; either by a demonstration of the world's vanity, so as that the heart shall be prevailed upon simply to withdraw its regards from an object that is not worthy of it; or, by setting forth another object, even God, as more worthy of its attachment; so as that the heart shall be prevailed upon, not to resign an old affection which shall have nothing to succeed it, but to exchange an old affection for a new one. My purpose is to show, that from the constitution of our nature, the former method is altogether incompetent and ineffectual and that the latter method will alone suffice for the rescue and recovery of the heart from the wrong affection that domineers over it. After having accomplished this purpose, I shall attempt a few practical observations.

This idea of defeating bad ideas with better ideas comports well with Chalmers' vision. Also, if you read the whole Jack of Clubs article you will see how Russ makes the connection between Chomsky's hatred of God and "hatred of truth, liberty and all manner of other aspects of God's kingdom.".

Hat Tip: Simon at "Showcase."

A forgotten factor in divorce and pre-nups

Josh Claybourn has an interesting debate going on in the comments section of his blog about a post he did on pre-nuptial agreements. There is some debate between those I would consider "idealistic Christians" who don't see any validity to any kind of a pre-nup, and "realistic Christians and non-Christians" who say they are allowable given current societal conditions.

I left a comment there that I thought I would expand on in this post regarding a forgotten factor in all of this. What about the I Corinthians 6 injunction not to take disputes before worldly judges. In addition to the sin that is involved when divorce happens, it is compounded by settling matters in the civic courts. Christians are prohibited from going to law with other Christians. I do think that if someone hauls a Christian into court that the Christian is allowed to defend themselves and there may be some other cases where it is allowable. But, the bottom line is we aren't to let unbelievers judge in our disputes.

The same thing would apply in the case of a pre-nup. Isn't a pre-nup a pre-emptive dispute resolution mechanism? If so, then why would we engage the judges of the world?

I know this won't sit well in our rights-driven society but I Corinthians 6:7 still applies - its better to be wronged and cheated than to go to law against a brother (or spouse) in Christ.

Relationships #6 - Is it possible to control our emotions and/or anger

As I mentioned in this blog last week I am preaching through a series on relationships. Here is an excerpt from this Sunday's sermon dealing with control of our emotions. I often find that people claim that they can't control their emotions, particularly anger. Something happens and they lose control and blow up and they claim they can't control themselves. I contend they can and that they do it all the time. I do it all the time, you do it all the time, we all do it all the time.

However, I will admit that some have been letting their emotions/anger run free for so long that it has become a habit to do so, and now it is very difficult for them to reign it in. Also, I understand that their are legitimate medical conditions that make it nearly impossible for some to control their emotions. But, by and large, I contend that most of us can control the vast majority of our emotions, if we only will.

Here are a couple of stories from this Sunday's upcoming sermon to illustrate the point. And again, as I always mention when I am using something from a sermon I ask the reader to remember that what I have written here I have written to be heard, not read, so it will have that spoken flavor to it, rather than a literary flavor (which is not to say that anything I write has a real "literary" flavor to it, but you get the idea).

Al Mohler vs. Bill Easum on Preaching

In his June 25, 2004 Crosswalk blog, Al Mohler talks about "The Urgency of Preaching." In this he compares the attitudes of Richard Baxter and Harry Emerson Fosdick toward preaching. Speaking of Baxter, he says:

Reflecting poetically on the urgency and centrality of preaching, the Puritan pastor Richard Baxter once remarked, "I preach as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men." With vivid expression and a sense of gospel gravity, Baxter understood that preaching is literally a life or death affair. Eternity hangs in the balance as the preacher proclaims the Word.

And speaking of Fosdick he says:

Contrast that statement to the words of Harry Emerson Fosdick, perhaps the most famous (or infamous) preacher of this century's early decades. Fosdick, pastor of the Riverside Church in New York City, provides an instructive contrast to the venerable Baxter. "Preaching," he explained, "is personal counseling on a group basis."

And summing up the contrast, Mohler says:

These two statements about preaching reveal the contours of the contemporary debate. For Baxter, the promise of heaven and the horrors of hell frame the preacher's consuming burden. For Fosdick, the preacher is a kindly counselor offering helpful advice and encouragement.

Now, I am the last person in the world who ever wants to disagree with Al Mohler. But, I want to suggest that things are even worse for preaching than he lets on here. We've gone beyond Fosdickianism, and the debate isn't only about what kind of preaching we should have, but whether or not we should have preaching in the church at all. Consider the following words from Bill Easum.

Recovering the Antithesis

The idea of "antithesis" has been prominent in Christianity since the beginning. You can think of it in terms of the difference between light and darkness, or in terms of Augustine's two cities, the city of God and the city of man. It's the idea that, at its heart, the church is the antithesis of the world. To be in "antithesis" is to be "anti" or against, the "thesis." Whatever the dominating worldview is, the church is against it. You can also see this in Athanasius at the time of the Arian controversy. During this time, it seemed that everyone from the Emperor Constantine to the leaders of the church were against Athanasius. He was told that the world was against him, the world was "contra-Athanasius." If that was the case, he replied, then Athanasius is against the world, "Athanasius contra mundum." Abraham Kuyper described the antithesis this way:

There are two kinds of people. a difference of principle, which does not find its origin within the circle of our human consciousness, but outside of it. regeneration, being begotten anew, enlightening, changes man in his very being. Abraham Kuyper: Principles of Sacred Theology (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1980, p. 152)

I can't remember where I heard this but someone said that we are "against the world, for the world." The spirit of this statement is that the only way that Christians, and the church, can truly love the world is to be against whatever in the world is opposed to God. To live in "antithesis" doesn't mean that we withdraw from the world, in fact a proper understanding of the "antithesis" would show that we are to be deeply involved in all aspects of the world. We are not against the world, per se, we are against all that opposes Christ and His kingdom. So, we go into the world, offering resistance to the world, for the good of the world.

I've been thinking of this as I have been reading Quo Vadis lately. In this book, a picture is painted of a distinctively Christian community in the midst of a pagan empire. This is a community that lives by its own rules, the rules of the Bible. It is a community that ultimately submits to only one sovereign - Christ. It is a community that, in many ways, can ignore the world around it. Its not that the Christian community ignores the needs of the world around it, in fact the Christian community is better at meeting the needs of the world than the world. Its not that the Christian community is defiant to its governors, in fact, for Christ's sake it submits to human authority. But the Christian community can ignore the world around it in that it doesn't need the world system to prop it up, or to authenticate it.

Comments on "The Nation: State of the Union, The Marriage Issue"

Terry Mattingly and Doug LeBlanc have given us all a wonderful gift in starting their blog, Get Religion. They are two of the primo Christian journalists in America today and are constantly on top of happenings in our world that relate to Christianity. This past week, Doug LeBlanc did a post called "First Comes Love . . . oh to hell with it," a review of a forum convened by "The Nation" on the subject "Can Marriage be Saved" for their July 5, issue.

Pass the Salt Please

Bob at Mr. Standfast is doing a little series on salt (here, here and here). I won't spoil your fun by trying to summarize it except to say that he is doing a terrific job of describing biblical allusions to salt as they would have been understood by first century folks. There's more to salt than you might think. Thanks for this series Bob.

Relationships #5 - Consequences of Conflict

I'm continuing my series on relationships, and I wanted to point out that Adrian Warnock has commented on this and he has some terrific stuff on his blog.

Check out his article "How to get ahead in life without trampling over everyone else," for some outstanding thoughts that amplify and illustrate some of the things I have been saying about self denial.

And, check out his post "Making Peace." Adrian is also a Ken Sande fan and he has taken some of Sande's stuff and made mnemonics to help you remember his points.

Now, on to today's post.

As I mentioned in my first post in this series, these posts on relationships are taken from a sermon series I am beginning at church this Sunday. The last two posts in the series were not taken directly from my sermon, they were just a few extra thoughts that were spurred on by various things. This post is taken directly from the sermon I am preaching Sunday and it deals with the consequences of conflict. Again, I want to mention that when writing a sermon I write it to be heard not read, so this will read differently than if I had written it to be read.

Relationships #4 - Recommended reading for improved relationships

My last post on the relationship of the gospel to relational conflict got me thinking of what books I would recommend to someone who is struggling in their relationships. So, here are a few recommendations off the top of my head. This list is not comprehensive by any means, but I have found these books helpful in understanding my relationships.

On Being Judgmental

Today seems to be my day to tick people off. And how ironic that the post that has ticked people off is one of the ones in my "relationship-conflict resolution" series. The offending words were these:

When I was at the Shepherd's Conference in March there was a Q & A session with John MacArthur and someone asked him a question dealing with some statistics on the use of pornography in the church. I think the guy was asking something to the effect of "what can we do about the fact that 25% (or 50%, or whatever the number is) of Christian men are addicted to internet pornography. The first thing MacArthur did was challenge the statistic - he said that is crazy, its like those marriage statistics which say that more Christians divorce than non-Christians. MacArthur said that anytime you look at those statistics they define a "Christian" so broadly that it is meaningless. His point was that most of these people who are addicted to pornography or are divorcing probably aren't Christians.

One person found these words to be "a tad self-righteous," but the most vociferous reaction came from my erstwhile friends at the Boar's Head Tavern:

Want to know why I have bailed on John Macarthur? It's right here in this post from Jollyblogger. Macarthur's theology of who is a Christian is just about at the point where he has the list in his pocket, and is busy crossing off names. Want to know why I could be a universalist without breaking a sweat? Because of guys like this, whose view of the mercy, kindness and forgiveness of God in Christ is totally swallowed up in their unbalanced insistence on holiness, repentance and obedience to prove you are really really really saved. The Good News? I ain't hearin' it. No Cake at all. None. This would drive me nuts.

The guys at the Boar's Head always have some lively debate going on over there and they seem to get along pretty well even when they disagree. So, I do hope they will still consider me a friend as I reply to this.

Relationships #3 - The Bottom Line in Relational Conflict

When I was at the Shepherd's Conference in March there was a Q & A session with John MacArthur and someone asked him a question dealing with some statistics on the use of pornography in the church. I think the guy was asking something to the effect of "what can we do about the fact that 25% (or 50%, or whatever the number is) of Christian men are addicted to internet pornography. The first thing MacArthur did was challenge the statistic - he said that is crazy, its like those marriage statistics which say that more Christians divorce than non-Christians. MacArthur said that anytime you look at those statistics they define a "Christian" so broadly that it is meaningless. His point was that most of these people who are addicted to pornography or are divorcing probably aren't Christians.

I'm still fairly amenable to quoting the statistics, but whenever I quote them I never say that these are Christians, I say that they are church members or attenders. This clarifies things. However, since the church is the public face of Christianity, these statistics make an impact on the world around us.

With that minor caveat, I think MacArthur is spot on. If I could summarize what I think he was saying it would be this:

The disconnect between the church's alleged high commitment to marriage and its high rate of divorce is not so much a failure to teach Biblical principles of marriage, it is a failure to teach the Biblical gospel.

And you could substitute just about any behavioral malady for "marriage" in that sentence and still be pretty correct.

We seem to think that marriage troubles, or any other relational troubles, are the result of things like poor communication, failure to understand the other person's point of view, failure to meet needs, or the all purpose catch-all reason - incompatibility. But this is not the case at all. Relational troubles are rooted in a failure to understand and believe the gospel. The gospel calls us to a life of submission to the lordship of Christ and a life of self-denial. The gospel is not merely a ticket to heaven, its the door to a whole new way of life. And, as Calvin said "self-denial is the sum total of the Christian life."

So, there is simply no way to have healthy relationships amongst people who aren't practicing self-denial. Teach someone who is a lover of himself, or self-obsessed in any way, how to communicate or meet needs and you will produce a very skilled manipulator. Bring that person to Christ and teach them the life of self-denial and you've got the makings of someone who can have healthy, Christ-like relationships.

Relationships #2 - The Progression of an Idol

Yesterday's post on the cause of conflict concluded with a discussion of idolatry as a cause of conflict. Ken Sande has some terrific material on the progression of an idol that I wanted to discuss in this post. I first heard Ken talk about this in D. Min class at RTS-Orlando a few years ago. I will be giving you the version I heard from Ken back then. At that time this material was in its infancy stage and he has since massaged it and published it on his website in an article called "Getting to the Heart of Conflict." This material is also in chapter 2 of his book Peacemaking for Families.

When John Piper wrote the first edition of Desiring God, he said he hoped that his book could be a tug boat which pulled the ship of Daniel Fuller's writings out into the river of evangelicasm (a desire I hope he has abandoned - Fuller's book on the Unity of the Bible didn't live up to its billing in my mind and his theology seems off to me). Similarly, here in my little corner of the blog world I would consider it a major success if some of the readers of my blog would start reading the Peacemaker website and Ken Sande's books.

Here's my notes from Ken on "The Progression of an Idol."

Relationships #1 - The Cause of Conflict

I'm starting a new preaching series this Sunday called "Relationships 101." It's a series I did at another church a few years ago under the title "Relationship Rescue." However, Dr. Phil has come out with a book by the same title and I don't want anyone to think I am trying to be a Dr. Phil clone. Besides, I'm just sure that one of Dr. Phil's people must have heard me preach on this and ripped the title off from me, right? I'm still waiting for that royalty check.

I'm updating the series as I go and I think I will serialize it here on the blog. Relational conflict is a big deal in the church and in society in general, and resolving conflict is something I am passionate about. Mind you, I wouldn't say I'm successful at it, but I am passionate about it and am working on it.

Pretty much everything I will say in this series is derived somehow from Ken Sande of Peacemaker Ministries. So, you can read my blog on these matters, or you can read Ken Sande's sight if you want to hear from someone who knows what he is talking about.

One of my hopes in this series is to ground our relationships in biblical and theological principles. I know that everyone who writes or speaks on the subject says they are doing so. But it seems to me that most folks are just using pure pragmatism or secular theories and baptizing them with a few Bible verses. It remains to be seen if I will succeed, but I hope to show that our relational troubles are grounded in faulty theology and ignorance of the Scripture, not mere pragmatic concerns.

In the post continuation I have pasted a snippet from my sermon on the cause of conflict, and it is taken from James 4:1-3. I would point out that this is a sermon, so it was written to be heard, not read. Therefore, it's going to read a little differently. Still, I hope some of what follows is helpful as you try to resolve your own conflicts.

Shepherd's Conference Recap: Al Mohler, R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur - Some Heroes for Today

I have always known that whatever is good and is of God in my life has come to me through the blessing of others. In my short life I have been privileged to know and be exposed to some terrific Christian role models whose influence still shapes me today. This past March I had the opportunity to spend a few days in the presence of three of these role models. I've been meaning to do this post since March, and am finally getting around to it. In March I went to the Shepherd's Conference at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA. The keynote speakers were John MacArthur, Al Mohler, and R. C. Sproul. But before I say what I want to say about them, let me tell you a little story about myself.

A few years ago I was installed as pastor at a church and my old boss, pastor, mentor and friend, Rod Whited, from Pinewood Presbyterian Church in Middleburg, FL, gave me a charge. I don't remember everything he said, but I do remember a story he told. He told the story of Bob Feller, a great baseball pitcher for the Cleveland Indians who enlisted in the Navy two days after Pearl Harbor. When Feller enlisted he was told that, due to his fame he could be given some job that would keep him out of harm's way. But he would have none of it - he wanted to go into battle. When asked why, Feller replied "Because this country needs heroes and it needs heroes now." Rod told the story and looked at me and said "this country needs heroes in the pulpit and it needs them now - make it your goal to be a hero in the pulpit."

It occured to me as I reflected on my time at the Shepherd's Conference that the three keynote speakers are modern American heroes in the church. It remains to be seen how history will remember them, but for now, in our time, I think we have every reason to judge them to be heroes in our day.

In saying this I'm not being starry-eyed and naive, nor am I merely trying to write a short piece of hagiography. In fact, I know that alot of people will write you off if you are too effusive in your praise of someone. So, in order to not be written off, let me say the following. I'm a Presbyterian so I wish Al Mohler could see it my way on the whole baptism and church government thing. I'm covenantal in my understanding of redemptive history so I wish John MacArthur would abandon his dispensationalism. I had R. C. Sproul as a professor for some classes in seminary and, though he was a strong advocate for the classical school of apologetics I found myself coming down on the presuppositionalist side of things. There, now that I have established my credibility as a someone who is not a mindless follower, let me move on. All of these differences are picayune compared to what these men have accomplished on behalf of the kingdom of God. Each of these men has impacted my life greatly from afar, so here are some personal reflections on why I think these men are modern day heroes.

Avoiding Extremes

A few days ago, Bob at Mr. Standfast commented on one of my posts in the charismatic/cessationist debate and suggested that I do a post "on identifying the particular risk of over-emphasis that might result from any particular doctrinal view." He was actually commenting not only on my post, but on some excellent comments from Diane Roberts on that post. Diane is a charismatic who had some insightful thoughts on some particular charismatics who went too far.

Bob's right - I like to think of Christian doctrine as a huge and beautiful tapestry with many different patterns and shades of color which all paint one great picture. Take one color and magnify it out of proportion to the others and the picture looks distorted.

A metaphor I have often used to help myself in this regard is the metaphor of theology as a web of truth. I'm not using the term "web" in the sense that many are using it today in distinguishing "web" thinking from "linear" thinking. What I am saying is that the Bible is full of different theological truths, which are all interconnected and which all influence one another. When you pull on one string of truth, there are other strings which get pulled, they all influence one another.

Keep reading for more thoughts on this.

Political Blogging

A few days ago, my post about Rush Limbaugh's divorce hit the hot button of a few folks. It wasn't a particularly favorable review of Rush, although I don't think it was mean-spirited in any way, but I wouldn't have been surprised to have gotten some flack for it. No flack was received - the commentors agreed with me pretty much. One commentor made reference to all of the political blogging that goes on especially among Christian bloggers and I thought I would jump off of that and share some thoughts. This commentor raised a valid concern about blurring the line between what we call "conservative" and what we call "Christian."

That's an issue that definitely needs to be addressed, and here are a few thoughts on that.

A Point for Adrian!

This just in from John Frame. The good folks at Christian Counterculture finally came out with a new edition of their e-zine today and Frame has an article in it called "Machen's Warrior Children," talking about the battles that are continually being fought in Reformed circles. Since Adrian Warnock and I are in the middle of a debate on the subject I figured I would put this on the table. Might as well get it out there, someone else is bound to notice it. Here's what Frame has to say about debates regarding the Charismatic gifts in Reformed circles:

Most Reformed believers hold that the New Testament gifts of tongues and prophecy ceased at the end of the apostolic age. The view that these gifts continue in the church has been thought to conflict with the Reformed view of sola scriptura, particularly the statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.1) about 'those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased'. Nevertheless, some have argued that although Scripture is our sufficient standard of faith and life, God continues occasionally to reveal himself in other ways. John Calvin says Paul applies the term prophet in Ephesians 4:11 'not to all those who were interpreters of God's will, but to those who excelled in a particular revelation. This class either does not exist today or is less commonly seen (emphasis mine). These prophets were 'instrumental in revealing mysteries and predicting future events', so 'now and again [the Lord] revives them as the need of the time demands'. Later in the same discussion he says that God even raised up apostles (probably Calvin refers to Luther) in Calvin's time for extraordinary purposes. Samuel Rutherford, a member of the Westminster Assembly, reports supernatural predictions of the future among the Reformers. Vern Poythress also cites reports of such extraordinary prophecies from John Flavel, various Scottish Covenanters, Peter Marshall, Cotton Mather and others. Poythress argues that even given the cessation of the apostolic gifts it is still possible to recognize extraordinary works of the Spirit today that are significantly analogous to the apostolic gifts.

Nevertheless, two OPC pastors have been disciplined for thinking it possible that the Spirit might do such things today, and many more in various Reformed denominations have been denied ordination on such grounds. A frequent argument is that the Reformed churches must 'bear witness against the modern charismatic movement'. It appears, however, that in taking this position the Reformed churches are also bearing witness against a part of their own history.

I gotta tell you I was quite surprised at the citations from Calvin - I'll have to check them out for myself. I know that in prior comments Diane Roberts has argued for the continuing gift of apostles based on the Greek grammar in Ephesians 4. I would have argued against them based on the fact that no one could meet the criteria of having seen Jesus after the first generation of apostles. Further, in my mind, prophets are instruments of divine revelation, so if divine revelation has ceased, then I think the prophetic office has ceased. I have no problem with a kind of gift of prophecy in the sense of forth-telling, but I have problems still with the idea of fore-telling.

I'm going to have to back and look at what Mr. Calvin has to say a little more in-depth on this one.

Anyway, I hate to argue against myself, but for all of you who are pulling for Adrian in our debate, I just thought you would like a little ammo to use against me. Good thing this is a friendly debate, and, as we have intimated before, I don't think either one of us are trying to "win" the debate, we're as much trying to learn as we are to state our own cases.

Can we know anything?

In several prior posts ("Slippery Theology," "Can we Know the Truth," and "More on Certainty"), several of us have been conversing on the nature of knowledge and truth and one of the buzz phrases we have been debating is the phrase "epistemological uncertainty." "Epistemology" is the study of knowledge, how we come to know, so the phrase "epistemological uncertainty" refers to the idea that we can never be absolutely certain of our knowledge. I have taken the position, against postmodernism, that this notion undermines the very foundations of our faith. Several commentors have written in favor of this idea, to varying degrees. If I may summarize what these folks are saying, they argue (rightly, I believe) that all knowledge and all truth is filtered through our subjective minds. This I agree with. What I disagree with is the idea that we can't be certain of anything - I think the postmodernists give too much weight to the subjective elements. As I have thought about this over the last few days I remembered Van Til's famous circles and thought I would offer them as a means of furthering the discussion. Here are Van Til's circles:
Keep reading for my take on how these circles can help further the discussion.

Cessationism and Charismaticism, Part ??

OK, let me see if I can summarize where Adrian Warnock and I are at in this debate. In his most recent post, he says that he would advocate the seeking after an experience of the supernatural God.

To quote the Doctor again "We must not be content until we have had some manifestation of the activity of God. We must concentrate on this. This is my plea, that we concentrate on this, because it is the great message of the Bible....... Let us put it like this: Do we really believe that God can still act? That is the question; that is the ultimate challenge. Or have we, for theological or some other reasons, excluded the very possibility?"

Also I have confused him a bit with the following quote:

"We need to ask ourselves, first, what does it mean to say that 'God speaks today'? Keeping in mind the traditional meaning that 'God speaks today through the Bible,' the phrase has come to be used in two other senses. For some, the words 'God speaks today' are simply a popular, if misleading, way of describing the fact that God guides and directs His people by His Spirit in the application of His written word through promptings, impressions, insights, and the like. Most non-Pentecostals and noncharismatics have explained these (more or less) intuitive experiences in terms of the Spirit's works of illumination, leading, and conviction. A few would even acknowledge that, among those who fit a given psycho-spiritual profile, these experiences might be accompanied by things seen or heard. All of these experiences are, however, carefully distinguished from the Spirit's work of revelation.6 Hence, though the Spirit's illumination and guidance may sometimes focus on phenomena such as promptings or impressions, those phenomena are not specifically interpreted as involving the biblical ministry-gifts of revelation, such as prophecy and tongues or their correlates (e.g., visions, dreams, auditions)."

The confusion is in the fact that I, and cessationists in general want to have our cake and eat it too. Per Adrian:

Either God doesnt speak today at all, or he can speak through impressions which are equivalent to the New Testament gifts. What exactly is this third way that is being suggested? I velieve that what is happening here is that people are nervous of identifying fallible modern impressions with those that we are assuming are infallible in Scripture.

Also, one of the contentions of cessationists is that the apostles exercised certain gifts which were revelatory in function. This could imply that only apostles exercised them. However, Adrian answers:

But I dont believe that New Testament gifts were always authoritive, nor do I believe that they were only excercised by the apostles. 1 Corinthians is proof enough of both ascertions!

He then points out that the apostles were not infallible at all times, only when writing Scripture. I would assume he means that in those times when they were not writing Scripture, and were therefore not acting in an infallible manner, that they were still exercising their gifts. Ergo, I would assume he means that even the apostles used their gifts in a non-revelatory fashion.

Finally, he says:

I would argue that the apostles, prophets and others mentioned in Ephesians 4 are all ongoing fallable gifts given to the church throughout all ages UNTIL we are all perfect and mature. Since we havent got there yet, they must continue. Actually I am not convinced even that Ephesians 2 is talking about something that happened in the past to all the church- what is true of The Church as a whole is usually true of local expressions of it in my view.

So, let me see if I can address those things in order

The Joys of G. K. Chesterton

I just received the first issue in my new subscription to Gilbert , a magazine about G. K. Chesterton, with the byline - "Outlining Sanity." I can tell this will become my new favorite subscription. First of all, here's a few internet places of interest where you can learn about Chesterton.

Blogs:

Eric Scheske: Notes Quotes and Aphorisms - Eric is the editor emeritus of Gilbert Magazine.

G. K. Chesterton's Blog - basically just a bunch of quotes from Chesterton, the writer is trying to imagine what it would be like if Chesterton had a blog.

Websites:

Martin Ward's G. K. Chesterton site - a place to download works by Chesterton.

Top Meadows G. K. Chesterton gallery - a place to download graphics of G. K.

G. K. Chesterton, The Colossal Genius - a very comprehensive site.

The American Chesterton Society - the name speaks for itself.

As to why the sudden fascination with Chesterton, keep reading.

More on Certainty

David Opderbeck at Through a Glass Darkly has responded to my post Can we Know the Truth with a post of his own defending Brian McLaren and defending some aspects of the postmodern movement.

In my prior post I said that McLaren defines truth merely as that which corresponds to reality, using his Open Letter to Chuck Colson as an example of that. David says I grossly oversimplified McLaren's position on that, and I probably did, but I'm only ever so slightly repentant for that because I'm not totally convinced I'm all that far off the mark. David moves on to give some thoughtful comments about postmodernism and an explanation and defense of "epistemological uncertainty."

As I formulated my reply to him with a comment on his blog, the more I thought about it, the more I came to believe that the whole notion of "epistemological uncertainty" undermines the Christian faith. BTW - I'm not accusing him of anything, if you have read anything else on his blog you will see that he is a very thoughtful Christian. But I'm afraid that some of the advocates of "epistemological uncertainty" don't realize how much of the faith they are giving up.

Keep reading for an edited version of my comments on his blog.

Do the Reformed believe in Free Will?

I've enjoyed a few forays recently into the blog of Karl Thienes at St. Stephen's Musings. Karl is Orthodox and I'm Reformed so I am sure that there are quite a few things we don't see eye to eye on, but his blog is very well done. Unlike my ponderously long posts, he does a lot of short and to the point posts. Also, though I am not Orthodox, I gather that they, and Karl in particular have a much greater appreciation for church history than most of us evangelicals and so you can find some great references to matters of church history on his blog. Ever wanted to know about the "filioque" or "monotheletism?" Probably not, but if you ever do, he's got stuff on it.

He's tweaked the nose of us Reformed types a time or two (I think in a very genial manner) and one of his posts had a question as to how the Reformed view of free will relates to monotheletism.

For a definition of monotheletism and my thoughts on the Reformed view of free will keep reading.

What's a pastor to do?

Over the last few years I have come to the conclusion that people really, really want strong leadership until they get it. There truly is a dearth of leadership in the church today and the sheep are right to cry out for strong leadership.

However, the sheep often define a strong leader as "someone who strongly agrees with me." I thought of this when I read Adrian Warnock's post: Please Pray for the Preachers. Here's a few excerpts.

I recently heard Greg Haslam of Westminster chapel say that as Christians we are left here on earth to cause trouble, to destabilise things.

I suppose that is especially true of preachers. According to Greg the task of the preacher is to tell both the church and the world what neither of them want to hear!

And:

A preacher’s job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, and knowing that you may unsettle your congregation, you are very aware of your need of God to help you in doing so in the right way.

He hits the nail on the head with those thoughts. The pastor's job is to spur the flock on to spiritual growth. An individual and a congregation can't grow if all they hear is what they already believe and agree with. Within the bounds of orthodoxy a pastor has to preach things that will "prick the ears" of the congregation and will cause them to be wrestle with matters and be uncomfortable.

Thomas Chalmers said that a pastor should always be preaching just over the head of his congregation He can't preach so high above the heads that they can't grasp what he is saying, but he has to preach far enough over the heads of the congregation to make them stretch.

Furthermore, sin is the thing that prevents our spiritual growth. So, the pastor has a responsibility to confront the sin that is present in his congregation at the time. As a practical example, consider what would happen if I were to preach on Romans 1 with my congregation. That has become a standard text that evangelicals wield against homosexual practice and its a standard text that Chistians wield to show the depravity of the unregenerate.

In my church there are very few who are unregenerate, or at least very few who would acknowledge they are unregenerate. And, since we're a middle class, conservative evangelical church homosexuality is one of the sins least likely to be present in our congregation. There's probably one or two who struggle with it in silence, but for the most part, homosexuals aren't beating down the doors to get into conservatie evangelical churches.

As a pastor I can get lots of amens if I preach about the depravity of the unregenerate and against homosexuality from Romans 1, and I could probably get a lot of "good sermon pastor's" at the door. But those are not the things my congregation needs to hear about. We may not have many unregenerate or homosexuals in the congregation but I bet we've got lots of gossips and kids who are disobedient to parents. So, if I am to do my job as pastor I need to address those things chiefly.

As Adrian says, pastors are disruptive. This is because Jesus was disruptive. Jesus overhauls lives, He ruins careers, He breaks up families - He is not a tame lion. If pastors are to do their job, their will be a disruptive element to their ministry. So, pray for your pastors that they will have the courage to do what God calls them to do, and don't assume that your life won't get disrupted.

Update on the Debate

For those of you who are new to this, sometime ago Adrian Warnock and I decided to engage in a debate about Cessationism and Charismaticism, which is basically a debate on whether or not certain of the more spectacular gifts are still in existence today.

I started this post and got into it, but basically ran out of time before I posted anything of substance. I wanted to start this with a recap of where we have been and the positions we are taking for anyone who hasn't been following the debate, but by the time I finished the recap I ran out of time. So, I'm going to offer you this recap for now and I'll do my best to post something of substance by the weekend.

Adrian has given the most recent post in the debate and its my turn to reply. There's a couple of reasons I haven't responded to yet. One is that real life has gotten in the way of my blogging a bit, but also I've been sidetracked once I got back to blogging. I've been blogging lately about some other issues that kind of stick in my craw, like postmodernism and things like that which I consider to be real dangers to the church. The fact is that I'm just not angry at, or worried about Adrian and the Charismatics, so I've kind of gotten sidetracked on these things that really bother me. I'm worried about the fringe charismatics, but so is Adrian, and he's not on the fringe. Plus, in my prior posts I kind of shot my wad and felt like I said about all I could say. But, there are some questions and issues Adrian raised in his last post that I do need to respond to. So, apologies to my brother Adrian for not getting back sooner - sorry but I just haven't been aggravated enough toward you to post lately.

Here's the recap on where we've been.

Can we know the truth?

A commentor named Annie left a good comment on my post called "Slippery Theology." I responded in the comments, but thought it deserved a post of its own. I agreed with some of what she said, but disagreed with some of it. I want to be clear that I appreciated the comment and the spirit in which it was offered, and I hope Annie will comment some more, and I hope this doesn't come off as a rant, or as if I am using her as a whipping boy for my own position. You can find the thing I will quote from her in alot of other places, and I'll also be interacting with Brian McLaren on this. So, Annie, if you are out there, please take this as a loving, brotherly interaction, and a desire to address issues that are raised by and applicable to a larger audience.

Annie mentioned that one thing we can take away from the postmodern discussion is the fact that "when it comes to God, we don't understand everything." I couldn't agree more. In fact, as I think about it I wonder if that might not explain something of what the postmodernists are so allergic to. In my response to her in the comments I mentioned that many systematic theologies begin with a section on the incomprehensibility of God. This is something that we can all agree on. However, we all have the tendency, at the end of our studies to come off as if we have totalized God, as if we have Him all figured out.

Where I disagreed with Annie is in her use of the expression "epistemological uncertainty." If by that she and the postmodernists are simply trying to find a technical term to describe their understanding of the fallibility and finitude of human nature, then I'm all for it.

However, that term sounds alot like ancient philosophical skepticism, the idea that leads us to doubt everything and denies the ability to attain certainty of knowledge. Practically speaking it doesn't deny the existence of truth, it denies our ability to know truth.

I can't figure out the difference between the postmodern view of truth and the skeptical notion of truth. If you look at Brian McLaren's Open Letter to Chuck Colson, you can see that he demurs on Colson's idea of objective truth, offers seven different possibilities of what truth can mean and never really comes down on any definition of truth, except to say that truth corresponds to reality. That's vague enough to be completely meaningless.

Augustine dealt with skepticism and came out of it through the realization that "I doubt, therefore I am." He reasoned that for him to doubt he had to exist, so his existence was something he could accept with certainty. From there, if he admitted that there was one thing he could accept with certainty, then there could be other things.

Also, Jesus didn't leave His definition of truth so vague as to merely be that which corresponds to reality. For Jesus, truth has content, and it has an object - Himself. John 8:31-32 says:

31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Notice the train of thought - how do we know we are Jesus disciples? We know if we hold to His teaching? That's His word, His "logos." If we hold to His teaching we are His disciples and we can know the truth.

I'm not arguing against the postmodernist contention that our culture and our sinful natures and our presuppositions cloud our ability to discern truth. What I am saying is that you need to begin where Jesus begins, with the idea that truth can be known. Do a search in your Bible software on the the Bible Gateway on the phrase "sure of" in the New Testament. Or do a search on the word "know" and you will find that, particularly for Paul, there were lots of things he was sure of, or confident that he knew.

Pilate is the biblical example of "epistemological uncertainty," Paul is the Biblical example of "epistemological certainty." I think I'll stick with Paul.

Cathedral Thinking

Someone named Dee read my post, "A Transcending Vision", and sent me a link to an internet article called "Cathedral Thinking." The article is terrific. "Cathedral Thinking" is long term thinking, and by "long term" I don't mean a five or ten year plan, I mean a plan that spans generations. Here's a section from the article:

The 12th century began a wave of cathedral building throughout Europe. Magnificent large cathedrals were built for the glory of God and the prestige of the cities. These mammoth building projects, without the benefit of modern construction equipment, were a tremendous feat. Cathedral vaults reached heights of 80 to 160 feet. The spires and towers could be twice that height.

Not only did it require vast amounts of material resources; it was a task that would take many years to complete. The average cathedral took 80 years to complete and some took over 200 years of continuous labor. (The current St. Peter's Basilica in Rome required 150 years of work to complete by 1656. More so - the cathedral in Cologne, Germany, with its two great bell towers, each bursting more than 500 feet skyward, required 350 years of work spanning six centuries.)

It involved a generational effort. The generation that began the cathedral would not live to see it through to completion. The first generation passed on their building skills and in many instances their tools, to the next generation, which did the same to the third generation, so that there was an unbroken continuity in the construction. The first generation hired the architect, who not only designed the building, but also supervised its construction.

The vision of that first generation would only come into reality long after they were gone. They labored in faith, believing that the "seed" they were sowing would ultimately grow to maturity. They passed on the responsibility of the vision to the next generation. They built into their children a reverence for the task, and a sense of meaning and purpose. They imparted to their children a vision that would govern their lives.

This whole idea of "cathedral thinking" thinking is terrific. I'm trying to come up with an antonym for it, but nothing is coming to mind. I guess "revolutionary thinking" would be antonymous. Revolutionaries want big changes real fast. A revolution is considered a failure if the world isn't changed inside of a prescribed time frame. Such thinking permeates the church today. If we don't see results quickly, we figure our plans was a failure and move on to something else.

The Subtly Christian Worldview of J. K. Rowling and Harry Potter

OK, I admit that I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books. It's not because I'm necessarily against them or think they are demonic, they just haven't looked like something that is my cup o' tea. But, I have followed the debate somewhat in Christian circles. I've talked to Christians who read them and enjoyed them and I've been warned off of them by Christians who assured me they are of the devil and are part of a clever initiation into witchcraft.

So, imagine my surprise today when I came across something that suggests that J. K. Rowling is writing from an explicitly Christian worldview. I know that there is quite a bit of debate about that, but what I read was very interesting. I realize that there are those like Connie Neal whom I referenced in this post, who have found redemptive elements in Harry Potter. But this goes beyond that to say that the books have a fondational Christian worldview.

I was looking at the Intellectual Defenestration blog and noticed that the author is reading the book: The Hidden Key to Harry Potter: Understanding the Meaning, Genius, and Popularity of Joanne Rowling's Harry Potter Novels, by John Granger. It sounded interesting, so I cyber-scurried over to Amazon and found the following:

What you need to know about The Hidden Key to Harry Potter:
1) It is the first critical study to unlock the inner meaning of Harry Potter by treating the series seriously as literature along the lines of Charles Dickens and Jane Austen.

2) It is the first exposé to identify Joanne Rowling as a Christian who consciously writes Christian Fantasy in the tradition of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien.

3) It is the first full-fledged effort to predict Potter’s future course in detail – an audacious and thought-provoking adventure offered to fellow enthusiasts.

4) It is the first Muggle textbook suitable for use at Hogwarts – bringing humor, fun, and WOW! excitement to the "serious" business of Pottermania.

The line that got me was #2 - Joanne Roling is a Christian "who consciously writes Christian Fantasy in the tradition C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien."

I realize that there are Christians who will say there is absolutely no way a book about wizards and magic can have anything to do with Christianity and that there are some Inkling purists who will will choke on their pipes and spill their ale when someone has the audacity to compare J.K. with C. S., G. K., or J. R. R. - perish the thought.

But then I read a review on the Amazon page that really intrigued me. I'll post the review on the continuation of this page for you to judge for yourself, but here are a few thoughts that the reviewer brings out that I thought were interesting.

This reviewer says that the books are rife with Christian symbolism and imagery. He says "Granger argues that 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' is about the transforming power of Christ in the life of the Christian." One reason the Potter books are successful are that "they address the reader's spiritual needs on a fundamental, even subliminal level."

Why don't Christians see this?

It is not surprising that a great deal of this would have gone over the head of the average reader of the Harry Potter books. At the very least, one would need a working familiarity with Medieval Christian iconography to pick up on a lot of the symbolism Granger identifies.

Rowling is able to infuse her books with this because she is not a mere housewife turned lucky writer -

Rowling is in fact a highly-educated woman with Firsts (the English equivalent to Summa Cum Laude) in Classics and French from Exeter, one of England's leading universities - which of course bolsters his arguments about the serious, scholarly underpinnings of these books.

Since I haven't read the Potter books nor this book I'm afraid I'll have to quickly bow out of the argument if the Potter-philes and Potter-phobes get into it, because I'll be in way over my head.

However, the point I want to camp out on is this reviewer's contention that most folks can't see a Christian worldview because we aren't familiar with Medievel Christian iconography. I for one am in this category. For one thing this is due to a deficiency in our education and our rejection of history. We live in a time where we reject history so we don't have the intellectual abilities to understand the historical roots of some things. So, all we have to go on is our own worldview, we don't have the intellectual capital to understand something full of historical reference, so we take the easy way out and write it off as demonic.

Also, we lack the ability to pick up subtleties in our reading. We need things to be explicit and in our faces to understand. Christian reading must have a clear plan of salvation, Christian buzzwords and the like to be considered "Christian." Yet, for centuries, writers have infused their writings with a very subtle Christian worldview, we've just lost the ability to recognize it.

Since I've only read a review of the book I'll need to give the obligatory disclaimer that the reviewer and the author of this book about Harry Potter may be totally off base. But, I think they do bring up some points that modern Christians need to be aware of - that a Christian worldview can be displayed in literature and art, even when it is displayed very subtly.

With that, I'll leave you to the Amazon review I found so enlightening.

Slippery Theology

I've now listened again to George Grant's lecture on Basil of Caesarea. Basil was deeply involved in the Arian controversy. Grant said that the Arians were so slippery that no one could ever get a handle on them. They were completely subjective so their beliefs and forms could morph at any time. His best quote was this:

The only thing certain to the Arians was that Orthodox Christianity was wrong, everything else was negotiable.

This is pretty much what I often see and hear in the postmodern movement and in the blogosphere. Postmodernism doesn't really define itself so much by what it believes but by its rejection of everything from the modern era. The postmodernist Christians I have read indicate that they believe that evangelicalism has been unduly shaped by the philosophies of modernism and is therefore found wanting. In that regard, their critiques are often insightful because much of that is true. But what they are proposing as an antidote is often very slippery and hard to grasp. There is a Biblical, orthodox form of Christianity that has always stood against the world's attempts to squeeze the Christian faith into its own mold and I am concerned that we not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

An attempt to understand Doug Wilson and Auburn Avenue Theology

In case you haven't heard, there is a great debate brewing in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), of which I am a member, over the whole issue of the "Auburn Avenue Theology." This theology has come from the 2002 and 2003 Pastors Conferences at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, LA. The advocates of the "Auburn" view place a strong emphasis on the "objectivity" of the covenant, i.e. membership in the covenant community of faith is an objective reality, and is not dependent on the subjective. If you are confused about this, you can find all kinds of stuff on the Credenda/Agenda website. Frankly, I have had a difficult time getting a handle on this whole thing, but I found the following parable on Doug Wilson's blog that I think may give some insight into the view.

A much overworked session of Presbyterian elders had just finished the hard and thankless task of disciplining their minister, a man who taught that being a Christian was an objective reality, marked by baptism, and that being a faithful Christian was a covenant requirement, to be marked by evangelical faith, hope and love. This was clearly over the line, and so they managed to secure his resignation.

Another man in the church had followed these proceedings with interest, but then coincidentally, two weeks later, his wife charged him before the session with the sin of adultery, as he was carrying on an affair with the next door neighbor. The session, quite responsibly, called him on the carpet for this. But they were greatly taken aback by his defense. He admitted the affair with the neighbor lady, but when they called on him to repent of his faithlessness to his wife, he then shocked them all.

"I don't have a wife," the man said.

"But you do," one ruling elder said. "She's right there."

"True marriage," the man said, "is a matter of the heart. I have never been married to her in my heart. Sadly, I have never loved her."

"But you got married," another elder said. "In a church. I was there. I heard your vows."

"All externals," the sly sinner replied. "What matters, the essential thing, is always the heart. I heard you emphasize this so strongly, and so well, in the unfortunate circumstances surrounding Pastor Smith. A man is not a Christian, I believe you said, of any kind, I think it was, because of what happened in some church. But if vows in church cannot make someone a Christian in any sense of the word, I hardly see how they can make me a husband."

Of course, the session, being better Christians than they were logicians, dismissed this novel argument, and proceeded with their discipline. The vote was unanimous, but one elder (with a secret amor two towns over) was silently indebted to the man for the argument. "The heart is key," he thought to himself. "The way to protect true marriage is to limit it to the heart. And this is why I am really married to Tiffany. Two towns over."

What follows are a few of my thoughts in trying to understand the parable and Doug's view.

The Trajectory of Ideas

Movement from one idea to another takes some time. The first step toward embracing a new idea is a slight loss of faith in an older idea. At the beginning of the process, the new idea may still seem illogical or repugnant even, and the old idea may still seem desirable. But, a slight loss of faith in the old idea accompanied with a willingness to see at least one aspect of the new idea indicates movement. During this time of movement, the one who is moving often finds themselves in a no-man's land where they don't quite embrace what they used to believe, but neither do they fully embrace what they will probably come to believe.

One of the Doug's at Credenda/Agenda did an article on this in the magazine a few years ago that I wanted to quote here, but I couldn't find it online. They told a fictional tale where someone criticized a pastor or theologian for recommending the work of a certain fictional author named "Dallas Calvinward." The critic pointed out that this author wasn't "one of us" in his position. He still carried baggage from his older views. The criticee recognized that this author hadn't come all the way to his position, but the author had made some remarkable movement for which he should be praised. He explained that one cannot jettison an entire system in an afternoon. Ideas have to grow on us, they have to gestate over time, so we ought to deal gently with those who are in the gestation period.

A similar thing has happened, with the trajectory ideas in the life of the church.

The Path of Sin

I'm reading the Christ Clone Trilogy by James BeauSeigneur, and just got through reading the second book in the series - Birth of An Age. There is one scene involving one of the bad guys that illustrates the path that sin often takes in our lives. In this scene, a character is planning to kill someone:

In the beginning, when the idea had first come to him to kill Christopher, it was just a wild angry thought, but for the sake of argument he imagined how it might be done. It didn't take a lot to clear that initial hurdle; it all seemed so hypothetical. But then imagining had become thinking, and thinking, considering. Considering had become contemplating, and contemplating, planning. And now, finally, planning was on the verge of becoming the act itself. Through each of these steps, Poupardin had continued to believe he could stop at any moment the course that he had begun. What he found, however, was that at each step the force that had carried him past the previous hurdles had subtly, but significantly intensified, pushing him toward the next step and making it easier to take because of how far he had already come. The last hurdle that lay before him was certainly the biggest, but he felt compelled to continue (p. 157).

What a great picture of how sin works. Sin has its own built in compelling force. Each step down the path of sin builds momentum to take the next step. Praise God for His grace that can rescue us at any point, but what a great illustration of how difficult it is to pull out of sin, as you get deeper into it. The time to pull out of sin is at the time of initial temptation, it will get harder every step of the way after that.

Some thoughts on Godly disputation, or "How to Have a Christ-like Argument."

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.

Pruitt Communications on "Stories of Emergence"

If you haven't seen it yet, check out Terry Pruitt's post "Safety" where he critique's Chris Seay's entry in the book Stories of Emergence. Terry hits the nail on the head in pointing out that Seay creates a false dichotomoy between propositional revelation and narrative story. This is one of the things that troubles me about the "emergence" movement. They seem to think that "propositions" are the language of modernism and narrative is the language of "postmodernism." They also seem to feel that narrative is more faithful to the Biblical text. A proposition is simply a statement of fact, and narratives are fully propositional. Statements like "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," "Samuel slew Agag," "Samson saw a woman" and thousands of others are all propositional statements that make up the narrative story. It is a false dichtomy to oppose narratives and propositions.

Keep reading for a few more thoughts.

A Theology of the City

I'm working on Sunday's message in which I will talk about the Tower of Babel and the thought occurred to me that this passage can be useful in developing a theology of the city. A few of the commentators I have read find a parallel between the city-building of Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-12) and the city building of Cain (Genesis 4:17). It is significant in the life of Cain that it was after he went out from the presence of the Lord that he began to build his city. Similarly, Nimrod is a "mighty warrior" before the Lord of whom the Talmud says the he didn't merely hunt animals, he hunted the souls of men. Nimrod's city building was his attempt to build an alternate kingdom to the kingdom of God.

James Boice likens this city building in Genesis to the first attempts to build the City of Man, to use Augustine's term. Another commentator says this:

Here we have a great city. But it is great, not as Jerusalem is great (as God's city), but great in its defiance of God. This is man's city, the secular city. It is of man, by man, and for man's glory.

Keil and Deilitzch say this about Cain's city building:

The fact that Cain undertook the erection of a city, is also significant. Even if we do not regard this city as “the first foundation-stone of the kingdom of the world, in which the spirit of the beast bears sway,” we cannot fail to detect the desire to neutralize the curse of banishment, and create for his family a point of unity, as a compensation for the loss of unity in fellowship with God, as well as the inclination of the family of Cain for that which was earthly.

There are some interesting implications from all of this.

Bible Study sans Bible

I started to write this blog entry in a very sarcastic tone, but I assume that it is the Holy Spirit that is working to cause me to repent of this attitude. However, I must say that I am deeply troubled by the implications of the article Inhabiting the Biblical Narrative: How I Learned to Stop Doing Bible Studies and Start Loving the Bible Again by Tony Jones, on the Youth Specialties website. In reading some other stuff by Tony, it is clear that he has been deeply influenced by postmodernism, which I am deeply at odds with, but I also can see that he doesn't write as a know-it-all who has all the answers. Tony has a great love for and wants to impact the lives of students with the gospel and he wrestles with how to do this in a postmodern context. In this article Tony makes it clear that he is on a journey and he welcomes the conversation and is willing to learn. It is clear that he is a man of integrity and humility and a man from whom there is much I could learn. So, though I disagree with his ideas this in no way should be read as an attack on his character.

Having said that, the article I am referencing above is his story that basically advocates Bible study without the Bible. I am sure that Tony would argue that the truth of Scripture is being communicated, but I would contend it is not, and this is deeply troubling.

Rick Reilly - Sports Illustrated - Let us Pray? Play?

Leave it Rick Reilly of Sports Illustrated, a.ka. America's greatest sportswriter, to make a point involving church and sports that should have been made long ago. In his "Life of Reilly" column in the April 26, 2004 50th Anniversary issue of SI he talks about youth sports encroachment on Sunday morning worship in America. He says:

Another Easter Sunday in the Cathedral. Hushed voices. Amens. People holding hands and praying. At the end, all of them rising as one and screaming "My God, it's a miracle!" Church? Hell no. Augusta National. It was Phil Mickeleson's win at the Masters.
Sports has nearly swallowed Sunday whole. Every pro sport plays on Sunday. The big day in pro golf and tenis is Sunday. College football started playing bowl games on Sunday. Here's March Madness: 10 NCAA tournament games were played on Sunday. Now more and more youth sports teams are playing on Sunday, when the fields are easier to get and parents are available to drive."

For more of his thoughts, continue reading.

Theological Triage

Al Mohler hits another home run with his May 20th blog entry: "A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity." Just as emergency rooms have a triage procedure which enables them to sort the most seriously wounded from the rest in order to give the appropriate care where it is needed, so the chuch needs a theological triage system to sort out which doctrines are worth fighting over and which are not. He advocates three levels of doctrine.

First-level theological issues would include those doctrines most central and essential to the Christian faith. Included among these most crucial doctrines would be doctrines such as the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith, and the authority of Scripture.

And:

These first-order doctrines represent the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and a denial of these doctrines represents nothing less than an eventual denial of Christianity itself.

He defines and describes the second order issues thusly:

The set of second-order doctrines is distinguished from the first-order set by the fact that believing Christians may disagree on the second-order issues, though this disagreement will create significant boundaries between believers. When Christians organize themselves into congregations and denominational forms, these boundaries become evident.

Second-order issues would include the meaning and mode of baptism. Baptists and Presbyterians, for example, fervently disagree over the most basic understanding of Christian baptism. The practice of infant baptism is inconceivable to the Baptist mind, while Presbyterians trace infant baptism to their most basic understanding of the covenant. Standing together on the first-order doctrines, Baptists and Presbyterians eagerly recognize each other as believing Christians, but recognize that disagreement on issues of this importance will prevent fellowship within the same congregation or denomination.

Finally,

Third-order issues are doctrines over which Christians may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within local congregations. I would put most of the debates over eschatology, for example, in this category.

Calling All Theonomists!

Slacktivist has this great passage from C. S. Lewis:

I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.

And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme -- whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence -- the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication.

This passage comports well with Martin Luther's famous quote that he would rather be ruled by a wise turk than a foolish Christian.

Slacktivist referenced the Lewis passage in regard to some fears he has about what he feels are nefarious goings on amongst a certain group of Roman Catholic bishops. I have a different interest in this quote and that has to do with how a theonmist or Christian Reconstructionist would reply to Lewis's words.

Cessationism and Charismaticism

Adrian Warnock and I never really got our great debate on finding the will of God off the ground. It's difficult to have a heated debate when the two combatants keep saying, "Oh, I see your point," "I agree with what you just said" and "oh, that makes sense." As we discussed it, it turned out that our differences were more over nuances and degrees of validity of subjective experience. In case you are new to this blog, I got the ball rolling with these posts, in this order - Is Finding the Will of God Biblical, and More on Finding the Will of God. Adrian responded to those with a post titled Finding God's Will. I responded to that post with my post called Still More on The Will of God. Adrian then replied with his post Cessationists and Hearing the Voice of God. Adrian and I aren't the only ones talking about this issue, in fact it has been beat to death in the blogdom of God, but if you want to see what others are saying about these things just check out the links in some of my posts and be sure and check the comments - lots of good comments have come in on this.

With that last post I mentioned from Adrian, the debate has now taken a turn into the whole issue of the charismatic movement and cessationism. If you read Adrian's post you see that he references a prophecy that was given in reference to C. H. Spurgeon. In a private IM conversation with Adrian I told him that I give up, he wins. After all, in theological debate a Spurgeon quote settles any issue. A Spurgeon quote is like four aces in poker, its like sinking a sixty foot putt for eagle on the 18th at Augusta (or St. Andrews) to win the Masters (British Open), its Michael Jordan's buzzer beater that defeats the Jazz in the NBA finals - in short, a Spurgeon quote settles any theological argument.

However, I couldn't let it go that easy, yes I had to find my own Spurgeon quote to come back at him with. I shared with Adrian the website from Eric Hayden where some reference is made to the charismatic gifts. Adrian posted that on his blog here. It seems to me that this shows Spurgeon to be a Cessationist - especially considering the following quote:

It is a rule of the kingdom to keep the best wine to the last; and therefore, I conclude that you and I are not left to partake of the dregs, but that those gifts of the Holy Spirit which are at this time vouchsafed to the church of God are every way as valuable as those earlier miraculous gifts which are departed from us.

(Now that I had my own Spurgeon quote, I figured that I was at least even in the debate again). Adrian agreed but he also pointed out that, if Spurgeon was a Cessationist, then he was far more open to supernatural manifestations than are the cessationists of today are. Hmm, . . . good point. Adrian's post on the views of the Good Doctor (Martin Lloyd-Jones) would back that contention up. I guess I'll never win this debate if I keep agreeing with my opponents points.

As best I can tell, the issue revolves around the question of "what do we make of the charismatic phenomena." The issue is not so much "that" something is happening, but rather "how do we interpret that which is happening and what does it mean?" It is to those questions that I want to address my thoughts.

Review of "The American Religion" by Harold Bloom

Reading Bloom was a new and different experience for me. I'm a pastor in a conservative evangelical denomination whose reading has mostly been within the confines of my traidtion. Therefore, Bloom, who writes as a kind of "gnostic Jew" and as a religious critic, came at many familiar issues from unfamiliar angles. Thus, I found myself frequently bouncing around from "what a great insight," to "where did he come up with that idea," to "no way, he's dead wrong about that."

Therein lies the value of the book, particularly for those in my tradition. Often, outsiders can see things that insiders can't. And while there's plenty to offend the conservative evangelical, and much that will cause them to think they have been misunderstood, he nevertheless has valuable insights that should be heeded.

More on Christians and Pagans

Sometime in the far distant past, like one or two months ago, I got into a bit of discussion with Bill Wallo at Walloworld about atheists and theists, Christians and pagans. I wasn't able to find his post on the subject, but basically his idea is that paganism is closer to Christianity than atheisim or naturalism. I believe, among other things, he argued that we share some elements of a common worldview. I argued against his point, to the effect that paganism still posited an alternative religion and wouldn't really get anyone closer to Christianity. Well, today, I found the following quote from G. K. Chesterton that is strongly in his favor, at least from a historical standpoint.

I am very glad that our fashionable fiction seems to be full of a return to paganism, for it may possibly be the first step of a return to Christianity. Neo-pagans have sometimes forgotten, when they set out to do everything the old pagans did, that the final thing the old pagans did was to get christened. 3/20/1926

I am not sure what historical events Chesterton has in mind, but I can think of at least the Celtics and the Romans in that regard. So, looks like Bill had a good point and I had a . . . uh, . . . well, . . . not quite as good point.

Follow-Up on "Feminization of the Church"

This morning I came across this article from Doug Giles on TownHall about the feminization of the church. It dovetails nicely with my prior post on the feminizatoin of the church. Whereas I talked pretty much theoretically about the issue, Doug Giles gets down to the point of practical application of how to get men back in the church. Here is my favorite quote from the article - its as if he wrote this directly for me (notice the "Pastor Wayne" reference):

Put an end to preaching by cheesy, whiny, quiche eating, preening Nancy Boys ... right now! It freaks us meat eaters out. Get it? Hire a pastor who throws off a good John Wayne vibe instead of that Boy George feeling. Know what I mean? And cheer on “Pastor Wayne” to serve up the solid meat of the scripture … the stuff that prods the congregation to biblical maturity rather than prolonging their infancy.

I love it - I have been given a new phrase - from now on pastors who refuse to serve up the solid meat of the Scripture will be officially called "Nancy Boys."

Here are a few more of Doug's suggestions (paraphrased):

- Have the worship leader serve up weighty worship music, not the saccharine slush we have grown so accustomed to.
- Get rid of the Precious Moments figurines, decorate the church with "serious transcendant art works that stops us in our tracks."
- Lose the church's "I'm in therapy feel." Doug says, and I quote:

"Sure life’s hard, little Sally, and the sooner, we celebrate the struggle the quicker we will draw men back to our houses of worship."

-"If the Church wants to recover its losses, we’ve got to draw the knuckle draggers back to church. Masculine men are pretty easy. Toss in reason, competition, initiation, struggle, fun and a problem to spiritually throttle, and we’ll be there like stink on a monkey. Blow off, suppress, and spiritually emasculate the environment of these holy testicular necessities and your church, as far as men go, will be more empty than an Oktoberfest in Hialeah."

Thanks Doug, and a big hat tip and thanks to Dennis Laing for referring us to this piece on his blog.

Southern Baptists and Their Personal Relationship with Jesus

I'm finally getting around to finishing my reading of Harold Bloom's book The American Religion. I'm to the back part of the book, where he devotes about 80 pages to an analysis of the Southern Baptist Convention. In this book, Bloom states that Mormonism and the Southern Baptist Convention are the two best representatives of the "American Religion," which he says is not akin to historic biblical Christianity, but rather is more like ancient Gnosticism. Bloom celebrates this fact. He is a Jew with Gnostic affinities, so he praises this. Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost quotes Bloom in a different context as follows:

The American finds God in herself or himself only after finding the freedom to know God by experiencing a total inward solitude. In this solitary freedom, the American is liberated both from other selves and from the created world. He comes to recognize that his spirit is itself uncreated. Knowing that he is the equal of God, the American Religionist can then achieve his true desideratum, mystical communion with his friend, the godhead.

This quote is simultaneously a description of Gnosticism and the American religion.

For the purpose of this post I want to evaluate Bloom's evaluation of the Southern Baptist Convention in this regard. Let me say at the outset that I am a former Southern Baptist who still has a great affection for my brothers and sisters in that denomination. What Bloom celebrates I deplore, and what Bloom deplores I celebrate. Bloom wrote this book in 1992, just as the conservative resurgence was going strong in the SBC. At that time he feared that the fundamentalists were going to take over the convention and marginalize the moderates who who upheld his gnostic vision of Christianity. His fears have come true, which I think is a good thing. Still, his evaluation of the Southern Baptist Convention up until that point has some wonderful points that apply across the board in modern Christendom.

Evangelicalism and Inerrancy

Donald Crankshaw at Back of the Envelope has been running a series of posts on Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. There is one in particular that I wanted to comment on called Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism: The Inerrancy of Scripture. This post was a good look at many of the issues involved and he also interacted with some comments from Jeremy Pierce at Parablemania, which added to the depth of the post. He also got linked by Instapundit on one of his posts, so he has officially earned the title of "You-da-Man!!" Congrats Donald - I'm happy for you, and not the least bit jealous, really, I mean that sincerely, don't you believe me? Quit looking at me that way.

Anyway, I started to post some comments on his site and my normal long windedness got the better of me so I decided to do my own post and discuss some of the issues on this topic.

Still more on the will of God

A few days ago Adrian Warnock e-mailed me asking if I would like to engage in a little friendly debate regarding my prior posts on finding the will of God. I said sure - love to. Adrian said that this is probably one of the few areas that he and I disagree on. Well, judging from this post on is blog, where he engaged the debate, we're not that far apart. I have a few quibbles with some of the things he says, but all in all I can agree with almost all of it. I guess if we are going to have a real honest to goodness debate we're going to have to find something else to debate on.

Nevertheless, let me share a few of my thoughts and quibbles.

More on Finding God's Will

Just ran across this quote on George Grant's blog - it is from Augustine:

“Love God, and then do what you like.” Confessions

I thought this was a good quote to summarize some of the things alot of us have been saying about finding the will of God.

Bottom line - God's will for us is summarized in Matthew 22:37-39 (Great Commandment). Following this, it is ok for a Christian to make decisions for himself or herself.

Hey, here's a good topic for discussion - is indecision a virtue, a sin, or something neutral? I know the answer is going to be "sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't," but aren't those who are waiting around for a "word from God" abandoning their own responsibilities for responsible decision making? Just a thought.

In case you haven't been following the discussion here's some blogs that have talked about this:

My thoughts were first piqued by this entry at Rusty Lopez's New Covenant Blog.

I wrote on this topic here.

Rusty followed up here.

Parablemania addresses it here.

Rebecca Writes has posts on finding the will of God here and here.

And, Messy Christian wrestles with the issue here.

The Enemies of the Gospel are Always "oh-so nice." Part Deux

How to be Polemical Without Being a Downright Nasty Person

Here are some more thoughts, from the above article on yesterday's theme of the niceness of the enemies of the gospel. Michael Scott Horton writes:

To be sure, there are abuses of polemical conscientiousness. Some, in the name of defending the faith, will seek their own name instead. Born aloft on the wings of the "martyr-complex," a number of people will always be there in church history to capture headlines as much by infamy as fame. But, as Paul declared, "The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached" (Phil. 1:18). This is surely no excuse for those who "preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely" (v.17), but the effects of preaching Christ truthfully from bad motives are far less damning for the hearers. One highly respected evangelical leader in our day has said, "I would rather have wrong facts and a right attitude than the right facts and the wrong attitude." That may sound pious, but it is in reality quite a selfish statement. Surely he is not saying that it is better for one's hearers to become Arians or Pelagians, so long as the preacher is full of charity, but it is open to that kind of interpretation. Stanley Grenz, author of Revisioning Evangelical Theology (IVP), argues that "a 'right heart' takes primacy over a 'right head.'" Just think of all the heretics in church history whose motives were unimpeachable or courageous men and women who held their errors and gathered a following until their death. No doubt, many heresies gain their popularity by the outstanding character of their champions: they are often quite likeable people. Augustine never accused Pelagius of being a cad, but of denying essential Christian truth. Grenz does not seem to recognize that true beliefs are the prerequisite for godly motives, feelings and actions. Since atheists can be as kind to their postman as an evangelical minister, it is essential that we distinguish truth-driven godliness from vague religious and moral sentiment.

Translation Issues, Part 2

Here's my next post in the continuing series on "How To Study the Bible." As you can see, right now I am fixated on the debate between formal and dynamic equivalence translations. At this point I am playing point-counterpoint with the books How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth, by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart and The Word of God in English, by Leland Ryken. In my mind, Ryken is winning the debate.

The Enemies of the Gospel are Always "oh-so nice."

I'm listening to a series of history lectures by George grant that I dowloaded from Word mp3 (yes, that is a hint - check them out, they have some great stuff). Today I was listening to a lecture on Basil of Caesarea. Along with Ambrose and others he was involved in the heat of the Arian controversy. Grant made one quote that was worth the price of the lecture (actually it's worth much more since the lecture only cost $.49 - see, you really gotta check this site out). The problem with good ol' George is that sometimes he talks a little fast, and so in this case I couldn't be sure who he was quoting, although it sounded like Hillaire Belloc. I tried to confirm that in a google search but couldn't confirm or deny it. Anyway, here's the quote:

"The enemies of the gospel are always 'oh so nice.'"

Basil was a stalwart defender of orthodoxy in his day but he had to put up with this. In defending the gospel against its enemies, he found that they were always so nice and reasonable and logical and some wondered at how he could criticize such people. Grant says that these people are always so nice and so evangelically correct.

Sounds like today. Raise an issue about someone's fidelity to the gospel and you are accused of being mean-spirited. After all, if they say the name "Jesus" they must be one of us. And, if they are touching the lives of the brokenhearted, they must be doubly right. And if they say the name "Jesus," touch the lives of the brokenhearted and become real popular, they are tripley (is that a word?) right.

The bad guys are often those who use the Bible as a plumbline and have the audacity to say "the wall is not straight."

Often these nice guys do come across as wonderfully sincere and sympathetic and understanding, but they can sympathize, empathize and understand people straight to hell. Often, the one who stands for the gospel will come across as one who is unkind, uncaring, mean-spirited and unsympathetic. Yet, we are called to sympathize first with the gospel, before we sympathize with anyone else. Oswald Chambers has some pertinent thoughts on this matter:

As we go on in intercession we may find that our obedience to God is going to cost other people more than we thought. The danger then is to begin to intercede in sympathy with those whom God was gradually lifting to a totally different sphere in answer to our prayers. Whenever we step back from identification with God’s interest in others into sympathy with them, the vital connection with God has gone; we have put our sympathy, our consideration for them, in the way, and this is a deliberate rebuke to God.
Chambers, O. (1993, c1935). My utmost for his highest : Selections for the year (May 3). Grand Rapids, MI: Discovery House Publishers.

And:

If you become a necessity to a soul, you are out of God’s order. As a worker, your great responsibility is to be a friend of the Bridegroom. When once you see a soul in sight of the claims of Jesus Christ, you know that your influence has been in the right direction, and instead of putting out a hand to prevent the throes, pray that they grow ten times stronger until there is no power on earth or in hell that can hold that soul away from Jesus Christ. Over and over again, we become amateur providences; we come in and prevent God, and say—‘This and that must not be.’ Instead of proving friends of the Bridegroom, we put our sympathy in the way, and the soul will one day say—‘That one was a thief, he stole my affections from Jesus, and I lost my vision of Him.’
Chambers, O. (1993, c1935). My utmost for his highest : Selections for the year (March 24). Grand Rapids, MI: Discovery House Publishers.

Thinklings - The Peril of Building Theological Towers

Thinklings Weblog

See the above link for an excellent discussion on theological arrogance and the tendency to think that we have God figured out. Often, those who are engaged in theological inquiry get puffed up, and when they do so they have missed the point of theologizing. Been there done that myself. Theologizing is for the purpose of grasping the wonder of God, not merely filling our heads with facts.

In his book "A Little Exercise for Young Theologians" Helmut Thielicke mentions that many young men get interested in theology solely for the sake of winning arguments. When theology becomes merely a head game or a means of winning arguments, it goes bad. Envision the task of knowing God as entry through a door into a hallway. The walls of the hallway slant outward. So, when you first enter the hallway it looks narrow. But the further you walk into the hallway the broader it gets. Every step you take down the hallways expands your vision of the glory of God, so that the more you know, the more you know how little you know. Our study of theology isn't doing its job if it isn't making God bigger and us smaller.

Is Finding the Will of God Biblical?

Rusty Lopez has an excellent post on his New Covenant blog about finding the will of God. It got me thinking about the matter and I wanted to share a few thoughts.

First of all, I want to suggest that our modern obsession with finding the will of God is evidence of evangelicalism narcissism, and secondly that it has more on common with paganism than Christianity. I owe my thoughts on the first matter to Henry Krabbendam of Covenant College, and on the second matter to an article in Antithesis on finding the will of God.

Sheep, Goats and Saving Faith

Josh Claybourn has some guest bloggers posting on his site while he is concentrating on studies for awhile. This post started a debate that I weighed in on regarding the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. The puzzlement had to do with what this teaches regarding the relationship of faith and works in salvation. Here's my response:

The Quiet Life is the Godly Life

Getting ready for tomorrow's sermon which is on the National Day of Prayer. In I Timothy 2:1-2, Paul tells us to pray for our leaders.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and ?dignified in every way.

There is much more that I will be focusing on but for this post I want to emphasize that this gives us the reason we pray for our government officials.

We pray for them so that we in the church can lead peaceful and quiet lives. You will notice that in Paul’s writing he is very concerned that we be able to live the quiet life. We talked about that a few weeks ago, the quiet life is the blessed life. This is a peaceful life.

There are two aspects to this:

1. Peaceful = free from outward disturbance

2. Quiet = free from inner perturbation

We are to pray for our governing officials that they will restrain evil in our land, so that we are free to live these peaceful and quiet lives.

Now, there are some people who want a peaceful and quiet life just so that they can be left alone and not be bothered by other people. This is not the reason for a peaceful and quiet life.

Psalm 46:10 says: Be still, and know that I am God.

We want peace and quiet so that we are free to know God, which brings us to our next point.

The reason is so that we can live lives of . . .

Godliness and Holiness

The peaceful, quiet life, will produce godliness and holiness. I have to say this, because it is in the text, but I think you can infer from this that the busy life is not conducive to godliness.

God is known, and holiness are attained when the distractions of the busy life are removed so that we can live in peace and quiet.

So, we see that peace and quiet are not goals in and of themselves. If you want peace and quiet just so that you can do your own thing and not be bothered then don’t expect God to honor you or anyone to feel sorry for you. God gives you peace and quiet to remove the distractions that would hinder you from pursuing Him.

But we also see that all of this has something to do with our prayers for our elected officials. William Hendriksen explains it this way:

Paul certainly does not mean to encourage a life of ease. His aims are never selfish. Rather, the idea is this: freedom from disturbances, such as wars and persecutions, will facilitate the spread of the gospel of salvation in Christ to the glory of God.

This is what we want from our government – protection from wars, persecutions or anything else that will hinder the pursuit of godliness and holiness or the spread of the gospel.

I’m tempted to go off on a diatribe about the biblical mandate for limited government, but that’s beyond the scope of what we are dealing with here this morning. However, I will say that this passage suggests that the government has more of a negative function than a positive function. Using the power of the sword, government is to restrain, or negate evil. It promotes the good by negating the evil. In negating the evil in our world, the govern-ment doesn’t have to be the one promoting the good. If they’ll just negate the evil, the church can be free to promote the good.

Are Christians winning the culture war?

Are Christians winning the culture war? Dick Staub interviews David Brooks, author of Bobos in Paradise, and author of the forthcoming book On Paradise Drive, and Brooks says that the culture war is over and the conservative, religious side is winning:

I interviewed David Brooks today after he spoke at a Seattle Pacific University Breakfast for the business community. In his new book “On Paradise Drive,” (interview forthcoming next week) he takes the position that despite the appearance of a superficial, consumerist, materialistic veneer, America is actually advanced by a “spiritual wind” that began blowing with the Puritans and is still forceful today. In his speech he expressed the view that the culture war is over and hard work, family and faith are the emerging winners. He cited statistics that indicate a nation veering towards the conservative in its behavior and practice.

In his book he remarks, “Americans have shown a remarkable tendency to remain undecadent…Overall, this is not the picture of a nation of superficiality and self-indulgence. American beaches still aren’t Rio-style thing expos; nor are they Southern European nudist zones…Despite leadership from the top; we haven’t learned to relax about adultery. And serious sex surveys do not depict a culture of serious kinkiness and sensuality… “

How about that?

I'm not so sure that we have won, or are winning, but this gives me some encouragement, along with a few other things I have read.

Either/Or's and Both/And's

I'm preaching this Sunday on I Timothy 2:1-8, which contains that famous passage in verses 1-3:

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (1 Ti 2:3). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

If you like watching Calvinists dance, throw that verse out at them and its Saturday Night Fever all over (yeah, yeah, that's how hip and up to date I am, all I can think of when it comes to dancing is something from the 70's). Seriously though, it seems like most of us Calvinists read that and others, like I Peter 3:9 and bend over backwards to say what it doesn't mean, rather than what it does mean. That's why today I have started reading John Piper's article: Are There Two Wills in God Divine Election and God's Desire for All to be Saved. I haven't finished it yet, so I won't evaluate the whole thing. However, the first paragraph contained a very bloggable thought (does "bloggable" have one "g" or two?). Here it is:

My aim in this chapter is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God's will for "all persons to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.

Intellect vs. Emotion

Surfing around tonight I came across this article by John Piper called Fact! Faith! Feeling!. In it, he asks whether the typical advice we give regarding the place of feelings in the Christian life is good advice. The typical Christian advice is to trust your head, not your feelings. Feelings can lead you astray, so you must use your intellect, under the direction of the Spirit, to guide you. He cites the old Campus Crusade train analogy. The engine of the train is Fact, it is the facts of the gospel. The next car is the coal car, it is Faith. The third car is the caboose and it is Feeling. The point is that the train can run without the caboose but it can't run without the engine. Therefore we need to put our faith in the facts, not in the feelings. Or, as I in one of my attempts to sound poetic used to say "put your faith in the facts and the feelings will follow."

Piper critiques this in terms of Jonathan Edwards view of the Religious Affections. Edwards says that there is no salvation without affections. However, what we mean by feelings is not what Edwards means by "affections." We tend to equate feelings with physical sensations. In other words, there is a kind of bodily sensation to nervousness. Happiness produces laughter and smiles. Sadness is equated with tears etc.. Regarding affections, Piper quotes, then explains Edwards as follows:

"the more vigorous and sensible exercises of the inclination and will of the soul." In other words, the feelings that really matter are not mere physical sensations. They are the stirring up of the soul with some perceived treasure or threat.

I would liken it to this: even when I am angry at my kids, my soul is still inclined toward them and toward their prosperity. Even when I am angry at my kids I would still rather be with my kids than your kids and I will still do all I can to be of benefit to them. My affections for them transcend emotion.

Miss O'Hara and the Purpose Driven Blues

I just read Miss O'Hara's entry in the Christian Carnival. It is a rant called So What's Your Purpose Loser? Needless to say, she's a little non-plussed with the whole Purpose Driven thing.

On the other hand, Mister Standfast, whose church just began a 40 Days of Purpose campaign, says things got off to a good start.

As I have mentioned before I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet so my comments thus far have been speculative, and my church isn't participating in the campaign. But, I can't hide my bias and preconceptions - although I don't consider myself hostile to the whole thing, I at least have some reservations.

One reservation I have is regarding the whole bandwagon thing, and I wonder if this hasn't contributed to Miss O'Hara's Purpose Driven Blues.

Sunday Meditation Part 2 - The Rainbow

We often think of the rainbow as that pretty thing in the sky that is God's message to us that He won't flood the earth anymore. This is true, very true. But the symbolism goes much deeper than that, as Richard Pratt of Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL has explained to many of his classes.

The "rainbow" of Genesis 9 is God's war bow. In Hebrew, the word is simply "bow." As a bow, it shoots arrows. Lightning is often spoken of as God's "arrows" in the Old Testament. For example, consider Zecharian 9:14:

Then the Lord will appear over them,
and his arrow will go forth like lightning;
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (electronic ed.) (Zec 9:14). Wheaton: Good News Publishers.

In the flood, God rained down His arrows on the earth throughout the flood. Now that the flood is over and God wants to give the earth a sign, what does He do? He hangs His bow in the clouds. Notice that His bow is upside down now - it is on the shelf, aiming away from the earth. This shows that God's wrath is no longer pointed at man. Of course, this means that if you ever see an upside down rainbow, you better run for your life!

The rainbow is more than something pretty in the sky - its a symbol that the war is over, God is at peace with His creation.

For another interesting take on the significance of the rainbow, see this from Jonathan Barlow.

Sunday Meditation Part 1 - Our Sacramental Universe

I'm putting the finishing touches on tomorrow's sermon this morning. I'll be talking about the Noahic Covenant and particularly the significance of the rainbow. I'll blog a little on that later, but as I am approaching a description of the rainbow, it reminds me of something I read in Harry Blamires book: The Christian Mind.

The Christian mind thinks sacramentally. The Christian Faith presents a sacramental view of life. It shows life's positive richness as derivative from the supernatural . . . at a time when Christianity is so widely misrepresented as life-rejecting rather than life-affirming, it is urgently necessary to right the balance.

What Blamires says here is entirely consistent with Scriptures like Romans 1:19-20 and Psalm 19:1:

Another Sign of the Apocalypse

Just got this week's issue of World Magazine. On page 31 is the article "Brother Against Brother," or you can find it here. In a nutshell, the article is about a conflict at the "Cross Church" in Fresno, CA. Its a 112 year old church that began with a group of German immigrants from Russia. Through the years it maintained its traditional moorings, but over the last few decades the church has been trying to contemporize itself. I will bet you can take it from there and finish the rest of the story.

The movie "Titanic" - a test case in Christian cultural review

My last post about Walt Mueller got me thinking of an example of how a Christian worldview would inform our evaluation of pop culture. I am thinking of the movie "Titanic." When this movie came out it was all the rage and a bunch of the kids in my youth group were seeing it. At the same time, I was receiving letters and other things from concerned Christian groups warning us about the eeeevvilllls of this movie. These concerned Christians were concerned with two main things. First of all, the love affair between the Kate Winslett and Leonardo DiCaprio characters gave some false notions of what love is all about. Secondly, there was that little matter of Kate Winslett going au naturale for the whole world to see. Both critiques were correct. The love affair between the characters presented an unbiblical view of romance and love. And the Kate Winslett nude scene seemed calculated merely to titilate. By the way, for those of you who are worried about me, when that scene came on, my wife's hand immediately covered my eyes so that I never saw the scene. You would be surprised how fast my wife can move given the right circumstances (faster than a speeding bullet . . .).

The Offense of Exclusivity

On April 17th I did a post called Today's Sign of the Apocalypse, which basically was a report on a debate over Christian exclusivity between Al Mohler of Southern Seminary and Charles Kimball of Wake Forest University. Bill at Walloworld picked up on it and ran with it and added some of his typically insightful thoughts in this post. In this, Wallloworld gave the candy bar illustration, which basically is an illustration of how an exclusivist worldview would work out in a debate about which candy bar is the best among five different kinds of candy bars. Then, Steven, who has a blog called called Ice and Silence, found Walloworld's logic flawed and introduced a sixth candy bar into the argument. Are you with still with me? Walloworld responded with a post called More Candy Bars. Now, I have found that Steven has a post on his own blog dealing with Walloworld's comments and some of mine.

I won't try to explain the candy bar illustration to you because you can read it for yourself and I also don't want to put words in either of their mouths. Basically, Walloworld is arguing that Christianity is, and must be exclusive, and it is not unreasonable for it to be so. Steven at Ice and Silence argues that there is a way to frame Christianity in a non-exclusivistic way, and indeed, it must do so.

Kudos to both for some irenic, yet pointed discussion. I wanted to interact mostly with a few of Stephen's comments on my stuff. Walloworld is King of the Blogs, so he doesn't need me to defend him, even though I agree with him.

Thursday Three - Three Quotes on "Heart Religion"

Here are three great quotes from Wilhelmus a' Brakel, a great Dutch reformed pastor and theologian (1635-1711). Although he obviously never attained the fame of the big four (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox), his writings have been re-published by Soli Deo Gloria and are a blessing to many. The first quote is from Volume 1, page 558 of the four volume series The Christian's Reasonable Service, which unfortunately, seems to have gone out of print. The last two quotes are from the back of the book - they were enough to convince me to buy the set. I love these quotes because they demonstrate the goal of Reformed theology - heart change, not a mere change of intellectual notions.

1. Take note of how intimately the Lord Jesus is united to His elect. They have been given to Him by the Father, in order that, as His children, He would deliver, preserve, and lead them to felicity. Would He then not exercise tender care of them, and be compassionate towards them when they are in distress? They are His bride, children and members. He has their very own nature - "for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Heb. 2:11). When they are in misery and sorrow, they weep and long for Him, and cry out to Him for help and comfort. How can it be any different but that the Lord Jesus is greatly moved to compassion, especially since He is experientially acquainted with the feeling of their suffering?

2. God is not only the cause of spiritual life, but also the object of its motions. God Himself is all the delight, pleasure, and joy of the regenerate man. He cannot be without God. He wishes for and must enjoy the light of God's countenance, peace with God, and love and communion with God. By virtue of union with God he wishes to be united to His will, and thus to hate and shun what He hates, and to find delight in and in doing whatever God delights in and is pleasing to Him.

3. Believers on earth love Jesus, their hearts go out after Him, and He is the focal point of the passions of their love. "Therefore do the virgins love Thee" (Song of Sol. 1:3). The bride continually has the word Beloved in her mouth. Just consider how each believer mourns when Jesus is absent; how they long for His coming to them; and how delighted they are when they may sweetly enjoy His fellowship. All their asking, crying and weeping is for Jesus. In Jesus only they find all their satisfaction.

A "little" disagreement on staying out of church

Well ;)Anti-Climacus disagrees with me "a little" in my views about removing oneself from the church. In this post he recounts a time when he removed himself from the church for an extended period of time and how God really used that time in his life. His summary of this is

So I suppose the question reduces to whether you ought to be in church anyway even if you can't feel that: now, I'd say yes, but I'm aware there was a time I would've said no, and I think I'm a better Christian for having had that time.

Especially in looking at that, I think we are only "a little" bit apart, if at all. It looks to me like he is saying that at the time he was out of the church it seemed like the right thing to do, but now he would say something different. Even though his mind has changed on the matter at this time, he can really see how God made him a better Christian during that time.

Actually, I don't have much of a problem with any of that. Since we still battle with the sinful nature there is never a time when sin isn't present in our lives. Some days that sin may look like removing oneself from the church, and other days that sin may manifest itself in a different way (even while being a good church-goer). I hope I am not putting words in his mouth, he may not have seen that time of absence as necessarily sinful, but since he has changed his mind, I am guessing that maybe he sees that as a time when he was ignorant of something he knows now, or maybe just "not as ideal.' In any case, our sin or ignorance does not prevent God from working in our lives.

Either way, I think in hindsight we all look back at our lives and want to re-evaluate things we have done.

Presuppositions in Bible Study

Tim at Challies has a great post on the presuppositions we bring to our study of the Bible. You can read it here.

Tim basically exhorts us to approach the Bible objectively, laying aside our presuppositions. And, he gives a great illustration involving the Loch Ness monster that illustrates the perils of presuppositions. That's good, creative writing when you can get a Bible study principle from a study of the Loch Ness monster.

My only addition to what Tim says is to say that I doubt we can ever rid ourselves completely of our presuppositions. While we strive for objectivity we ought to admit up front that we will never attain it. If we can admit our presuppositions up front, this gives our critics an opportunity to critique not only our positions, but our biases, thus doing a better job of sharpening us.

Cornelious Van Til taught that one can examine the faith from within the citadel of faith. Having presuppositions does not necessarily prevent us from understanding the Bible, as long as we lay them on the table, as best we can, and let others critique them.

"Jesus is my home-boy?" Puh-lease

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost proves once again why he is one of Christendom's best bloggers with this post on the current "Jesus is my homeboy" t-shirt fad.

As I was reading the post itself I was saying "yeah Joe, Amen, that's right, preach it brother." Then I noticed that he got into a discussion in the comment section with Ambra from Nykola.com that was very good. She brought up some excellent points about how these kinds of shirts play in the hip-hop culture. I'm still favoring Joe's point of view, but she has alot of great stuff to say.

My favorite part of Joe Carter's post is a quote from Rusty Lopez:

“What is it about our culture that causes us to consider the creator of the universe just another one of the gang?”

Please, read the post and enjoy, and don't skip the comments.

The Sin of Certainty

The following words were found in a comment on a recent entry on Tim Bayly's blog:

I was tracking along with you, until you began making sarcastic and scathing statements about things evangelical, so to speak. Interestingly, I was once a member of a PCA church and left because there was an incredible spirit of arrogance there - something to the tune of, "we are the ONLY Christians who have it down right in every area from doctrine, to worship to missions." I know enough about Scripture to know how God dwells with the humble and when I saw this attitude in you it made me cringe to say the least. I recently have been trying to give friends of the "reformed faith" the benefit of the doubt in this area of humility but I continue to come in contact with people who want to knock others who have faithfully and HUMBLY served the Lord and He has used their lives powerfully. But they are not out of the reformed way of thinking so they are considered to be in one way or another, off!

First of all, let me be the first to admit that I am one of those of the Reformed persuasion and I know that I, and we, can be overbearingly arrogant. In fact, the greatest struggle I had in embracing Reformed theology was more psychological than theological. I just didn't like the people I met who called themselves Reformed, and was afraid of becoming like them. Sad to say, since embracing Reformed theology, I know that I have spoken of my beliefs in ways that have offended others. So, I can understand. We Reformed folks have enough sin in our own hearts and in our camp that we need to be very careful about throwing rocks at others.

However, those words, also reminded me of these words from the book Made in America by Michael Scott Horton:

In contemporary society, if one has a conviction shaped by intense struggles and rigorous investigation, one that is not shared by a consensus of Americans, that conviction is called dogmatism. Of course, there is an unhealthy form of dogmatism - the "just believe" syndrome. Some of our relativism, therefore, can be understood as a reaction against pedantic and closed-minded fundamentalism. Our adoption of cultural relativism, however, has assisted in making it a virtual sin to be certain.

I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong in just about everything I say. In fact, I often say this "I'm 100% certain I'm right, and I'm 100% certain I could be wrong." But does the fact that I could be wrong mean I can't say what I think is right?

In the post that the above comment was made on I didn't detect anything sarcastic and scathing, although I did detect a good degree of certaintly about what was being said. While I acknowledge that arrogance is a heinous sin that is always a danger and should always be repented of, it is a mistake to equate certainty with arrogance.

What is faith?

This thought from Peter Leithart was so good I decided to quote it in full. You can find it at his blog here.

According to the etymological and historical study of Wilfred Cantwell Smith, "believe" once had the range of meaning of the Greek PISTEUO and the Latin CREDO, and meant basically to entrust or commit oneself to something, to pledge allegiance. As Smith says, this notion had changed significantly by the nineteenth century: "There was a time when 'I believe' as a ceremonial declaration of faith meant, and was heard as meaning: 'Given the reality of God, as a fact of the universe, I hereby proclaim that I align my life accordingly, pledging love and loyalty.' A statement about a person's believing has come to mean, rather, something of this sort: 'Given the uncertainty of God, as a fact of modern life, so-and-so reports that the idea of God is part of the furniture of his mind."

Faith is not merely a head thing, it is aligning one's life in accordance with the reality of God's existence - thanks Peter!

Update from Messy Christian

Right after I uploaded the last post I noticed that Messy Christian has responded to some of mine and Adrian's comments. Here is her post that goes into a little more detail on things she has been struggling with.

Hers is a good counterpoint to what I wrote. On the one hand, we all have a responsibility to the church, no matter what. On the other hand, many shepherds are doing great damage to the sheep. This reminds me of a passage in Jeremiah 23:1-4 that I, as a pastor, am haunted by:

“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the Lord. Therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the Lord. 3 Then I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. 4 I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, declares the Lord.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (electronic ed.) (Je 23:1-4). Wheaton: Good News Publishers.

Calvin on separation from the true church

As a follow up to yesterday's post on the church, here are few snippets from Book 4, chapter 1 of Calvin's Institutes - "Of the True Church." These deal with the many reasons that people put forth as to why they wish to separate from the church.

Dealing with depression about the church

Warning - long post ahead!

My friend Adrian Warnock informed me and the rest of the blogosphere of a couple of posts on the Messy Christian blog about her depression over going to church. You can read Messy Christian's post here and then I would suggest you read Adrian's comments here. Basically, Messy Christian has become depressed over her church experience and is considering pulling out of church altogether, although in reading her comments on Adrian's blog it looks like she is hanging in there.

I have to say that I can relate. I remember my first real bad church experience. I was in college attending a growing church with a pastor who was, and still is, one of the best preachers I had ever heard. The church looked great in every way and God was using it in my life in a mighty way. One day I came home from class and my roommate told me that the deacons (it was a Southern Baptist Church) were trying to get rid of the pastor and the chairman of the deacons was leading the charge. The reason that is significant is that I was dating the daughter of the chairman of the deacons, so I was quite torn up. This got ugly and dragged on for several months and never came to a very good resolution.

A few years later, while in seminary, I was on part time staff at a church that was in decline and I started a prayer meeting on Sunday nights, praying for revival. During that time the pastor who hired me left. One day, the interim pastor called me into his office and told me we needed to cancel the prayer meeting because there were several fine Christians (read - "moneyed" Christians) who didn't want to come out on Sunday nights and he didn't want to make it look like they were against prayer.

After that, I went to a professor and told him my story. I'll never forget his words. He said "David, the church is a whore, she has frequently been unfaithful to Christ, but she is the bride He chose and He has not forsaken her and it is not for you to forsake her (if there are any "fact-checkers" out there, I know he was quoting someone else, but I can't remember who - if you know, please tell me).

The fact is that experiences like mine and Messy Christian's are more common than not in the church. And many are tempted to just leave church altogether as this person has done.

But the truth is that the Bible does not leave us the option of leaving the church altogether. I feel for Messy Christian - I understand her angst. And in what I am about to say I want to give an apology for staying in the church, even when it is at its worst. As I do this, I have no intention of coming across heavy handed, so I will apologize in advance if anything I say sounds that way. But the truth is that, though we are not saved by the church, we are saved into the church. We cannot ever forsake it.

Purpose Driven Church Growth and The Wal-Mart Effect

OK, I realize that in many circles, Rick Warren and the whole Purpose Driven phenomenon are revered as one of God's great gifts to the church in our time. Churches all across the country are reporting staggering growth, revitalization and revival. On the other hand, Rick Warren has become a whipping boy for the anti-Church Growth crowd. He is popular, he is out there in the public eye and is an easy target for those who disagree.

Although I'm one of those who have some problems with the whole phenomenon, I'm trying to low-key it on the criticism. He's receiving so much criticism in some circles that it looks to some as if people are jumping on the "Purpose Driven is Eeevil" bandwagon the way its advocates are jumping on the "Purpose Driven is Wonderful" bandwagon. The temptation of the advocates is to say "you're just a malcontent, trying to explain away your own failures and lack of growth in your church."

So, although I've got some definite opinions on the matter I'm trying to go as low key as I can, at least until I can finish reading his book to see if the criticisms are true. However, back in March when I was in California I did get to visit his church and Grace Community Church (with John MacArthur) on the same Sunday. I am planning to publish a blog entry on that experience called "A Tale of Two Churches." I just haven't gotten around to it.

Today I came across something in the Get Religion blog that raised a question for me. Terry Mattingly wrote an article on Wal-Mart and linked to a separate article from one of Warren's critics. This critical article says, among other things:

"People have said this is like the 'Wal-Mart effect' -- that is, you have a big entity organization within your community [that] offers all kinds of products, all kinds of things," he says. "And usually that draws from smaller churches -- it certainly doesn't draw from just the lost."

I think the Wal-Mart effect refers to the fact that, when Wal-Mart's go into a town, all of the mom and pop shops around tend to close down. Obviously, this guy is saying that the Purpose Driven thing tends to draw Christians from other churches, more than it does from the lost.

I'm just curious to know if this is true. Is all this church growth from the Purpose Driven campaign just from Christians leaving one church to go to another? Or are there multitudes of people coming to Christ.

If it's true is it necessarily bad? For example, if Warren is preaching the gospel (and there is some doubt about that in some quarters), then its not a bad thing for a person to leave a liberal church which doesn't preach the gospel to come to one that does.

These are just a few questions worth asking for friends and foes of Purpose Driven alike.

A Retraction

When Augustine was in his seventieth year, he wrote his Retractiones - latin for "retractions," or "reconsiderations." In this work, he commented on all of his writings, giving the date and circumstances of each, and he also told where he had reconsidered something he had written, or wanted to retract it.

Today, I am in a similar situation. For those of you who don't read the comments, let me mention that alert reader Terry from Glen Burnie, MD found a mistake in my last post.

In that post I told of a story I had heard from a preacher who had been to Israel and found out that the nomadic Bedouins live to be 100. This was surprising because of the harsh life they live, but the point was that they also live a life that was very predictable and stress free, which contributed to their longevity. The fact is that

the Bedouins live lives full of vengence, disease, fear, discrimination and oppression. These cultural issues wear hard on them. They live to about 45 years old.

For more information on the Bedouin, here's a good article to read. In speaking with Terry this morning about this he pointed out that they don't mark birthdays so, when asked their age, they may give the answer they think you want to hear, or the answer that sounds most impressive.

Regardless, I erred and am only too happy to correct this with the facts. I wonder how many other urban legends like this I have unknowingly told.

Of course, you realize what this "retraction" of mine means. Here, at the young age of 40, I am writing the same kind of things that Augustine was writing at age 70 . . . thank you, thank you. I know you are impressed, but please, no applause necessary.

Sunday Meditation - The Blessing of Sameness

As I finish my sermon for tomorrow this evening I wanted to share a few excerpts from it with you. Before you read further, let me issue a disclaimer. Although I don't read my sermon, I do type it out word for word each week. The exercise of typing it and reading over it several times gets it into me so that I am then free to preach it without relying so heavily on my notes. I take the written notes with me into the pulpit but basicallly use them as a reference.

So, the disclaimer is this - when I am writing a sermon, I envision myself standing in the pulpit speaking the words that are going onto the page. Thus, writing a sermon involves writing to be heard, whereas writing all other blog posts involve writing to be read. These are two different things and I think you can see the difference as you read this.

Having said that, tomorrow I am preaching on Genesis 8:20-22 - when Noah came out of the ark after the flood. The main point is on the redemptive historical significance of Noah's sacrifice and God's promise to not flood the earth again, even though man's heart remains evil. One minor point of focus and application toward the end of the sermon involves explaining what verse 22 means to us. Though it is minor I find it interesting and thought I would share it with you.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that these thoughts were triggered from teaching I heard from my all time favorite seminary prof - Richard Pratt. I'm not name-dropping, just trying to give credit where credit is due. I also should point out that where I have deviated from the good prof taught me, he isn't necessarily to blame (though he might be!).

Also, these are just a few excerpts from this part of the sermon - if it appears a little choppy its because I cut and pasted, not wanting to bore you with the whole thing.

Today's Sign of the Apocalypse

This just in from Al Mohler's blog - according to Charles Kimball, chairman of the department of religion at Wake Forest University, the time has come for Christianity to modify (read - "surrender") its truth claims. Mohler says:

In the age of world terror--and with the reality of conflict never far from sight--many secularists are convinced that religious truth claims are the root of the problem. Following this logic, peace and stability cannot be achieved until all truth claims are relativized and the potential for religious conflict is removed.

Enter Charles Kimball. Per Mohler:

A position of "rigid exclusivism" that holds Christianity to be the only message of salvation is, according to Kimball, "the foundation for a tribalism that will not serve us in the twenty-first century." Accordingly, he instructs Christians to make exclusivist truth claims in a way that they are no longer absolutely exclusive.

For example:

Kimball also acknowledges that the New Testament includes passages "that appear on the surface to [be] exclusivist." As an example, he cites John 14:6 ["Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the light; no man comes to the Father but through Me.'"] Christians err, Kimball instructs, when we take such verses "literally." This approach, according to Kimball, is simply self-evidently wrong. "Christians who say they take the Bible literally are either ignorant or self-deluded." Well, at least we know where we stand.

Kimball dismisses an exclusivist interpretation of John 14:6 by suggesting that the statement is a mere metaphor. Though the passage appears to state that people who reject Jesus are lost, "That isn't what it says," according to Kimball. Of course, it's hard to imagine what Kimball thinks the text does say.

Describing an exchange that he had with Kimball on the Alan Colmes show, Mohler says:

Colmes then turned and asked, "Dr. Kimball, you do believe that, don't you, that the way of salvation is through the Lord Jesus Christ?" Kimball responded: "My experience of God has come primarily mediated through my experience as a Christian, but a large part of my own family is Jewish, and I am quite sure that my experience of God does not exhaust all the possibilities."

Later, Kimball rejected the idea that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation and the gift of heaven. "I believe that God is the God of all creation and that God's way far exceed my ways and my experience," Kimball responded. He continued: "In fact, I write quite extensively in my book, When Religion Becomes Evil, that indeed there are many paths and we would do well to be the best Christians, to be the best Jews, to be the very best Muslims. . . ."

There you have it folks - Christianity must bend to the spirit of the age - the God of tolerance.

But, without exclusivity there is no Christianity. We can never back down from that.

However, I wish we could somehow get across the point that the Christian worldview provides the greatest foundation for tolerance. Our doctrines of the image of God in man and love for neighbor provide the greatest foundation for peace and harmony on the earth. The doctrine that says man was created in God's image assumes the dignity of everyone, even those who don't embrace the Christian faith. True, we can never back down on our claims that Jesus is the only way, but neither can we despise anyone. Our doctrine of love for neighbor describes our outward face to the world. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves. Again, this forbids us to despise or mistreat anyone.

Let us not tear asunder what God has joined together. The Christian faith enjoins exclusive truth claims and love for neighbor. He who denies or disconnects the two does so against the will of Christ, not in obedience to it.

How do we explain conversion and revival

Lauren Winner has another good thought in her book Girl Meets God that I wanted to share. She is a history major and she talks about the way historians of religion often explain conversion experiences, revivals and awakenings. Basically, they attribute these things to all kinds of sociological factors, leaving out the supernatural. She herself wrote a thesis about Jewish family that moved from Pennsylvania to North Carolina and who, over the space of a generation, all became Christians. Her explanation at the time was that they converted because it was so hard for Jews to gain a foothold in southern society.

However, since coming to faith in Christ she has reconsidered. Now she says:

There would be some truth in all those theories. But this is why those scholars would be wrong, why all those scholars who try to explain away the Great Awakening are wrong, why my senior thesis is wrong. They recongize that conversion is complicated, that it is about family and geography, and politics, and psychology and economics. They just forget that it is also about God.

It is not merely "also about God," it is all about God.

We should not expect anything different from secular historians, nor should we expect anything different from the world. All too often, we Christians look to the world to validate our faith. This is a mistake and it is a sin. It is a sin because it seeks to conform the Christian faith to the philosophies of this world. It is a mistake because the world can never understand the things of the Spirit.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

The person whose pronouns you have to capitalize

Lauren Winner has some very weird and vivid dreams. In her book Girl Meets God she talks about a dream where she and some other ladies were captured by mermaids and spent a year under water. At the end of the year a group of men come to rescue her. Most are "graying, paunchy, fifty-something men, Monday-Night-Football watching types." But there is one who is "this beautiful, thirtyish, dark Daniel-Day-Lewis-like man." (What are you saying Lauren? Everyone knows that all of us "Monday-Night-Football watching types" are as good or better looking than Daniel Day Lewis, but I digress).

In the dream she says she comes to realize that the one who looks like Daniel Day Lewis represents Jesus. The dream was sent to her by God and it was about the reality of Jesus.

Before I go any further let me interject that I don't put much faith in mystical experiences. However, on page 56, Lauren has a beautiful description of her impression of Jesus that captures my imagination. She says the dream:

. . . was about the reality of Jesus. The Truth of Him. That He was a person whose pronouns you had to capitalize. That He was God.

The phrase I love in describing Jesus is that He was (still is!) "a person whose pronouns you had to captilize."

Thursday Three - Three Favorite Books on the End Times

I thought I would make up my own Thursday Three this week to make it more in line with some of my own interests.

This week's Thursday Three will be:

My Three Favorite Books on the End Times:

1. The Meaning of the Millennium - ed. Clouse

I realize that this book has been panned by some because of the weak entries from Boettner on postmillennialism and Hoyt on dispensational premillennialism, but the strong entries from Ladd and Hoekema make up for it. Actually, I did enjoy Boettner's entry - even though I didn't end up agreeing with it, I did get a bit of an understanding of postmillennialism, which was worthwhile. The great thing about this is that it opened my eyes to the fact that, contrary to what I had been taught, people who didn't accept the dispensational premil view had good biblical grounds for rejecting it. I ended up coming down on the side of amillennialism

2. Last Days Madness - Gary DeMar

On my trek into reformed eschatology I stopped at amillennialism, I've just never been able to buy all of the arguments of postmillennialism. This one is a postmil book so, while I don't buy his all of what he affirms, I certainly agree with all that he denies. He gives a devastating critique of the foolishness of end times obsessions.

3. The End Times Made Simple - Samuel Waldron

Waldron is an amil, so naturally I gravitate to him. What I found best about this book is his explanation of the two ages of Biblical history - this age and the age to come. If there are two ages of Biblical history, then this rules out the existence of a third age, aka the millennium. For me, he puts the final nail in the coffin on premillennialism of any stripe.

I would love to hear from some of my more well read readers what some of your favorite end times books are.

John Calvin, Rick Warren, Repentance and the Purpose Driven Life

Two trains of thought that were rattling around in the wilderness of my brain collided today and I thought I would share what came out of the wreckage.

Train #1 involves Rick Warren, his book The Purpose Driven Life, and the subject of repentance. One of the knocks on Rick and the book, from the critics standpoint has been that it doesn't deal with repentance, therefore it doesn't proclaim the whole gospel. Of course, this is a knock on his entire ministry - his critics say he is a "feel-good-culturally-relevant-but-biblically-soft" preacher.

His defenders say au contrair - he does preach repentance and he does care about things like theology. One of his defenders has said that Warren believes that repentance is a change of mind, but it doesn't stop there, it moves into behavior. He does preach on sin and disobedience and our need for us to turn away from sin and turn to God. In other words, it sounds like he is preaching the typical evangelical view of repentance, and maybe even a stronger view than the typical evangelical.

Since I haven't finished reading the book, I don't want to try to comment on it, but I would recommend Tim Challies review of the book. At least as far as the book goes, Tim suggests that a Biblical doctrine of repentance is not found there. Maybe something else happens at the church, but repentance isn't talked about in the book.

The second train running in my head came from Calvin's commentary on Genesis 8:21. I am preaching this passage this Sunday and was reading Calvin's comments on the phrase: "the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth." There is one line that struck a chord with me on this -

Philosophers, by transferring to habit, what God here ascribes to nature, betray their own ignorance.

Although this doesn't address the subject of repentance directly, the indirect hit is spot on. Here is what I mean.

US News & World Reports - The "Real" Jesus

My friend Elaine gave me a copy of the the March 8, 2004 issue of US News & World Report with it's headline: The Real Jesus - Searching for the Truth Between Jesus and the Gospels. Then, in the body of the magazine, the article is entitled: The Real Jesus - How a Jewish reformer lost his Jewish identity. The titles alone tell you about the biases and objectives of the article.

Bias - neither Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ, nor the New Testament gospels tell us the truth about Jesus.

Objective - restore Jesus to his "rightful" place as a Jewish reformer, not the founder of a new religion.

While most of us would not be bothered by the charge that Gibson's movie doesn't tell us the whole story about Jesus, those who take the Bible as the Word of God are very bothered by the implied assertion that the Gospels do not give us the real Jesus. After all, Gibson's film is a work of art. Although it makes a claim to be generally faithful to the gospels, most will forgive Gibson's movie if it takes a little artistic license with the story here and there - as long as it doesn't outright deny something in the gospels. But, to charge the gospels with misrepresenting the truth about Jesus cuts at the heart of the Christian faith, for the Christian church bases its faith on what is contained in the gospels. If the gospels misrepresent Jesus, then the foundation of our faith crumbles.

As to the objective of rehabilitating Jesus' Jewish identity, it gets a little more dicey.

Review of "Brother Bear" - Does man have any inherent dignity?

I remember going to visit my grandfather in West Virginia one time and him pigeonholing me one day to ask me what I was learning in school. He wanted to know if they were teaching me evolution and what they were teaching me about man. I confidently told him that yes, we were learning about evolution, and I had learned that man was an animal. He didn't believe this - he said that man is not an animal. He was created by God and is different from the animals. Well, like evey intelligent 10 year old, I blew him off. After all, what did he know about science? My wise teachers knew far more than he did, and if they said man was an animal, then man was an animal.

You don't have to go to public school to hear this anymore, its part of the air we breathe and the entertainment we watch. Case in point - the Disney Movie - "Brother Bear." Following in the footsteps of its pantheistic hit, "Pocahontas," Disney has created another masterpiece of new-age spiritualism for kiddies in "Brother Bear." As Focus on the Family says:

If the eco-pantheism of Pocahontas could be quantifiably boiled down and deposited in a container, that, let’s say, filled a quart canning jar, then this film’s spiritualism would fill an oil drum.

I'll refer you to the Focus on the Family review for detailed comments on the entire movie. Aside from all of the Native American Spirituality and new agey stuff, the thing that bothers me the most is the denigration of man in the movie. The movie puts man and beast on an equal footing, in some ways portraying animals as more honorable and dignified than man.

More on Mary as Co-Redemptrix in "The Passion"

In case you didn't catch it, Tim at Challies posted a comment on my post "The Character of Mary in The Passion of the Christ."Just as a brief recap, I had referenced a post at Walloworld saying that Gibson may not have had a "Mary as Co-Redemptrix" agenda in the film. Walloworld suggested that Mary may have been there to for the sake of point of view - to give the audience a window into the story.

Tim's comment referenced an article on his blog which references an article by Catholic Theologian, Dr. Mark Miravalle titled Gibson’s Passion and Mary "Co-redemptrix".I would encourage you to read the Challies post on this and especially read the comments - this little post from Tim stirred up some good discussion.

An Easter Meditation

This evening I was reviewing my sermon for tomorrow morning I added a few paragraphs to the sermon that really got me excited. The old Puritan preachers used to preach their sermons to themselves before they preached them to their congregation. I have done this tonight and am very excited as the Word of God has penetrated my own soul. What follows is a small excerpt from the notes I will use to preach tomorrow's Easter sermon. These words refer to Romans 6:11, which tells us to consider ourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Elders in the Church - Duties and Responsibilities

Blogpipe has a great paragraph from Samuel Miller on the job of ruling elders in the church:

The design of appointing persons to the office of Ruling Elder is, not to pay them a compliment; not to give them an opportunity of figuring as speakers in judicatories; not to create the pageants of ecclesiastical ceremony; but to secure able, faithful and truly devoted counsellors and rulers of the Church. To obtain wise and efficient guides, who shall not only go along with the flock in their journey heavenward, but go before them in every thing that pertains to Christian duty. -- Miller, The Ruling Elder, Chapter 11

The Passion, Gnosticism and Art

A few days ago I posted a comment on the Challies Blog for an article called Gibson's Passion and Mary Co-Redemptrix. In this I mentioned the article by Chad Bresson at the Alpha and Omega site that had some good things to say about that theme. I also mentioned my post called "Some of the Better Comments on the Passion of the Christ."

A gentleman named John M. Esparolini read my post and responded on the Challies blog. I thought his comments, though he disagreed on several matters, were good and helpful. So, I thought I would share them with you and comment on his comments.

Are the Gospels Anti-Semitic, II

The following comments were made on the Evangelical Outpost about the topic Are the Gospels Anti-Semitic.

Just because we understand that Jesus died by His own choice, for and because of our sins, doesn't mean the individual guilt for the crime doesn't exist. . . . None of this contradicts what all the hymns quoted say- I am guilty of the death of Christ, because of my sins. And yes, the Romans were guilty too. But we can, and must, admit more than one cause for the death of Christ, just as Peter does in Acts 2. Guilt is assigned to the Jewish nation over and over for the death of Christ. Stephen's speech in Acts 7 has the same thrust; Paul's sermon in Antioch in Acts 13; etc. And none of this can be used to justify violence or hatred of Jews particulary. Paul refutes that in Romans 11.

As you can see, he is not arguing for anti-Semitism at all. He is just making the point that he believes that the Bible assigns guilt to the Jewish nation over and over again in the death of Jesus. This doesn't justify violence toward them and it does not mitigate our own guilt.

I'm glad that this commentor condemns violence and admits that we are all guilty. But I would still argue that the Bible does not assign individual guilt to the Jews for the death of Jesus. Here is a comment I left on Evangelical Outpost to explain my reasoning.

Are the Gospels Anti-Semitic

Anti-Climacus has been reading Ox Blog, which asserts (here and here and here) that the gospels are, by nature, anti-semitic. He has weighed in on this matter and has invited me and the Evangelical Outpost to share our opinions. In looking at the blogosphere I found a couple of entries on this matter.

Evangelical Outpost addresses the issue in this post.

Walloworld has taken up the issue in this post.

Here is the passage from OxBlog that started the hubub:

While I am no expert on the Gospels, my reading of the text suggests that placing collective blame on the Jewish people for the death of Christ is an integral aspect of the Gospels' theological agenda. The Jews' responsibility for the death of Christ is one demonstration among several that they are no longer the Chosen People and that their religion is no longer relevant.
In recent decades, progressive Christians have reinterpreted the Gospels in order to mitigate the violent anti-Semitism that they have provoked. After all, even according to the Gospels, not all Jews were complicit in the death of Christ. Yet the message of the text seems clear: that only those Jews who abandon their own religion and become followers of Christ can overcome the burden of guilt that the Jewish people took upon itself by sentencing Him to death.

In this sense, the Gospels are fundamentally anti-Semitic. This does not mean that they are responsible for the violence and hatred associated with the phrase 'anti-Semitism'. After all, the Gospels were written at a time when Judaism was an established and influential religion whereas Christianity was a tentative and persecuted faith. Nonetheless, the fundamental purpose of the Gospels is to delegitimize the Jewish faith.

Evangelical Outpost, Walloworld and Anti-Climacus ably take up the words in these paragraphs and deal with them head on. I only have one thought to add.

Food for thought about technology and the gospel

David Wells, in his book No Place for Truth

Technology per se does not assault the gospel, but a technological society will find the gospel irrelevant. What can be said of technology can also be said of many other facets of culture that are similarly laden with value (p. 11).

Hmm . . .

The Immense Difficulty of Being a Christian in a "Christian" Society

Yesterday, I came across the following passage in the book The American Religion by Harold Bloom.

"Kierkegaard's critical enteprise was to understand the immense difficulty of becoming a Christian in any society ostensibly Christian:

'Just think what it means to live in a Christian state, a Christian nation, where everything is Christian and we are all Christians, where, however a man twists and turns he sees nothing but Christianity and Christendom, the truth and witnesses to the truth - it is not unlikely that this may have an influence upon the nobler domestic animals, and thereby in turn upon that which, according to the judgment of the veterinary and the priest, is the most important thing, namely the progeny.'"

I am very intrigued by Bloom's idea of "the immense of difficulty of becoming a Christian in any society ostensibly Christian." I have long wondered if our supposedly Christian society is more a help or a hindrance to true Christian living.

But, not being very familiar with Kierkegaard, I turned to my new blogging friend Anti-Climacus (who is very familiar with Kierkegaard) for some insight. I had trouble connecting the dots between Bloom's statement and Kierkegaard's. So, Anti-Climacus sent me a response which I will get to in a moment.

Review of "The Count of Monte Christo"

My family and I just watched "The Count of Monte Christo," for the second time and I wanted to review it while it is still fresh on my mind. Before I do, this is a good time to tell you my practice when it comes to watching movies. First of all, the fact that this movie came out in 2002 and has now gone away and the fact that I am just getting around to reviewing it in the year 2004 tells you something about how up on current events I am.

Secondly, I want to point out that Brian Godawa, and his article "Beyond Sex and Violence - How to Watch Movies," a three part series that originally appeared in Cornerstone Magazine (Volume 25, issue 110 to Volume 26, issue 112). He has since written the book Hollywood Worldviews.

I first read this several years ago and Godawa was the first one I ever read to point out the overarching theme of redemption in the movies. Godaway (and I believe Francis Schaeffer) point out that all movies, literature and other forms of storytelling ultimately deal with the theme of redemption. There is always someone who is in some type of peril, be it the peril of losing one's life, or losing one's love, or losing some important goal. The story is almost always the story of how this person is rescued, or redeemed from peril. There is a lot more to this, I highly recommend the Godawa articles.

So, since reading these, I have tried to keep an eye out for redemptive themes in any movie I watch. In discussing this matter with a friend one time he made the comment that fallen man can't help but tell the story. What story? The story of redemption. Fallen man longs for redemption, even though he wants nothing to do with Christ, there is still that longing for eternity in his heart, which is a longing for redemption.

Also, others have pointed out that there is really only one story in all the world. All other stories are an attempted application or duplication of this story. Hence, themes of redemption permeate almost all storytelling.

Which brings us to "The Count of Monte Christo."

Marriage and the Myth of True Love

A few days ago I jumped in, midstream, to a conversation on marriage that was bouncing around a few different blogs.

Anti-Climacus first alerted me to this in his post on 3.04.04 and mentioned that there was a discussion going on between Evangelical Outpost and Diotima.

I checked out Evangelical Outpost's post on the subject and left a comment and got an informative response from Joe Carter.

In addition, Josh Claybourn has weighed in on his April 4, 2004 entry with some thoughts on marriage, particularly when it comes to this whole debate about submission.

On Monday of this week I decided to try to get up to date on the whole thing so I read Diotima's post on marriage in her entry of Thursday, April 01, 2004.

It turns out that Diotima's post was motivated by her reading of an article in Psychology Today called Great Expectations.

The whole thing is a fascinating thread of discussion that I highly recommend everyone read. What started this snowball of blogspeak is the Psychology Today article and I think the one quote that best summarizes that article is this:

"Nothing has produced more unhappiness than the concept of the soul mate,” says Atlanta psychiatrist Frank Pittman

A very provocative quote indeed, and if you would like my humble addition to the whole discussion, keep reading.

The essence of American religion

I read a few lines this morning from Harold Bloom's book The American Religion.

There is one line that really set me to thinking. Before I tell you this, it is useful to point out that Bloom is a modern day gnostic. He says that tradtitional Christianity is not biblical. But, he is an astute observer of the social side of American religion. Here is the quote that got me

The essence of the American (religion) is the belief that God loves her or him, a conviction shared by nearly nine out of ten of us, according to a Gallup poll.

If he is correct, and I'm afraid he is, the core creed of American religion (American Christianity?) is "God loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life. Truly, God's love is wonderful beyond imagination, but that is not the essence of Christianity, although many must think it is.

I go back to a recent message I heard from Brennan Manning on the cross of Christ. Manning's popularity continues to grow, even in American evangelical circles, despite his low view of Scripture and tendencies toward universalism. In this message on the cross, he continually spoke of the cross as a demonstration of God's love toward us and he continually implored us to accept the fact of God's love for us. What troubled me is not his statements that God loves us, but his utter lack of any reference to the cross as a substitute for sin. Sin was not part of the equation, and God's only attribute seems to be love. God's love is seen on the cross, but it is His holiness and justice that come into the most vivid focus on the cross.

If Bloom is correct, and if Manning (and plenty of others) is illustrative, in saying that the essence of American religion is the belief that God loves me, this would go a long way to explaining the state of American Christianity. In a country where so many claim to be Christians, maybe its the case that most of those believe in a God who is only half a god, or one quarter, or one tenth of a God. To believe in a God of love, without believing a God who is also holy, righteous, omnipotent, merciful, wrathful, omnicient, etc., is to believe in a dimunitive god. Thus we have a diminutive Christianity - a Christianity adhered to by millions yet which is grows more and more irrelevant in our day (on the modern irrelevance of Christianity see Os Guinness's book Prophetic Untimeliness and my review of the same).

Here's Wisdom for a Troubled Marriage

I found the following on a blog called Anti-Climacus. It's worth quoting in it's entirety.

QUOTE: Sara Butler has interesting thoughts on trying to change the meaning of marriage:

"Okay, as refreshing as that is, I'm not sure it's entirely right. Sure, there are a lot of things about marriage that can be good for you, being allowed to "drop pretense and seductions, expose your weaknesses, be yourself," whatever. But fundamentally, I think marriage is about submitting yourself to something larger than yourself, something to which you will remain committed even when it doesn't seem to do anything for you, just because it's the right thing to do. Oh well, I suppose it's a better strategy to tell people that they should stay with their husband or wife because they'll benefit from it than they should stay with their husband or wife because they promised to on their wedding day (of course, with the proliferation of "for as long as love lasts" vows, they may not even have done that).

But these are the two different possible approaches to strengthening marriage present in this article. One is that you leave people's already existing values and ethical frameworks in place and you just try to change the location in which they act out those values. So, for example, it's not wrong of you to expect to get something from marriage, you're just expecting the wrong things - a soulmate rather than someone to whom you can "expose your weaknesses" or emotional fulfillment rather than economic benefit or whatever. The other is to try to change the way people think about marriage, so that they think of it as union to which they submit rather than a temporary and conditional partnership which they contract into for the purpose of getting certain things out of it. You can guess which strategy I prefer. But of course, I also tend to think that, say, keeping promises is both the good thing to do and good for you, so there's going to be some overlap there."

For my own thoughts on this keep reading.

Here's Wisdom

Here's a bite size piece of wisdom that we can chew on for days from Tim at the Wrestling Mat.

"God is a gardener; He grows trees. He doesn't sell canned fruit. What He produces takes time and He is glorified by the process often more than the product." Russel Kelfer

Friday Five (Plus 6) Books that changed my point of view

The good folks at Friday Five didn't have anything to post today, so I am on my own (I hate it when people I am relying on to do my thinking for me, quit thinking for me). So, I thought I would do my own Friday Five, except that I couldn't stop at five, so we have the Friday Five plus Six (as someone once said - there are three kinds of people in this world, those who can count and those who can't).

I thought I would share some books that changed my point of view on a particular topic. These are not necessarily my all time favorite books (though several are), but each caused me to change my point of view in a particular area.

1. Gospel According to Jesus - John MacArthur - changed my view of the gospel and authentic saving faith.

2. A Little Exercise for Young Theologians - Helmut Thielicke - changed my view of the attitude of the theologian.

3. Made in America - Michael Scott Horton - changed my view of American evangelicalism and particularly its allergy to intellectualism.

4. By His Grace and For His Glory - Tom Nettles - changed my view of Calvinism

5. Desiring God - John Piper - changed my view of pleasure.

+1. Dominion - Randy Alcorn - changed my view of racism.

+2. Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down - Marva J. Dawn - changed my view of the relationship between the church and culture.

+3. The Meaning of the Millennium - changed my view of the end times.

+4. Transforming Grace - Jerry Bridges - changed my view of sanctification, or Christian Growth

+5. Conversion in the New Testament - Richard Peace - changed my view of the process of conversion.

+6. Pilgrim's Progress - John Bunyan - changed me into a reader.

If you would like to know more details about how each book changed me, keep reading.

The Passion of the Christ and the Menace of the Religious Movie

Many, many, thanks to Tony Capoccia of the Bible Bulletin Board for posting an article by A. W. Tozer called The Menace of the Religious Movie.

This post is part of a section of reviews on his site for the Passion of the Christ, which I highly recommend for those who want to get a glimpse of some of the broader issues surrounding the movie.

The article by Tozer is not about "The Passion," after all, he's been dead for quite awhile. Tozer deals with the question of the legitimacy of religious movies in general. Just to whet your appetite, here's a few paragraphs from the article that I hope will motivate you to click over to the Bible Bulletin Board and read the whole thing.

Our Lord while on earth cleansed the Temple, and periodic cleansings have been necessary in the Church of God throughout the centuries. Every generation is sure to have its ambitious amateur to come up with some shiny gadget which he proceeds to urge upon the priests before the altar. That the Scriptures do not justify its existence does not seem to bother him at all. It is brought in anyway and presented in the very name of Orthodoxy. Soon it is identified in the minds of the Christian public with all that is good and holy. Then, of course, to attack the gadget is to attack the Truth itself. This is an old familiar technique so often and so long practiced by the devotees of error that I marvel how the children of God can be taken in by it.

We of the evangelical faith are in the rather awkward position of criticizing Roman Catholicism for its weight of unscriptural impedimenta and at the same time tolerating in our own churches a world of religious fribble as bad as holy water or the elevated host. Heresy of method may be as deadly as heresy of message. Old-line Protestantism has long ago been smothered to death by extra-scriptural rubbish. Unless we of the gospel churches wake up soon we shall most surely die by the same means.

Within the last few years a new method has been invented for imparting spiritual knowledge; or, to be more accurate, it is not new at all, but is an adaptation of a gadget of some years standing, one which by its origin and background belongs not to the Church but to the world. Some within the fold of the Church have thrown their mantle over it, have "blessed it with a text" and are now trying to show that it is the very gift of God for our day. But, however eloquent the sales talk, it is an unauthorized addition nevertheless, and was never a part of the pattern shown us on the mount.

I refer, of course, to the religious movie.

and

But some say, "We do not propose to displace the regular method of preaching the gospel. We only want to supplement it." To this I answer: If the movie is needed to supplement anointed preaching it can only be because God's appointed method is inadequate and the movie can do something which God's appointed method cannot do. What is that thing? We freely grant that the movie can produce effects which preaching cannot produce (and which it should never try to produce), but dare we strive for such effects in the light of God's revealed will and in the face of the judgment and a long eternity?

Now, your job is to go read the rest of the article and think deeply about whether or not we actually need religious movies to propagate the gospel. Personally, I think he goes a bit overboard in his condemnation of all forms of acting, but the substance of what he says is spot-on. When we replace, or seek to supplement the preaching of the Word of God with movies we do so to our peril (and the peril of our hearers).

Christians, Pagans, and the Passion

First of all, if you want to see what an excellent blog looks like, check out Walloworld. This blog won a recent "King of the Blogs" tournament. I was thinking about entering the tournament till I saw this blog. Its what I want my blog to be when it grows up. I still may enter the tournament - you get more hits on your blog and they give you feedback, which is useful for learning purposes. Humiliation has always been an effective pedagogical device for me.

Secondly, while there, read his April 1 post called "Hitchin' a Ride on the Passion Express." It begins with an excerpt on "post-Passion Hollywood" from the American Spectator, which talks about Hollywood's God Squad. There are numerous stars who have some type of faith who have been a bit underground for all these years, but now the Passion is making it possible for these folks to bring their faiths to the forefront.

Bill at Walloworld sees this as a positive thing. He mentions that we Christians have more in common with Pagans than we do with devoted secularists. We start with some common assumptions which makes dialogue more possible (is "more possible" terrible grammar or what? Help me out here, English teachers and grammarians!).

I think he has some excellent points, but there are some finer points that I think need to be developed further.

Happiness

C. S. Lewis - "If you're seeking happiness, don't choose Christianity; choose port wine."

Who Killed Jesus?

I'm working on my sermon this afternoon and thought I would blog a few comments from it on the question of "Who killed Jesus?" The Passion movie has stirred up a lot of discussion on this, so here's my two cents. Actually, its a borrowed two cents, John Piper has been saying what I am about to say, but its good to see it plainly in the Scripture.

Matthew 27:50 says this:

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.” (ESV)

It is interesting that Jesus still had enough strength to cry out with a loud voice at this point, even after the scourging and all hanging on the cross. He could still muster a loud cry.

Even though Jesus was submitting to the death on the cross at the hands of the Romans He was still in control of His body and the situation.

In John 10:17-18 Jesus says:

For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. (ESV)

Acts 2:23 says this:

23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (ESV)

The question that is being asked in view of the Passion movie is who killed Jesus. There are fears of anti-Semitism. But I have to say that it escapes me as to how anyone can read the Bible and justify anti-Semitism.

Jesus plainly says here – “no one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord.” It was not the Jews who took the life of Jesus, or the Romans for that matter, it was Jesus who laid it down.

Maybe someone would make a case from the passage in Acts 2:23 that the Jews did this - the passage speaks of the Jews involvement in the death of Jesus and the lawless men. But, they were God’s agents, they didn’t act on their own – Jesus was delivered up according to the plan, the English Standard Version says the “definite plan,” and foreknowledge of God. It was not the will of the Jews (or the Romans) that led to Jesus' hanging on the cross, it was the will of God.

How it is that someone could read the Bible and hold modern Jews accountable for the actions of men 2000 years ago is beyond me. Especially when we consider that it was God’s plan that prevailed, not man’s plan.

Anti-semitism is a red herring designed to divert attention away from the meaning of the cross. It was God's plan that Jesus die for the sins of His people. This presupposes the existence of sin in the life of people. In an effort to avoid their own accountability to God for their own sins, some seek to hold others (Jews, et al) accountable for an act that they themselves had a vicarious part in.

May we all marvel at the grace of God, that He would allow His son to bear our sin - the cross produces repentance and gratitude in the life of the true believer, not a quest to appoint blame on someone else.

The Practicality Disconnect

prac·ti·cal adj.

1. Of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals: gained practical experience of sailing as a deck hand.
2. Manifested in or involving practice: practical applications of calculus.
3. Actually engaged in a specified occupation or a certain kind of work; practicing.
4. Capable of being used or put into effect; useful: practical knowledge of Japanese. See Usage Note at practicable.
5. Intended to serve a purpose without elaboration: practical low-heeled shoes.
6. Concerned with the production or operation of something useful: Woodworking is a practical art.
7. Level-headed, efficient, and unspeculative.
8. Being actually so in almost every respect; virtual: a practical disaster.

We live in a day when practicality and relevance are the highest good(s) particularly when it comes to all things religious and theological. Sermons, Bible studies, talks and whatever else must be shown to be practical before they are accorded any value. I think this is a big mistake.

Review of "Making Room for Life"

Here's my Amazon review for Making Life Work by Randy Frazee. It's not the greatest book ever written and there are some gaps in it. However, I am still giving it a five star rating because it is a provocative look at a new way of living. It is the life I long for and have a feeling that others long for. Here's the rest of the review.

While we're on the subject of Hyper-Condemners

Here's a brother in Christ who had a slip of the tongue - check out the Wednesday, March 24 entry from Tim at the Wrestling Mat. He mentions that he let a "self-righteous sounding quip" escape his tongue and it has set back a year's worth of efforts at trying to avoid the "holier than thou Fundamentalist" stereotype.

Actually, the fact that he would post such a confession tells me that he is not a "holier-than-thou-fundamentalist." The "holier-than-thou-fundamentalist" wouldn't feel the least bit guilty about such a commment, he'd still be feeling indignant toward those he criticized. We all struggle with besetting sins, those of us who have spent alot of time in the conservative evangelical church are especially prone to self-righteousness. We need to abhor it the way we usually abhor libertinism, for it is as deadly. Thanks to Tim for being honest to share this with us fellow strugglers.

More on Hyper Condemners

If you haven't read it yet, check out the article I referenced a few days ago in my post on "Hyper-Condemners." Its from Journalicious and is called "Tell Me Your Opinion, One More Time." Then check out the comments on that post from me. The first one was written a couple of days ago. After I sent that comment the writers of Journalicious sent me some good comments here.

Prophetic Untimeliness, redux

Here's a good comment from my friend Terry on my review of Os Guinness' book Prophetic Untimeliness.

I see the book you reviewed as a testimony of unintended out comes. Concentrate on being timely and you end up being irrelevant.

Review of "Prophetic Untimeliness" by Os Guiness

On my way back from California a couple of weeks ago I read Os Guiness's book Prophetic Untimeliness. I'll go ahead and make the ironic statement that I found this to be a very "timely" book, just to get that over and done with. Truly, it is an excellent book that I recommend very highly. Here is my review for Amazon.

Review of "Hard to Believe" by John MacArthur

Here is the review I posted on Amazon for John MacArthur's book "Hard to Believe."

I've read a lot of MacArthur's stuff through the years, so as I read this I am comparing it to other things he has written. In that regard, I would have given this a four star rating because I don't think it is up to the standards he has set in "The Gospel According to Jesus." Also the basic themes of this book and several others are covered in "Our Sufficiency in Christ." In my mind, "The Gospel According to Jesus" is MacArthur's magnum opus, and everything after that ("Faith Works - The Gospel According to the Apostles," "Ashamed of the Gospel," "Reckless Faith," and now this book) are postcripts and reinforcements of that one.

Also, I am not the biggest fan of transcribed sermons, which I think this is. It seems to me that different communication styles are used in speaking and writing. "The Gospel According to Jesus" seemed to have been written before it was preached and it seemed to me to pack more punch. But these are picayune comments reflecting my own idiosyncrasies.

Instead of giving it a four star I have given it a five star because the message is still crucial in our day of continued easy-believism. If someone is new to MacArthur I would recommend "The Gospel According to Jesus," but if this book fell into their lap first I would still say there is much to chew on. The message is vital - the Word of God has never changed, following Jesus means denying oneself and taking up a cross - there is no salvation apart from these things - it is now as it was in the beginning. As before, MacArthur illustrates the shallow gospel that is often preached in our day, and the great majority of spurious conversions that result.

So, by all means, read "The Gospel According to Jesus," but if you get this one first you won't go wrong.

Listen to Martyn Lloyd-Jones

I have recently joined the Shepherd's Fellowship from Grace Community Church, which I highly recommend, by the way. A couple of days ago I followed a link from them and found the Martin Lloyd-Jones Recording Trust. They are making available audio sermons from Lloyd-Jones for purchase, and you can also listen online to a weekly program featuring his sermons. This is a treasure - most of us have seen his books, but us younger folks never got to hear him before he died. This is a great way of acquainting us "postmoderns" with one of the great preachers of yesteryear, I recommend it highly.

Some of the Better Thoughts on "The Passion of the Christ."

One of the great things about the blogosphere is that you get to read the opinions and commentary of a lot of folks you would never get to hear in the mainstream media. Such is the case with all the hubub over the Passion movie. I know that we have all been inundated with "The Passion of the Christ," lately. The folks at Saddleback think this is the best evangelistic opportunity the church has seen in 2000 years, Andrew Webb gives us five reasons not to see the movie, and most folks are somewhere in the middle. Like you I have heard a bunch of stuff from a bunch of people and I thought I would share some of the more salient comments I have heard lately. Most of these are from those "non-mainstream" sources that I didn't think most people would know about.

I would also mention that I hate to be a perpetual wet blanket. Although none of the people I reference below are out and out against the movie, most of them take a far more nuanced approach to it than all of these folks who think this is such a great outreach opportunity. Let me say first of all that I admire Mr. Gibson's courage. For years we have been looking for a movie that portrays religious subjects in a favorable way, and certainly Mr. Gibson has done this. I also admire his courage, to a degree - he has incurred incredible flack for making this movie and I admire him for sticking to his guns.

But, as you will see below there are plenty of other factors evangelicals need to consider before jumping on the bandwagon. This movie certainly has brought the name of Jesus into mainstream discussion, but this may or may not be the boon we think it is. We would do well to consider some of the comments that follow.

Shepherd's Conference Recap - Preachers as Truth Tellers

At the Shepherd's Conference, one of Al Mohler's messages was on the theme of truth telling. Preachers are truth tellers. this is our calling. What folllows is some soundbites and bullet points from his message.

Shepherd's Conference Recap - The Presence of God

R. C. Sproul spoke in a couple of sessions at the Shepherd's Conference I attended a couple of weeks ago. Today I want to recap one of his messages and also remind our brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for R. C.. Some of you may know this, but if you don't, he has had some health concerns lately. Apparently he has had a minor stroke, or maybe a series of minor strokes (I wasn't clear on that). He is not paralyzed, but he does experience vertigo and some dizziness. So, keep him in prayer.

However, health concers and all, he really did give a couple of good messages at the Shepherd's conference - here' a summary of the first.

Shepherd's Conference Recap - Preaching to a Postmodern World

Lynette and I are home now from our trip to California and I want to take some time over the next few days to recap some of the things we learned. My plan will be to summarize my notes from sessions and seminars I attended.

Today I will start by summarizing a seminar I went to called "Preaching to a Postmodern World," with Rick Holland, who is on the staff of Grace Community Church.

Friday Five - Five Will Willimon Sound Bites

If you read yesterday's Thursday Three you will remember that I was going to share five favorite thoughts from Will Willimon's seminar on evangelism at the National Pastor's Convention. Here they are:

Three Liberals Worth Listenting To

I am attending the National Pastor's Convention in San Diego this week and just attended a great seminar on evangelism called "Why Reaching Out To the World Is Not All It's Cracked Up to Be - Evangelism in a Postmodern World." It was taught by Will Willimon, the chaplain at Duke University.

Will Willimon is a self-confessed liberal, who at times sounded like a fundamentalist. This got me thinking about liberals worth listening to. As a Christian I loathe liberalism. I am firmly convinced that liberalism is not a different form of Christianity, it is a different religion altogether - it is not Christianity at all. This was J. Gresham Machen's argument in his classic book Christianity and Liberalism, which is still one of the most important books you can read.

However, lately I have become aware of some liberals who have critiqued their own movement and found it wanting. Also, some of these liberals have seen the history of where their movement took them, and they can see conservative evangelicalism following in their footsteps. So, what you have is some liberals who are warning conservatives not to make their same mistakes. The liberals have already tried most of the new "up-to-date," and "relevant" ministerial methodologies that conservatives are now trying. It's just that they tried all these things we consider "cutting-edge" back in the 30's and 40's. And some of them are honest enough to acknowledge that their experiments were total failures and they are warning us not to follow in their footsteps.

Tomorrow, I am going to try to do a Friday Five with five favorite thoughts from Will Willimon, but for now, I"ll list a Thursday Three with three of my favorite liberals in no particular order.

1. Marva Dawn - her insights on idolatry in relation to worship in Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down are terrific. She shows that alot of what we call "cutting-edge" and "relevant" worship is nothing more than accomodation to the idols of our age.

2. Eugene Peterson - for my money you can skip The Message, but read his insights on pastoral ministry, particularly in his book Working the Angles. This is a theology of ministry that eschews the success syndrome that would do any conservative proud.

3. Will Willimon - I'll say more about him tomorrow, but if you can find it, his book Peculiar Speech: Preaching to the Baptized, is excellent. Probably more than anyone else, he has done an excellent job of warning conservative evangelicals of the error of their ways. He says "look you guys, we liberals tried cultural relevance in the last century and it failed - why are you adopting our ways?" In my seminar one guy asked him for some concreted ideas on evangelism and he said "let's see, I'm a Methodist, we've lost 2 million people in the last 15 years and you are asking me for advice on evangelism?" Love that guy.

Califiornia Trip - Shepherd's Conference - The Preaching of John MacArthur

I thought I would devote this blog entry to a description of the preaching of John MacArthur. I had the chance to hear him preach five sermons while in Los Angeles at the Shepherd's Conference. I hope to add a few entries about some of the seminars I attended and some of the other speakers at the conference.

The Language of Faith

I'm still reading Marva Dawn's Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down, this evening. She shares some thoughts on preaching that I think apply to all of life and the way we speak of our faith.

She says that rather than interpreting the Bible through the lens of the world, we need to interpret the world through the lens of our faith. That seems pretty self-evident on the surface, but it comes into play when we try to contextualize the message. I am not arguing that we not contextualize, but anytime we adapt the message to the cultural there is a sense in which we are letting the culture become our interpretive grid. She suggests that, rather than trying to put the Bible in the language of the world, we try to interpret the world in the language of the Bible.

Music as scapegoat

Today I'm reading Marva Dawn's Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down, and she has the following provocative paragraph on page 166:

Music often becomes the scapegoat after pastors have failed for years to train congregation members to evangelize in their daily lives. As previously noted, most conversions are the result of friendship, not worship style-but if such reaching out has not occurred over the years, sometimes churches suddenly switch music and worship styles in order to "attract" people. The music of the faithful Church is jettisoned to compensate for long-term failure to be the Church, inviting unbelievers by friendship and by active Christian life.

The thing that was previously noted in this paragraph is that 95% of people come to Christ through what we would now call "friendship evangelism," not through church programs. In other words, the style of worship in your church is not going to be the make or break issue in getting people to come to church, or to come to Christ for that matter.

Knowing the Truth Without Loving It

Christians have a problem - we tend to take stands against certain cultural ills, while ignoring similar ills within our own circles. An example of this is our propensity to protest same-sex marriage, cohabitation and things like this under the guise of a desire to protect the sanctity of marriage. This is all well and good, but we seem to forget that divorce is as rampant amongst professing Christians as it is among non-Christians. This is one example that could be multiplied many times over. We stand for truth, yet many church members live by a relativistic worldview.

There is a difference between knowing the truth in these matters and obeying the truth. It seems to me that we know the truth, but we don't love the truth. If we did, we could obey much better.